Maine Writer

Its about people and issues I care about.

My Photo
Name:

I enjoy writing!

Saturday, September 20, 2014

US Generals Joint Chiefs have dismal war records - they can't defeat ISIS with US military alone

"...almost every measure, the American soldiers and marines who went into Iraq and Afghanistan were grossly unprepared for their missions, and the officers who led them were often negligent."...Filkins

There's an enlightening article by Dexter Filkins in the December 17, 2012 "The New Yorker" titled "General Principles". In the crib notes summary, the article explains how US generals, like David Petraeus and others, have a dismal record when it comes to winning wars. Americans have not won a war since General Eisenhower commanded Allied troops in Europe.

Therefore, when Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey opens the door to putting US "troops on the ground" to defeat the evil ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria, this high level military opinion has no evidence of being any more successful than past failed efforts to win wars. In other words, General Dempsey's advice doesn't carry much credibility.

Here is what Filkins wrote about the successes of our US generals, including General David Petraeus:

Nowadays, most general officers, at least most American ones, do not see combat. They don’t fire their weapons, and they don’t get killed; for the most part, they don’t even smoke (Eisenhower smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day during World War II). 


In wars without front lines, American generals tend to stay inside fortified bases, where they plan missions and brief political leaders via secure video teleconferences. Their credentials are measured as much by their graduate degrees as by the medals on their dress uniforms. They are, for the most part, deeply conventional men, who rose to the top of the military hierarchy by following orders and suppressing subversive thoughts.

In recent years, the most esteemed officer in America—the very model of the modern general—was David Petraeus, whose public image combined the theorizing of the new school with a patina of old-fashioned toughness and rectitude. Before a sex scandal forced him to step down as the director of the C.I.A., a few weeks ago, he was widely regarded by politicians and journalists as a brilliant thinker and leader, the man who saved America in Iraq and might work a similar miracle in Afghanistan. Roger Ailes suggested, perhaps less than half in jest, that Petraeus run for President. Now many of the same people are calling into question not just his ethics but his basic ideas and achievements. History often forgives military leaders for small scandals, if they are successful enough. Eisenhower’s long-alleged affair with Kay Summersby has not much tarnished his reputation as an officer; even Hood, whose late campaigns were disastrous, is remembered as a paragon of bravery, if not of good planning. Will Petraeus be thought of, in time, as a hero guilty of no more than a distracting foible? Or as the general most responsible for two disastrous wars?

In Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the criticism has centered on the political leaders—Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld—who ordered the invasions and grossly mismanaged the occupations that followed. Less criticism has focussed on the soldiers and the generals who led them. This is understandable: the military didn’t start these wars, and the relatively small number of Americans who fought in them—after a decade, less than one per cent of the population—bore the burden for the rest of the country. In all those “Support Our Troops” bumper stickers and campaign applause lines, it has not been difficult to discern a sense of collective guilt.

But, by almost every measure, the American soldiers and marines who went into Iraq and Afghanistan were grossly unprepared for their missions, and the officers who led them were often negligent. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, many American military units traveled to the National Training Center, a sprawling patch of California desert. There they took part in enormous mock tank battles against a phony enemy, called the Kraznovians, that was meant to stand in for the Iraqi Army but had in fact been modeled on the Soviet military in an imaginary invasion of Western Europe. When the real invasion got under way, in March, 2003, American soldiers came under attack from a hidden enemy that was wearing no uniform at all. There had been plenty of warnings that an anti-American insurgency might spring up, and none were heeded. The generals were unprepared.

How the Army got to such a point is the subject of Thomas Ricks’s “The Generals,’’ a series of vivid biographical sketches of American commanders from the Second World War to Afghanistan. In Ricks’s view, their quality, with a few exceptions, has steadily declined. His poster boy for the terrible early period of the Iraq war is Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, whom he accurately portrays as a decent man but an incompetent commander. Sanchez’s worst decision was signing off on harsh interrogations of Iraqi detainees—which, when the photographs leaked from Abu Ghraib, resulted in one of the war’s signal disasters. But his real sin was neglect. Stupefied as the insurgency spread around him, and paralyzed by Washington’s insistence that everything was under control (for months, Rumsfeld forbade American officers to use the word “insurgency”), Sanchez effectively delegated the strategy for the war to the lower-ranking generals beneath him.

General Dempsey can't articulate a strategy to win a war against ISIS.  This is a covert war where the armies with the most sophisticated access to efficient technologies will have the upper hand. Therefore, the use of drones, strategic air strikes, covert raids like the success of the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and counter "social media" campaigns like the C.I.A. is conducting against ISIS, are modern warfare weapons.  Obviously, access to nuclear weapons is the darkest weapon, but it must never used.

Therefore, General Dempsey must prove to the American people how he plans to win a war against ISIS by putting US military at risk for capture and hostage taking.  It's impossible to put American troops on the ground in Iraq again, because they will become hostages. ISIS will pay any amount of money to incompetetent Iraqi military personnel to lure US military into a trap and create a huge hostage crises.  

As a modern weaponry alternative, Mother Jones reports on a US State Department campaign to overtly attack ISIS social media communications. A "Think again turn away" campaign is pointing out the terrorist lies and deceit in real time in an effort to create doubt among potential recruits.  For example, the State Department recently tweeted at a Muslim woman who praised ISIS for its free transportation, her profile displaying pink text and black ISIS flags. The department's retort: "ISIS will be charitable…if they decide not to kill you #Thugs #thinkagainturnaway."

This social media campaign hasn't deterred ISIS support among Muslim extremists. Nevertheless, it's probably receiving a lot of visibility among social networking Muslims. More than likely, it's no more or less effective than "Tokyo Rose", when the Japanese tried to demoralize American G.I.'s during World War II in the Pacific.

ISIS and Arab extremism must be destroyed. Unfortunately, putting American troops on the ground to win a war that Muslims must fight among themselves is a doomed strategy. Destroying ISIS will require sophisticated technology, stealth weaponry, efficient ammunition, excellent intelligence and smart tactics, all of which can be developed without putting American troops on the ground.
American Generals must learn to win the War on Terrorism and destroy ISIS without putting troops on the ground.

Extremist Muslims must fight their own enemies on the ground.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, September 19, 2014

Evil ISIS must be destroyed in spite of incompetent Iraqi military - Muslims must unite against terrorism

ISIS should never have erupted to infect the world condition. 

Yet, now that this barbaric movement has taken hold with heinous executions, it certainly must be destroyed.

Nevertheless, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, it's difficult to train the incompetent Iraqi military.

Meanwhile, the number of Muslims living in the Middle East Arab nations overwhelmingly outnumber the evil ISIS terrorists. 

By sheer numbers alone, a united Arab effort should completely eradicate the ISIS terrorists, taking out every last one of them. Americans shouldn't need to put US military "boots on the ground" to defeat ISIS. Arab nations have the numbers and the capacity to destroy ISIS, without any outside help. Instead, American military efforts are strategically needed to arm Syrian rebels and defeat President Assad's assault on his own people.   

Fighting Islamic State: Why US training of Iraqi forces will be harder this time

Fully half of all current Iraqi security forces 'are not trainable,' because they are too sectarian, says Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno. And it could take years to win back the trust of Sunni tribes. By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer SEPTEMBER 19, 2014
The US military’s efforts to train Iraqi soldiers to take on jihadist insurgents is going to be harder than it was during the Iraq War, the nation’s top Army officer warned Friday.  That’s in large part because fully half of all current Iraqi security forces “are not trainable because of the sectarian nature” of their politics, says Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, who was also a former commander of US troops in Iraq.
The Iraqi military is rife with Shiite militia members who must either be ferreted out of the force or retrained.
General Odierno’s remarks echoed the estimates of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, who said that roughly 26 of the 50 Iraqi Army brigades will be competent partners for the US military. (Unfortunately, it's difficult for Americans to rely on this report because the most reliable indicator of future performance is how these troops responded in the past; so, I rest my case.
The capable forces “appear to have a national instinct, instead of a sectarian instinct,” he told the Associated Press this week. The other half of these forces do not.

This could represent a sizable challenge ahead for US troops who are being sent to retrain the Iraqi forces – an operation that could take upward of three years, Odierno said Friday in remarks at a Center for Media and Security breakfast.

In the meantime, the US military would be well-advised to “have better focus” on the Kurdish forces, known as the peshmerga, in the north. The peshmerga gained a reputation as particularly capable fighters among US troops serving in Iraq during the war.

The problem is that, for years, the Iraqi government “limited what we could do with the peshmerga,” Odierno said. Concerned that the Kurdish forces in the north would become too strong, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did his best to keep the resources they received to a minimum.
"We now have to make sure that the peshmerga through the Iraqi government gets trained, so they can contribute.”

The Sunni tribes in the west also have to be convinced to pull their support from Islamic State and give it to the Iraqi government once again. This job, however, is “going to be more difficult than it was the first time,” Odierno warned, “because you now have to rebuild the trust that was lost.” (Sunni support for the Islamic State must immediately be fixed!)

However, even if many of the Iraqi fighters who have skilled honed in years of counterinsurgency warfare come together – with the help of US airstrikes and intelligence – to fight IS forces, it still may require US ground forces, Odierno said – a warning that Dempsey has issued as well, which many pointed to as contrary to the White House assurances that these operations would require no “boots on the ground.”

Air strikes alone will not defeat IS, he said. While the goal is to have well-trained Iraqi troops along with – eventually – a Syrian fighting force made up of “moderate” Muslims, it may not be enough, Odierno acknowledged.

Arab countries would ideally contribute to the fight, but “none have stepped up yet.” (Outrageus!)

So, “if sometime, someday” defeating IS “might mean US [ground] forces, that might be something we recommend.”

What is clear, Odierno stressed, is that “it’s going to take some time to do this – it’s going to take a long period of time.”
In my opinion, without the benefit of clandestine intelligence, the incompetent Iraqi military will be subject to enormous bribes by evil ISIS for the purpose of turning over any US military as a hostage. Arab nations must defeat ISIS, without putting at risk any US military who could become the hostages of terrorism.  
Instead, US military efforts should be targeted toward defending Syrian rebels, while providing support for Arab nations to unite against the evil ISIS.
Nevertheless, regardless of who provides "boots on the ground", the fact is, the United States is at war with Muslim extremists who are barbaric terrorists.

Labels: , ,

French-Canadian most common names with roots in Perche region of France

French-Canadian most common names with roots in Perche region of France

Eight of the 15 most common French-Canadian family names have origins in the Perche region of France.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

United States can't trust Iraq to be the troops on the ground Muslims must oppose evil ISIS


Iraq military have been cowards ever since the invasion when President George Bush '41 and General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. led the coalition in Desert Storm.  

Nothing much has changed in the Iraq military since the demoralized Iraqi Army surrendered. Unfortunately, after the American tax payer funded billions of dollars in Iraq military training and equipment for the purpose of aiding them to defend their nation, the result has been the unintended consequence of arming a barbaric terrorist group, calling itself the Islamic State. 

"Many of the Rebels in southern Iraq, where the uprisings began, were either demoralized soldiers of the Iraqi Army or members of anti-regime groups, in particular the Islamic Dawa Party and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Iraqi armed forces were composed largely of Shia conscripts and contained substantial anti-regime elements, and thus many of the government's troops quickly switched sides and defected to the rebels."

Consequently, it makes no sense to put confidence in the Iraq military in an effort to defeat the evil ISIS. Command and control in the Iraq military is non-existent. In other words, the Iraqi army is at risk for turning on the American military, just like they abandoned their own national defense in the past.

What's at risk is the evil ISIS obsession with kidnapping Western hostages for the purpose of barbarically beheading them in heinous beheading executions. President Obama said today, "These terrorists thought they  could frighten us....but when you threaten our citizens....it unites us...."

Although the world must unite to destroy the evil influence of ISIS, the security of US and allied military must, likewise, be protected. 

But Iraq's military won't help. 

Americans cannot waste more billions of tax money to train and arm an incompetent Iraqi military. Rather, Americans must protect our military from becoming hostages to the evil of ISIS. Instead, a coalition must destroy the barbaric ISIS terrorist group with high technology intelligence and create a viable Iraq government that's competent to lead the nation. 

Obviously, progress towards Middle East stability (if it's even possible) needs plenty of time to succeed, but the world simply can't tolerate the growth of ISIS and its network of barbarism.  

Like the Ebola, the ISIS virus is becoming more virulent over time.
It must be destroyed.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Barbaric ISIS behavior finally brings American attention to the urgency of destroying Islamic extremists and support Syrian rebels


"...put lawmakers on the record for the first time approving U.S. engagement in the years-long Syrian civil war."

It's difficult to understand how Americans are only now responding to the barbaric beheading of innocent journalists and humanitarian workers, because those who were executed were captured because they were bringing awareness to Syrian refugees. These victims were trying to educate the world about Syrian humanitarian tragedies resulting from that nation's civil war. Nevertheless, finally, the US Congress is responding to the evil ISIS beheadings, but it took the disgustingly barbaric act of at least three executions before Americans united behind Congressional efforts to destroy the terrorists. President Assad put noxious gas on innocent civilians and children in Syria, but that didn't seem to rise to the level of responding to barbarism, as far as Congress and the American public was concerned. Moreover, Syrian Christians are being persecuted and religious shrines destroyed. Unfortunately, these heinous acts weren't enough, either. Instead, barbaric acts of beheading innocent people finally got Americans attention.

The House on Wednesday approved President Obama’s plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels, to counter the growing threat of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organization, even though lawmakers in both parties remain deeply skeptical about its chances for success.

Congress put the US one step closer to authorizing the third prolonged U.S. military operation in Iraq, in the last quarter century, and delivered Obama's
 much-needed domestic political support, as he seeks an international coalition to combat the growing threat of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East. It also put lawmakers on the record for the first time approving U.S. engagement in the years-long Syrian civil war.

But the tally — 273 to 156 — also revealed widespread misgivings about the chances of success for the plan, even among many lawmakers who voted in favor of it.

Obama’s proposal was opposed by more than 40 percent of Democrats, many of whom are concerned that new U.S. military operations in the Middle East could fester for several years with no clear strategy or definition of success.

Republicans provided the lion’s share of support, but many are worried about the limits of Obama's early plans. One top GOP leader suggested Congress could go as far as giving the president blanket military authority, even if Obama doesn’t want it, when the lawmakers hold a much broader debate after the November elections about the fight against Islamic terrorists.

Obama on Wednesday repeated his promise not to send combat forces into the military campaign against the Islamic State, telling troops in a speech at MacDill Air Force Base outside Tampa that he will “not commit you fighting another ground war in Iraq.”


Labels: ,

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Americans will not tolerate any beheading of a US serviceman

Americans should never be in a position where we witness a US service person beheaded by evil ISIS barbaric fiends. When news leaks that Americans have "boots on the ground", this information will spark unprecedented bribes by evil ISIS to obtain any US military person as a captive, to create a ransom power threat against the USA and Great Britain. American must never put our military in this uncompromising situation, especially when our nation's national security isn't at imminent risk of an invasion or direct attack.

In past blogs, I've advocated for military action against Syrian president Bashir al-Assad and his Russian backed dictatorship. Of course, my advocacy call to defend and protect the oppressed Syrian refugees from continuous death by Assad, doesn't consider the risk of American military being beheaded, if some of them are captured defending the refugees. In the past, in Dessert Storm, or the Gulf War and in operation Iraqi Freedom, there've been American military captured. Often these past incidents resulted in a heroic rescue. Without a doubt, any potential ISIS capture of an American or English military person would raise the horror of a prisoner of war to a horribly heinous plateau.

Therefore, it seems to me that putting American military boots on the ground in the war to defeat ISIS is not advisable.

Rather than see any US or British military person put at risk for the chilling risk of beheadings, it makes more sense to pay for reliable intelligence so the ISIS fiends can be eradicated and evaporated by drones. Likewise, regional Arab troops must be inspired to protect their own nations from being corrupted by ISIS evil, because as this extremist group grows, the result is even more death to all who find themselves victims in their dark circles of barbarism.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 15, 2014

Electrical power in third world developing countries

Mother Jones magazine reports on how a Tanzanian is using solar power to generate enough electricity to power a small television for the purpose of watching the news.

(It occurs to me, the nations of the world where electricity is a luxury are often where support for terrorism grows. Meanwhile, ordinary people create social networks and cottage industries to access communication technologies.)

When my family lived in the Philippines for three years, during the 1970's, we appreciated the support of a domestic woman "maid" named Norma.  

Norma worked hard. She was dedicated to a goal of having her only son qualify for enlisting in the US Navy. Prior to qualifying, her son had to pass a written exam, but he needed an electric light to allow him to study, especially into the evening hours. Norma had to pay bribes to municipal officials to receive a permit to have one electric line extended from the grid into her modest house. Then, she had to pay for someone to install one electric bulb with a switch. After the installation, she paid expensive electric bills. Nevertheless, Norma was determined to see her son qualify for enlistment in the US Navy, so she worked tirelessly to earn money to pay for one electric light bulb.

Unfortunately, little has changed regarding the allocation of electricity in third world countries, like the Philippines.  

Nevertheless, entrepreneurial efforts have created opportunities for developing nations to participate in using modern technologies.

When my husband and I visited Cambodia a few years ago, we commented on how many people used cell phones. In fact, it seemed like every person had use of a cell phone. How did these telephone batteries access electric charges in a nation where most people didn't have electricity? It so happened, people could afford cell phones because the Cambodian government offered subsidies to promote the service. Those who owned a cell phone participated in gas powered generator co-ops, to provide the electricity needed to charge the phones. Each user paid a charging fee, thereby spreading the cost of the generator across the number of people who accessed the electrical service to charge their cell phones.

Mother Jones: There's a Place in the World That Is Fighting Poverty with Solar Power. Solar power is taking off in villages where connecting to the grid is seen as a bad joke. (I remember how much graft Norma paid to access one line off the grid.)

Lusela Murandika just wants to be able to watch the evening news.

The 76-year-old farmer lives in Kanyala village in northern Tanzania, 60 miles from the nearest town that's connected to the electric grid. For years, he's powered a tiny TV set in the dim sitting room of his concrete house here with a diesel generator, spending roughly $10 each month on fuel—money that could otherwise buy more than 20 pounds of rice in a country where the per capita GDP is $695.

Earlier this year, on the advice of friends, he invested $400 in a small, 80-watt solar system. After charging all day under the East African sun, it can run his TV for two hours. The system was a pain in the neck to install, he says, and the battery is unreliable, but it's still an improvement over the generator. And here, as in most of rural Africa, there aren't many options.

"It's a joke to think we'll all be connected to the grid," he says with a rueful grin.


Nineteen percent of the global population lives without access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency. In Africa, that number is 58 percent. The vast majority of those without power are in rural areas. In Tanzania specifically, 86 percent of the population has no electricity, a fact that was illustrated when the lights cut out at President Obama's hotel in Dar es Salaam during a visit he made there last year to dedicate $7 billion for energy access improvements across the continent.

Tanzanians still get 76 percent of their energy—mostly for heating and cooking—from charcoal, wood, and other biomass. So there's more at stake than turning on the lights: Indoor air pollutionkills more than 4 million people every year, more than AIDS and malariacombined. Increasing access to clean energy is literally a matter of life or death.

In Tanzania, the population is predominantly rural and scattered in small villages across vast reaches of terrain, while the state-owned utility is chronically cash-strapped and urban-focused. So Murandika's pessimism about the grid is almost certainly justified. But, just as the mobile phone revolution in Africa dramatically reduced the need for telephone landlines, solar power is now leapfrogging the electric grid. Like Murandika, thousands of rural Africans are turning to solar as the solution, in a clean-energy boom that development experts say could become a catalyst for widespread economic empowerment.

These aren't the oceanic fields of solar panels some German entrepreneurs have proposed to build in the Sahara, nor the grid-connected rooftop systems that power entire American homes. Instead, these are small kits that come complete with the necessary panels, wiring, power converters, and batteries to power a few lightbulbs, a small appliance, or a cellphone charger.


The ingenuity of developing nations' populations to create access to electricity is impressive. Yet, it remains to be seen whether or not these ambitions will mobilize them to oppose pervasive government corruption and destructive terrorism networks.

Labels: , ,

Rassemblement Association Gagné-Bellavance in Wells-Ogunquit

Rassemblement Association Gagné-Bellavance in Wells-Ogunquit - It was an honor and privilege to present to this program packed with information and joie de vivre!

Sunday, September 14, 2014

ISIS evil beheader is doomed and world leaders know his name

"British citizens have volunteered to go to Syria to fight at 25 times the rate that Americans have done so, when adjusted for population size." CNN Reports

To the evil ISIS beheader of three young men who didn't do anything to harm you, listen up!  I'm a woman telling you about your own limited life expectancy, because your days are numbered. As an evil perpetrator of barbarianism, you're doomed to eternal damnation. You'll inevitability be destroyed by thousands of people focused on murdering you.  Furthermore, the person who will be forced to take your place, is also doomed. Moreover, your grotesque beheadings are serving an unlikely purpose. In fact, your unspeakable evil is causing allies to coalesce in the destruction of the ISIS movement, including all involved in perpetrating the murderous intentions of the non Muslim and non state ISIS terrorist vigilantes.

CNN Reports:

(CNN) -- He has beheaded again. The tall, masked British man with the London accent, working with ISIS.

His first two victims were American journalists. His third was a fellow citizen, British aid worker David Haines.

British Prime Minister David Cameron hastily assembled a meeting of his top national security advisers in the early hours of Sunday morning to discuss what can be done.

According to British officials, Cameron knows the identity of the British executioner.

ISIS executes David Haines, Cameron vows justice.

Cameron also knows that the executioner has also killed two citizens of his country's closest ally and he knows that the executioner holds at least two other American citizens.

Cameron knows that the executioner holds other hostages from additional Western countries and that he's part of a larger group of British hostage-takers working for ISIS, nicknamed "the Beatles" by their captives. And he knows that the lives of the remaining hostages are in grave danger.

It is a real crisis for Cameron, and it underlines a sobering fact: British citizens have volunteered to go to Syria to fight at 25 times the rate that Americans have done so, when adjusted for population size.

Some 500 British citizens have traveled to Syria to fight, as have 100 Americans. The population of the United Kingdom is about a fifth of that of the States.

A British government assessment by the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism provided to CNN shows that the British have already arrested 69 people this year for "Syria related terrorist offences" that include terrorist financing, preparing an act of terrorism, and attending a terrorist training camp.

In 2013, 25 people were arrested in the UK on similar charges, bringing the total number of arrests to 94, according to the British government assessment. By contrast, only eight have been arrested for similar Syria-related terrorist crimes in the States.

ISIS execution videos strikingly similar

The war in Syria is attracting British fighters from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds, not just those of Syrian descent. A British official told CNN that the vast majority of British fighters going to Syria do not have any real links to the country other than a desire to fight in a holy war against the Bashar al-Assad regime.

Alarmed by the threat posed by its citizens fighting in Syria, the British government has already refused to issue or has cancelled 23 passports and has also revoked the citizenship of eight British citizens, according to the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism.

The British agency also underlines the threat posed by other European citizens who have traveled to Syria, who can freely travel around the European Union, including the UK, and who can also travel to the States without visas as they are from so-called "visa waiver" countries.

Statement from the family of David Haines

According to the British government, 700 fighters have traveled to Syria from France; 400 from Germany; between 300 and 500 from Belgium; 130 from the Netherlands; over 100 from Denmark; 100 from Austria; 80 from Sweden; and between 50 and 100 from Spain.

The British government also estimates that 100 Canadians have left Canada to "support or train with terrorist movements abroad. The majority of these are likely to be in Syria." And it estimates that there are 60 Australians fighting in Syria and Iraq and about 100 Australian "facilitators" helping to make this possible in Australia.

This brings the total number of Westerners who have fought in Syria to between 2,620 and 2,870, according to the British Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism assessment obtained by CNN, which is likely the most authoritative estimate yet.

Despite the fact that the British government has identified the executioner of the two American journalists and of David Haines, it is not making his name public "for operational reasons."

That's because the only likely hope for the remaining hostages is some kind of rescue operation similar to the one that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command mounted on July 4, which didn't achieve its purpose because the prisoners had been recently moved from the location where they were being held in Syria.

A rescue operation is a long shot, but at this point it may be the only real chance of saving the lives of the remaining hostages. David Cameron knows this -- and so does President Barack Obama.

Labels: ,