Having re-read the speech I want to know: can Obama answer these questions?
1. If non-profit independent health care cooperatives are such a good idea, why don't we have them already? Liability? Non-viability? Bueller?
2. When you say anyone can lose their health care, did you forget that you and anyone who's ever been in Congress can't?
3. Are you aware that for all your horror stories about our current system there are worse stories from Canada, Britain etc.?
4. Since only YOU, exalted one, can fix, fraud, waste and abuse ( well no one else has been able to) and wring TRILLIONS of savings from the health care system, what do WE do when you're gone? You are planning on leaving office in the next 4-8 years? Aren't you?
5. If nothing in the plan requires VA patients to change their careplan why did you want to bill their insurers earlier this year?
6. When you compare your new requirement for all Americans to carry health insurance to states requiring drivers to carry auto insurance, do you realize that ONLY those who choose to drive are forced to purchase auto insurance. Are you aware that Americans can opt out of auto insurance by not driving?
7. Where in the constitution is the authority to require Americans to purchase health insurance?
8. Not that I personally care, but has it crossed your mind that this requirement will further stigmatize illegal immigrants by forcing them to commit another crime?
9. Will REQUIRING businesses to cover costs of health care hurt the economy by discouraging enterpeneurs and by forcing even more jobs overseas? If not, why not?
10. What happens when a person purchasing her own insurance loses an income source?Has unexpected expenses? Misses a few payments? Is it a federal offense? Does it make you a criminal? Felony, misdemeanor, violation?
11. Isn't choosing how to spend our own money and deciding where to take risks what the founding fathers meant by "pursuit of happiness?"
12. When you say: "Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company." Why then are you opposed to allowing insurers to do business across state lines?
13. "Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future." Starting when? Really? Because wouldn't that be a change from the first 8 months of Obamasatan?
14. "And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need." How?
15. "And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." How does your Messiahship plan to reconcile this with the previous statement?
16 When you say "...reforming malpractice laws..." do you mean tort reform? Will Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seriously entertain that? If they do who will fund the DNC in the next election cycle?
17. Do you think that Ted Kennedy's will leaves more money to purchase health insurance for the poor than it leaves wealth to his children?
18. Is it possible to oppose this reform, without being demonized by the president? Does my conscience count, or am I being unpatriotic?
10 September 2009
06 September 2009
George Will Needs To Know: Afghanistan Matters!
George Will laid down the gauntlet. While a few conservatives have always been reluctant about our efforts in Afghanistan, Will’s September 1, column advocating withdrawal has opened a rift on the American right with conservatives taking sides. George Will says it’s time to quit Afghanistan. As a soldier who was in Afghanistan for most of 2008 I say unequivocally George Will is wrong; Afghanistan matters.
Will has surprising allies including former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. They say we can’t win, though we managed to achieve success in Iraq. They claim that our struggle is against al-Qaeda not the Taliban. This is akin to saying our fight was against the Japanese and giving Hitler a pass. They say Pakistan is more important, but they don’t say how losing our base in Afghanistan will solve that nation’s problems.
The debate is set against the background of an expected decision by President Obama on whether to heed his generals who are calling for an Iraq like Surge, or to find a quicker way out. Obama may have campaigned on the premise of supporting the “right war” in Afghanistan, but liberals, including most of the democratic congress are opposed to any expansion of US forces abroad. The left is now getting help from Will and McCarthy on the right. But the stakes in Afghanistan are high. The Taliban, our enemy, are resurgent there, enabled by NATO’s inability to fight a consistent counter-insurgency campaign, and the porous border with Pakistan.
Pakistan, aye there is the rub. That nation has slowly descended into its own chaos. The area along Pakistan’s Afghan border known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), is a Pashtun-Taliban enclave, inaccessible to any forces friendly to the US and its allies. The Pakistani military, a nuclear armed force of over a million men including reserves, cannot even access, much less control its own border.
The mountainous region, including the FATA, which straddles the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is at times referred to as Pashtun-istan. The Pashtuns, a 42 million strong ethnic group, are minority populations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have always been the core strength of the Taliban. Not all Pashtuns are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtun. Tribal ties, tradition, and ethnic politics lead most Pashtuns to support the Taliban.
Afghanistan continues to be a failed state, Pakistan is failing. We have the opportunity to continue to influence events in the region due to our presence in Afghanistan. Should the US withdraw entirely from Afghanistan certain events are highly likely to unfold. The first would be a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. They might not see the complete victory they achieved in 1996. They would at least end up seizing and dominating several provinces. These provinces would certainly include several, North and East, which dominate the landlocked nation’s rudimentary road net. The Taliban would gain a stranglehold on the Afghan economy.
They would also rule the Pashtun speaking border region. The resulting consequences of this outcome are impossible to predict. However a larger autonomous Taliban dominated zone would surely threaten the weak Pakistani government. The unspoken, nightmare outcome, we all seek to avoid, is the takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban.
Pakistan is a nuclear power. Yet in spite of this modern achievement, it is a failing nation. Assassination and civil violence have dominated recent politics. The populace is fragmented ethnically and politically. The urban elites live western lives with modern hopes. Most others live poor desperate lives. Islam is the single greatest unifying factor! Many Pakistanis of various ethnicities have shown a consistent predilection for anti-American, anti-western, pro-Taliban politics.
Two or possibly three Talibanized nations in place of today’s Afghanistan and Pakistan are in no one’s interest, especially if one of them is nuclear armed. Let us recall further that Afghanistan’s western neighbor is the WMD seeking state of Iran. That nation has infiltrated arms and personnel into the western Farsi speaking provinces of Afghanistan to pressure the US and Afghan governments, and to create its own sphere of influence.
George Will’s imagined scenario of special-forces and airpower serving in place of boots on the ground in Afghanistan surely sounds good to deskbound policy wonks. But they would do well to remember that policy failed us through the Clinton era. At that time Pakistan was under the more stable hand of Musharraf.
If we abandon our foothold in Afghanistan, we abandon our contacts on the ground. In order for predators, cruise missiles, and SF operators to succeed repeatedly against al-Qaeda, or any other enemies, our forces need human intelligence. This is why al-Qaeda and the Taliban high command retreated to and continue to hide in the inaccessible reaches of Pakistan. It’s why al-Qaeda chose the then closed state of Afghanistan as a base in the first place.
Additionally, a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan will surely present a tremendous propaganda victory to the Taliban. This would be a strategic weapon for all of our Islamist enemies in the current struggle. George Will has stepped up his campaign, and now wants to quit Iraq early as well. He mentions the ties that Shiite Iran has established with Shiite Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki as a reason to end our commitment there.
If we were to follow Mr. Will’s prescription, by 2011 we could be facing a hostile band of powers stretching from the India-Pakistan border through Syria, to the Mediterranean. This would be the worst middle-eastern scenario the US ever faced, as bad as the Soviet dominated region envisioned by Carter and Reagan circa 1980. We could face two Islamic, hostile, nuclear powers. Such an outcome would represent the beginning of the end for Israel. It would signify the end of American hegemony, and the start of a truly new world order; one that would be highly unfavorable to our interests.
These are just the consequences for us. Mr. Will would also abandon the Afghans, the Iraqis and others to the Taliban to the likeminded Shia of Iran, and to al-Qaeda. He and his applause section remind us that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that extremism pervades the region, and that generally we have no business there anymore.
While not subscribing to the left’s drivel that poverty and frustration are the root of terrorism, I think that a poorer more Islamic mid-east will be more miserable for the Afghans and Iraqis, and the Pakistanis and Iranians. Having spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen that most people there want peace and prosperity. They want to end the violence and raise their children more comfortably than poverty and war has thus far allowed.
While Islam may indeed lend itself to oppressive rule, so did Christianity, for nearly two millennia of Romans, feudalism, and absolutism. Today, millions of Iraqis and Afghans have shown an appreciation for democracy, and the idea of peaceful, lawful change of governments. Come to think of it, so have the much abused Lebanese. In Iran, millions voted, and when the mullahs executed a massive electoral fraud millions protested. In India millions of Muslims regularly live peaceful lives in a democracy.
It is true that democratizing the Islamic world is not, and should not be the primary prescriptive mission of the US military. However to cede the entire middle-east to the forces of extremism, to abandon our allies, to surrender our security, and make the world a much more dangerous place seems folly. And to do it so that we can say we are not nation building, so that our military is doing what a few purists claim is “its job” is beyond foolishness. My job as a soldier is to preserve the security of my nation by whatever means necessary. Right now I can’t think of a better way we can do that than holding the line against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Will has surprising allies including former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. They say we can’t win, though we managed to achieve success in Iraq. They claim that our struggle is against al-Qaeda not the Taliban. This is akin to saying our fight was against the Japanese and giving Hitler a pass. They say Pakistan is more important, but they don’t say how losing our base in Afghanistan will solve that nation’s problems.
The debate is set against the background of an expected decision by President Obama on whether to heed his generals who are calling for an Iraq like Surge, or to find a quicker way out. Obama may have campaigned on the premise of supporting the “right war” in Afghanistan, but liberals, including most of the democratic congress are opposed to any expansion of US forces abroad. The left is now getting help from Will and McCarthy on the right. But the stakes in Afghanistan are high. The Taliban, our enemy, are resurgent there, enabled by NATO’s inability to fight a consistent counter-insurgency campaign, and the porous border with Pakistan.
Pakistan, aye there is the rub. That nation has slowly descended into its own chaos. The area along Pakistan’s Afghan border known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), is a Pashtun-Taliban enclave, inaccessible to any forces friendly to the US and its allies. The Pakistani military, a nuclear armed force of over a million men including reserves, cannot even access, much less control its own border.
The mountainous region, including the FATA, which straddles the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is at times referred to as Pashtun-istan. The Pashtuns, a 42 million strong ethnic group, are minority populations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have always been the core strength of the Taliban. Not all Pashtuns are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtun. Tribal ties, tradition, and ethnic politics lead most Pashtuns to support the Taliban.
Afghanistan continues to be a failed state, Pakistan is failing. We have the opportunity to continue to influence events in the region due to our presence in Afghanistan. Should the US withdraw entirely from Afghanistan certain events are highly likely to unfold. The first would be a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. They might not see the complete victory they achieved in 1996. They would at least end up seizing and dominating several provinces. These provinces would certainly include several, North and East, which dominate the landlocked nation’s rudimentary road net. The Taliban would gain a stranglehold on the Afghan economy.
They would also rule the Pashtun speaking border region. The resulting consequences of this outcome are impossible to predict. However a larger autonomous Taliban dominated zone would surely threaten the weak Pakistani government. The unspoken, nightmare outcome, we all seek to avoid, is the takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban.
Pakistan is a nuclear power. Yet in spite of this modern achievement, it is a failing nation. Assassination and civil violence have dominated recent politics. The populace is fragmented ethnically and politically. The urban elites live western lives with modern hopes. Most others live poor desperate lives. Islam is the single greatest unifying factor! Many Pakistanis of various ethnicities have shown a consistent predilection for anti-American, anti-western, pro-Taliban politics.
Two or possibly three Talibanized nations in place of today’s Afghanistan and Pakistan are in no one’s interest, especially if one of them is nuclear armed. Let us recall further that Afghanistan’s western neighbor is the WMD seeking state of Iran. That nation has infiltrated arms and personnel into the western Farsi speaking provinces of Afghanistan to pressure the US and Afghan governments, and to create its own sphere of influence.
George Will’s imagined scenario of special-forces and airpower serving in place of boots on the ground in Afghanistan surely sounds good to deskbound policy wonks. But they would do well to remember that policy failed us through the Clinton era. At that time Pakistan was under the more stable hand of Musharraf.
If we abandon our foothold in Afghanistan, we abandon our contacts on the ground. In order for predators, cruise missiles, and SF operators to succeed repeatedly against al-Qaeda, or any other enemies, our forces need human intelligence. This is why al-Qaeda and the Taliban high command retreated to and continue to hide in the inaccessible reaches of Pakistan. It’s why al-Qaeda chose the then closed state of Afghanistan as a base in the first place.
Additionally, a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan will surely present a tremendous propaganda victory to the Taliban. This would be a strategic weapon for all of our Islamist enemies in the current struggle. George Will has stepped up his campaign, and now wants to quit Iraq early as well. He mentions the ties that Shiite Iran has established with Shiite Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki as a reason to end our commitment there.
If we were to follow Mr. Will’s prescription, by 2011 we could be facing a hostile band of powers stretching from the India-Pakistan border through Syria, to the Mediterranean. This would be the worst middle-eastern scenario the US ever faced, as bad as the Soviet dominated region envisioned by Carter and Reagan circa 1980. We could face two Islamic, hostile, nuclear powers. Such an outcome would represent the beginning of the end for Israel. It would signify the end of American hegemony, and the start of a truly new world order; one that would be highly unfavorable to our interests.
These are just the consequences for us. Mr. Will would also abandon the Afghans, the Iraqis and others to the Taliban to the likeminded Shia of Iran, and to al-Qaeda. He and his applause section remind us that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that extremism pervades the region, and that generally we have no business there anymore.
While not subscribing to the left’s drivel that poverty and frustration are the root of terrorism, I think that a poorer more Islamic mid-east will be more miserable for the Afghans and Iraqis, and the Pakistanis and Iranians. Having spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen that most people there want peace and prosperity. They want to end the violence and raise their children more comfortably than poverty and war has thus far allowed.
While Islam may indeed lend itself to oppressive rule, so did Christianity, for nearly two millennia of Romans, feudalism, and absolutism. Today, millions of Iraqis and Afghans have shown an appreciation for democracy, and the idea of peaceful, lawful change of governments. Come to think of it, so have the much abused Lebanese. In Iran, millions voted, and when the mullahs executed a massive electoral fraud millions protested. In India millions of Muslims regularly live peaceful lives in a democracy.
It is true that democratizing the Islamic world is not, and should not be the primary prescriptive mission of the US military. However to cede the entire middle-east to the forces of extremism, to abandon our allies, to surrender our security, and make the world a much more dangerous place seems folly. And to do it so that we can say we are not nation building, so that our military is doing what a few purists claim is “its job” is beyond foolishness. My job as a soldier is to preserve the security of my nation by whatever means necessary. Right now I can’t think of a better way we can do that than holding the line against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
05 September 2009
Reason Enough to Fight On
Just over one year ago, on August 19, 2008 my friend was murdered. Taliban gunmen assassinated Mohammed Ayoob on his doorstep, in a village along the
-
Not the toughest soldier, Ayoob sometimes seemed to fear his own shadow. His commanders assigned him to the supply section; the Taliban noted his gentler nature and targeted him. In the end, he was tougher than he realized. Courageous in the face of death, when three terrorists ambushed him with AK-47 assault rifles, he drew his sidearm, and fired a single round at his killers before falling, the pistol smoking in his hand.
-
My friend’s death exemplifies the dynamics of the violent struggle for
-
The last time the Taliban ruled
-
As an American soldier, I was proud to call Ayoob my friend, but language and culture made understanding difficult. I never knew whether he was more concerned with defeating the insurgent than with holding a paying job. I suspected the latter. Ayoob, and his family, lived in a state of poverty. Like most Afghans they scraped by as best they could from year to year.
-
Whether he fought for patriotism or money, Ayoob chose to stand up to the Taliban. Despite the risks involved, Sgt. Ayoob accepted a job that endangered his life. He demonstrated personal courage and a rejection of the Taliban. Soon after he died, I realized his family stood with him.
-
Muslims must be buried within twenty four hours of death. The day after Ayoob died, my team, continued our own anti-Taliban efforts in the district. On the way back to our base we passed Ayoob's funeral. In a nation where few people have cars, I saw dozens of cars, packed with hundred’s of friends and relatives at the hilltop cemetery where they laid Ayoob to rest. Attendance at Ayoob’s funeral represented a public rejection of the Taliban.
-
Ayoob’s friends and family are hardly unique in their rejection of the Taliban. Last week, Afghan presidential elections were held for the second time this decade. While insurgents intimidated millions of Afghans into staying home, millions more risked heir lives to vote.
-
Today, in the
-
McChrystal, the new commander of US and NATO forces in
-
McChrystal surely envisions the “Iraq Surge” as a model for the way forward in
-
Our president, who owes his political career to the far left, is now caught between his core and his campaign. He promoted the “right war” on the campaign trail to capture the middle. Now, he can expect serious pressure from his allies in Pelosi’s Democratic congress to resist an “Afghan Surge.”
-
Americans may be weary of the war after eight years. Surely though, we are not more weary than the Afghans; they have known only war and terror for decades. The difference is that millions of Afghans know this war is worth fighting.
-
Like the loved ones of Mohammed Ayoob, they clearly want to end the violence. Their communities have been torn apart by decades of violence, but they will not surrender to terror to achieve peace. They know that the peace of the terrified is no peace at all.
-
Here at home, Americans are bombarded by the objections of the political left, and spoon-fed the dubious opinions of mainstream media pundits, but hopefully we will remember our own recent past. Eight years ago the Taliban allowed al-Quaeda to plan and train in
-
Today liberals, and an increasing number of conservatives are willing to allow that same Taliban to reclaim rule over
-
John Byrnes is a member of Veterans for Freedom. As a Staff Sergeant in the National Guard he spent most of 2008 in
27 August 2009
Surge Ahead!
Last week, half of those surveyed told a Washington Post-ABC News poll, that the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. In two weeks General Stanley McChrystal will report his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to President Obama. McChrystal, who recently assumed command of the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan, is expected to ask for another increase in US troop levels.
In December of 2006, half of the voters surveyed in a Washington Post-ABC News poll thought the USIraq; a month later President Bush approved the troop “surge” requested by General David Petraeus, the new senior US commander in Iraq. was losing in
President Obama campaigned last fall, promising to fight the “right war” in Afghanistan. The president should accept General McChrystal’s suggestions, and approve any call for additional troops. McChrystal is expected to request that the President honor his commitment to send another 17,000 troops raising the US total to nearly 85,000.
In the weeks before Iraqi Surge, liberal activists protested any troop increase. Today those liberals are pushing President Obama to abandon Afghanistan. They espouse varied reasons: the war is un-winnable; Pakistan is now the real problem; and for some, just plain pacifism. Their reflexive opposition to US military action abroad will ensure the resistance of congressional Democrats to a troop increase.
Speaker Pelosi and her loyalists will quote polls, claiming that voters are tired of the war. They will pressure President Obama to forget his promises and abandon the Afghans. Obama needs to stand up to his left leaning allies and listen to his generals.
Two years ago, hoping to prevent the surge, the same congressional Democrats quoted those polls about Iraq. Liberal Democrats virulently resisted the Iraqi surge, until it became clear in 2008 that the surge was working. That president, ignored the polls, stood firm behind General Petraeus and gave him time to achieve results. Today we continue reducing troop levels in Iraq, and while there is still violence, the Iraqi government is standing up to the Insurgency.
Afghanistan troop levels have been restricted for several reasons including the need for a larger number of troops in Iraq. Additionally, the 2002 accord put NATO in charge of military operations in Afghanistan. Some NATO allies, the British, Canadians and Dutch, have fought hard since the Taliban insurgency began. Last year, however, I personally encountered many NATO forces who were only interested in “peace keeping” operations.
Peacekeeping! I overheard NATO officers use this term, describing their mission in Northern Afghanistan, where the German Army is in charge. Aghast I had to wonder; between which factions are they keeping peace? Between a legitimate Afghan government and a Taliban insurgent force?
Peacekeeping! I overheard NATO officers use this term, describing their mission in Northern Afghanistan, where the German Army is in charge. Aghast I had to wonder; between which factions are they keeping peace? Between a legitimate Afghan government and a Taliban insurgent force?
I won’t under-value the valiant effort of thousands of NATO soldiers. During my year in the German sector of Northern Afghanistan I worked with many professional NATO soldiers. But domestic politics across Europe has corrupted the efforts of several nations from the outset.
An example: thousands of US soldiers operate in northern Afghanistan as advisors to Afghan forces. Last year we had no certainty of medical evacuation by helicopter. Allied air forces would not guarantee an immediately respond to US requests for medical evacuation. US commanders had to add limit missions, damaging our ability to complete missions.
Creating effective local security forces is the priority in Afghanistan. NATO’s constraints severely limited ou r efforts to mentor the Afghans. Now the Taliban has re-asserted itself in the northern province of Kunduz; no doubt because of NATO’s timidity and restrictions on the smaller US contingent there. A robust US presence could easily reverse these events, and hold the province until Afghan forces are ready to stand on their own. The Iraq surge succeeded through these tactics.
NATO signed up for peacekeeping, not counter-insurgency. General McChrystal specializes in counter-insurgency; he adapted US efforts to this difficult style of war. Ready to use the Iraqi surge as his model, if he can get the forces he needs he will win. A fresh infusion of US troops will secure the population, and train and mentor the Afghan security forces. A coordinated counterinsurgency effort with enough US forces, can and will succeed in Afghanistan.
If Obama truly believes that Afghanistan is the “right war,” he will use the Iraq surge model. The last administration overcame the anti-war faction in Congress, including then Senator Obama. They convinced a doubting electorate to support a new strategy. Obama must face down his own allies on the left to support an Afghan surge.
The alternatives are bleak. The Afghan war is not un-winnable, but failure to fight effectively now, could strand us in Afghanistan for years. The worst outcome would be to abandon the Afghanistan people to the Taliban. A failed, or Talibanized Afghanistan, adjacent to a weak and unstable Pakistan is not in anyone’s interest. The problem is limited to neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan. Any solution must be truly regional, therefore we must secure Afghanistan from the Taliban and its al-Quaeda allies.
29 May 2009
On The Road (to 9/11) Again!
Yesterday the LA Times reported that in a stunning reversal of the recent, successful, strategy against Al-Quaeda and it’s associated terror network worldwide the Obama administration has decided to restore the FBI, as the lead “worldwide” counter-terror agency, relegating the CIA and the military to supporting roles in the Global War on Terror.
“Under the ‘global justice’ initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials said.
Though the initiative is a work in progress, some senior counter-terrorism officials and administration policy-makers envision it as key to the national security strategy President Obama laid out last week -- one that presumes most accused terrorists have the right to
contest the charges against them in a ‘legitimate" setting.’
The approach effectively reverses a mainstay of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, in which global counter-terrorism was treated primarily as an intelligence and military problem, not a law enforcement one. That policy led to the establishment of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; harsh interrogations; and detentions without
trials.
The ‘global justice’ initiative starts out with the premise that virtually all suspects will end up in a U.S. or foreign court of law.”
Here are just a few of the reasons why this is a recipe for disaster.
The FBI was ineffective at dealing with Al-Quaeda in the 1990’s. From 1993- 2001 we saw the first attack on the Trade Center, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the attacks on the US in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks. All these attacks were perpetrated by al-Quaeda affiliates. Until 9/11 the FBI investigated these incidents and prosecuted a few identified individuals. This approach encouraged rather than deterred the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The FBI is so mistrusted as an intelligence source regarding the global network of Islamist extremism that the New York City Police department has posted its own police officers abroad as intelligence gathering agents to enable New York to detect and prevent another attack on the city.
At its roots, the FBI is a police agency. This creates problems for it as an intelligence gathering agency. The FBI primarily exists to make cases that can be successfully prosecuted by US Attorneys. The institutional culture is reactive and investigative, not preventive.
The FBI, until 2001, was a full partner with the DEA in the “War and Drugs.”
Its track record against loosely organized foreign adversaries is hardly encouraging
The new Obama approach puts Eric Holder in charge as America’s top anti-terror official. This is the same Eric Holder who has a record of supporting pardons for members of home grown terrorist groups like the BLA and FALN. Today Fox News reports:
“Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Dept.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place, Election Day 2008 when three black panthers were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he ‘supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
Eric Holder just let three more domestic terrorists off the hook.
According to the LA Time’s sources, any terror suspect, caught by any US agency, anywhere in the world will be directed to FBI custody. For soldiers and Marines operating on the battlefield this means capturing an enemy is now a law enforcement operation.
This creates several problems. Many of my friends in law enforcement call their badge a ‘license to be sued.’ While soldiers are competent at taking and securing detainees, they now will be in a position to be second guessed by everyone from non-military federal agents, to Justice Dept. lawyers, federal judges and juries.
We will now be assigning all terrorists, including those captured on the battlefield with an equivalent set of rights of US citizens arrested for crimes and misdemeanors here at home. Imagine a Taliban insurgent captured in Afghanistan will now have rights never accorded to those American enemies who abided by the ‘laws of war.’ We’ll treat al-Quaeda better than German POWs of WWII.
In fact the next set of detainees will be afforded better legal protections than most American criminal suspects because white shoe, elite, liberal law firms will be climbing all over each other to represent al-Quaeda suspects arrested by the FBI. If OJ Simpson got off because he hired a dream team imagine what will happen if Osama bin Laden is “arrested” instead of just shot by Special Forces.
His lawyers will argue everything from lack of jurisdiction, to cultural insensitivity, to the twinkie defense if it will prolong his trial their moment in the spotlight. If bin Laden was not a true extremist right about now he would be calling a lawyer and arranging to turn himself in, his chances would be so good.
Well America, get ready for more terror!
See Also:
TheLocke
Narcisstic Views
“Under the ‘global justice’ initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials said.
Though the initiative is a work in progress, some senior counter-terrorism officials and administration policy-makers envision it as key to the national security strategy President Obama laid out last week -- one that presumes most accused terrorists have the right to
contest the charges against them in a ‘legitimate" setting.’
The approach effectively reverses a mainstay of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, in which global counter-terrorism was treated primarily as an intelligence and military problem, not a law enforcement one. That policy led to the establishment of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; harsh interrogations; and detentions without
trials.
The ‘global justice’ initiative starts out with the premise that virtually all suspects will end up in a U.S. or foreign court of law.”
Here are just a few of the reasons why this is a recipe for disaster.
The FBI was ineffective at dealing with Al-Quaeda in the 1990’s. From 1993- 2001 we saw the first attack on the Trade Center, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the attacks on the US in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks. All these attacks were perpetrated by al-Quaeda affiliates. Until 9/11 the FBI investigated these incidents and prosecuted a few identified individuals. This approach encouraged rather than deterred the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The FBI is so mistrusted as an intelligence source regarding the global network of Islamist extremism that the New York City Police department has posted its own police officers abroad as intelligence gathering agents to enable New York to detect and prevent another attack on the city.
At its roots, the FBI is a police agency. This creates problems for it as an intelligence gathering agency. The FBI primarily exists to make cases that can be successfully prosecuted by US Attorneys. The institutional culture is reactive and investigative, not preventive.
The FBI, until 2001, was a full partner with the DEA in the “War and Drugs.”
Its track record against loosely organized foreign adversaries is hardly encouraging
The new Obama approach puts Eric Holder in charge as America’s top anti-terror official. This is the same Eric Holder who has a record of supporting pardons for members of home grown terrorist groups like the BLA and FALN. Today Fox News reports:
“Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Dept.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place, Election Day 2008 when three black panthers were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he ‘supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
Eric Holder just let three more domestic terrorists off the hook.
According to the LA Time’s sources, any terror suspect, caught by any US agency, anywhere in the world will be directed to FBI custody. For soldiers and Marines operating on the battlefield this means capturing an enemy is now a law enforcement operation.
This creates several problems. Many of my friends in law enforcement call their badge a ‘license to be sued.’ While soldiers are competent at taking and securing detainees, they now will be in a position to be second guessed by everyone from non-military federal agents, to Justice Dept. lawyers, federal judges and juries.
We will now be assigning all terrorists, including those captured on the battlefield with an equivalent set of rights of US citizens arrested for crimes and misdemeanors here at home. Imagine a Taliban insurgent captured in Afghanistan will now have rights never accorded to those American enemies who abided by the ‘laws of war.’ We’ll treat al-Quaeda better than German POWs of WWII.
In fact the next set of detainees will be afforded better legal protections than most American criminal suspects because white shoe, elite, liberal law firms will be climbing all over each other to represent al-Quaeda suspects arrested by the FBI. If OJ Simpson got off because he hired a dream team imagine what will happen if Osama bin Laden is “arrested” instead of just shot by Special Forces.
His lawyers will argue everything from lack of jurisdiction, to cultural insensitivity, to the twinkie defense if it will prolong his trial their moment in the spotlight. If bin Laden was not a true extremist right about now he would be calling a lawyer and arranging to turn himself in, his chances would be so good.
Well America, get ready for more terror!
See Also:
TheLocke
Narcisstic Views
26 May 2009
Mourning Memorial Day Pt 2
For the record, in Wake County yesterday, app. 13,000 students, a full 40% of the student body were absent. I hope the school administrators who disrespected our nation's fallen take notice. Because there is something wrong in America these days. Something that the new president cannot cure with "Hope" or "Change," because he is a symptom of the malady.
A cautionary tale:
In a traditional middle class neighborhood in Staten Island New York, aging veterans donned their gear, American Legion and VFW jackets and garrison caps. So attired, they moved, some with considerable effort, to stand in formation with current National Guard soldiers. Warriors past and present saluted the flag and laid a wreath, on a local memorial. The old vets had tears in their eyes, as they approached the younger versions of themselves thanking them for fighting for our country since 9/11.
The older generation guys didn’t fight in theater with nightly ice cream, 9-month tours, Internet, Private rooms with modern AC, two weeks’ leave, $25k in individual protective and fighting gear, extra pay for housing, etc.
They just fought bloody attrition warfare on the ground against the Emperor’s children and Nazis; with aircraft made of wood and gas tanks and engines; ships loaded with electrical gear, huge boilers, ammo and diesel all ready to blow at any time, and weapons aimed with a Mark 1 eyeball alone.
“And these guys are thanking us—thanking me?” My friend recounted of his day
A few hours later. A few miles north of NYC, in one of the nicer northern Suburbs. He was at an annual Memorial Day carnival to raise money for the town’s public school (which doesn’t really need any money).
The scene: several hundred families milling about, mostly graying yuppies and captains-of-the-universe hedge fund and white-shoe law firm types, trooping their Ivy League bound spawn around from ride to ride.
The US Army officer arrives in uniform. Not one person – not one – thanks him for serving. No one asks why he is in uniform. On Memorial Day.
“You could just tell from the glances and eyes turned away that some of these folks were quite uncomfortable with me there, for whatever their reasons: afraid that I’m a vet ready to snap, or scream at them for electing BHO, or yell at them for being greedy and selfish or, most painfully, ask them what branch of the service they were in . . . who knows.”
One guy, a scout troop leader – himself in “uniform” – managed to decline an offered $1.00 for a bottle of water, but even he couldn’t make eye contact with the recent veteran of two deployments. At least it was a gesture.
There was one old lady: “She had to be in her 90s, parked under a tree by her lousy preppy grandkids; with a huge sun hat and the kooky white-rimmed sunglasses. She looked over here glasses, smiled and waved. I waved back. I appreciated that.”
My friend went straight to the nearest American Legion post, ordered a beer, and toasted the Greatest Generation.
Welcome to Obamastan!
A cautionary tale:
In a traditional middle class neighborhood in Staten Island New York, aging veterans donned their gear, American Legion and VFW jackets and garrison caps. So attired, they moved, some with considerable effort, to stand in formation with current National Guard soldiers. Warriors past and present saluted the flag and laid a wreath, on a local memorial. The old vets had tears in their eyes, as they approached the younger versions of themselves thanking them for fighting for our country since 9/11.
The older generation guys didn’t fight in theater with nightly ice cream, 9-month tours, Internet, Private rooms with modern AC, two weeks’ leave, $25k in individual protective and fighting gear, extra pay for housing, etc.
They just fought bloody attrition warfare on the ground against the Emperor’s children and Nazis; with aircraft made of wood and gas tanks and engines; ships loaded with electrical gear, huge boilers, ammo and diesel all ready to blow at any time, and weapons aimed with a Mark 1 eyeball alone.
“And these guys are thanking us—thanking me?” My friend recounted of his day
A few hours later. A few miles north of NYC, in one of the nicer northern Suburbs. He was at an annual Memorial Day carnival to raise money for the town’s public school (which doesn’t really need any money).
The scene: several hundred families milling about, mostly graying yuppies and captains-of-the-universe hedge fund and white-shoe law firm types, trooping their Ivy League bound spawn around from ride to ride.
The US Army officer arrives in uniform. Not one person – not one – thanks him for serving. No one asks why he is in uniform. On Memorial Day.
“You could just tell from the glances and eyes turned away that some of these folks were quite uncomfortable with me there, for whatever their reasons: afraid that I’m a vet ready to snap, or scream at them for electing BHO, or yell at them for being greedy and selfish or, most painfully, ask them what branch of the service they were in . . . who knows.”
One guy, a scout troop leader – himself in “uniform” – managed to decline an offered $1.00 for a bottle of water, but even he couldn’t make eye contact with the recent veteran of two deployments. At least it was a gesture.
There was one old lady: “She had to be in her 90s, parked under a tree by her lousy preppy grandkids; with a huge sun hat and the kooky white-rimmed sunglasses. She looked over here glasses, smiled and waved. I waved back. I appreciated that.”
My friend went straight to the nearest American Legion post, ordered a beer, and toasted the Greatest Generation.
Welcome to Obamastan!
25 May 2009
Mourning Memorial Day
Today is Memorial Day. This American holiday, first celebrated in 1865, was begun so that communities could commemorate their own fallen, amongst the hundreds of thousands of young Americans who gave their lives during our bloodiest war. Over time those local memorial services at the end of May grew into a great national tradition.
After over a hundred years of community memorials, the US congress finally acted. In 1967 they federalized the holiday, and one year later it legislated the now familiar ‘last Monday in May’ calendar placement. By the early seventies, all US states recognized the federal holiday.
Somewhere on the order of one million American soldiers have died in the nearly two and a half centuries of our national history. These men and women, define diversity. Immigrants from all four corners of the globe have served and died in our armed forces. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard, have all sacrificed their members, Active, Reserve, National Guard and Militia. Christian, Jew, Atheist, Buddhist, and Muslim; Gay and Straight; Democrat, Republican, Whig and Socialist; liberal, conservative, moderate. There have been restrictions on military service over the years, but our war dead represent every part of our great national constituency.
Among those who have fallen recently are many that I called comrade, friend, or brother. Not blood brothers, but “Band of Brothers;” Chris, Segun, Kevin, Casey, Wil, are a few of the names that I can’t summon to mind without a lingering sadness. This is the burden of service in our current military. Wherever one’s politics lie, these men and four thousand other Americans who have recently made the ultimate sacrifice deserve our respect and a moment of our time. They deserve a day.
Recently, some factions, however, have shown a desire to dismantle Memorial Day. In the middle of a war, however unpopular, what does it say about us that we are unwilling to honor those who defended us with their lives?
In Wake County, North Carolina, where I currently live, the School Board has classes running today. This is part of a year round classroom initiative. I understand the need to “think outside the box” to effect better education at cost. But when schools are closed the day before Thanksgiving, but not on Memorial Day, there is an indication that we as a society have lost our way.
This morning, as I began to research some statistics for this article, I turned to Google, of course. I was immediately dismayed when I saw that the Google banner was just their generic icon. I may not have noticed, but only two days ago their banner was reworked in an impressionist style for the entire day. They were “celebrating” the birthday of Mary Cassat, a 19th century American Artist. I have noticed similar themes on Google for Charles Darwin, Earth Day and even Dr. Seuss.
Apparently celebrating Memorial Day, even in America, does not comply with Google’s corporate image, or approximate the importance of clever children’s literature.. Google, a company, based in California, owned and staffed in America, would rather pursue a globalist agenda, than acknowledge the true strength of the nation that allowed it to dominate its market.
I don’t know how many Wake County parents pulled their children from class today. I know that many intended to. I don’t have children yet. I do know that there is a flag flying in my yard. I will stop by my local veteran’s memorial today. I will give a few moments in honor of my fallen brothers; and to the million more who have given me my freedom. And from now on I will be searching the internet with a search engine that recognizes American Holidays.
After over a hundred years of community memorials, the US congress finally acted. In 1967 they federalized the holiday, and one year later it legislated the now familiar ‘last Monday in May’ calendar placement. By the early seventies, all US states recognized the federal holiday.
Somewhere on the order of one million American soldiers have died in the nearly two and a half centuries of our national history. These men and women, define diversity. Immigrants from all four corners of the globe have served and died in our armed forces. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard, have all sacrificed their members, Active, Reserve, National Guard and Militia. Christian, Jew, Atheist, Buddhist, and Muslim; Gay and Straight; Democrat, Republican, Whig and Socialist; liberal, conservative, moderate. There have been restrictions on military service over the years, but our war dead represent every part of our great national constituency.
Among those who have fallen recently are many that I called comrade, friend, or brother. Not blood brothers, but “Band of Brothers;” Chris, Segun, Kevin, Casey, Wil, are a few of the names that I can’t summon to mind without a lingering sadness. This is the burden of service in our current military. Wherever one’s politics lie, these men and four thousand other Americans who have recently made the ultimate sacrifice deserve our respect and a moment of our time. They deserve a day.
Recently, some factions, however, have shown a desire to dismantle Memorial Day. In the middle of a war, however unpopular, what does it say about us that we are unwilling to honor those who defended us with their lives?
In Wake County, North Carolina, where I currently live, the School Board has classes running today. This is part of a year round classroom initiative. I understand the need to “think outside the box” to effect better education at cost. But when schools are closed the day before Thanksgiving, but not on Memorial Day, there is an indication that we as a society have lost our way.
This morning, as I began to research some statistics for this article, I turned to Google, of course. I was immediately dismayed when I saw that the Google banner was just their generic icon. I may not have noticed, but only two days ago their banner was reworked in an impressionist style for the entire day. They were “celebrating” the birthday of Mary Cassat, a 19th century American Artist. I have noticed similar themes on Google for Charles Darwin, Earth Day and even Dr. Seuss.
Apparently celebrating Memorial Day, even in America, does not comply with Google’s corporate image, or approximate the importance of clever children’s literature.. Google, a company, based in California, owned and staffed in America, would rather pursue a globalist agenda, than acknowledge the true strength of the nation that allowed it to dominate its market.
I don’t know how many Wake County parents pulled their children from class today. I know that many intended to. I don’t have children yet. I do know that there is a flag flying in my yard. I will stop by my local veteran’s memorial today. I will give a few moments in honor of my fallen brothers; and to the million more who have given me my freedom. And from now on I will be searching the internet with a search engine that recognizes American Holidays.
12 May 2009
A NEW HOPE
Obama is finally doing something right, a result of his remarkable decision to keep Gates as Sec-Def. He is listening to Petraeus, the head of Centcom. This week in Afghanistan General McChrystal an SF bred leader who is perfect for this type of WARFARE took over from General McKiernan an Armor officer who was pining for a good old maneuver battle. Here is the stream of consciousness approbation of one Army officer who served as a mentor, advising the Afghan police last year under McKiernan.
McKiernan was a tank officer. Not a good mindset for A-stan. Likes vehicles. Typical response to successful IED attack vs. a US mounted patrol in A-stan was a new mandate for even more vehicles (i.e. targets)in future convoys, and if you didn't have enough vehicles on your base due to maintenance issues to support scheduled patrols, then cancel patrols: a horrible climate, not the US Army/USMC of the Battle of theBulge or Iwo Jima at all, a repudation of the warrior ethos (mission first, never accept defeat, never quit, never leave a fallen comrade).
McKiernan didn't get that, didn't get counterinsurgency (COIN), though he paid it a lot of lip service. Risk averse. Liked making rules. Liked briefings. Liked being briefed. Lusted after PowerPoint slides.(I once received a compliment via e-mail from ISAF/HQ that my slides on how to train a province police swat team were appreciated by "the Boss".. . the SLIDES were appreciated, mind you, no commentary or feedback on the swat team concept (first in the country for regular police), no questions about numbers of arrests or dead terrorists as a result of deploying the swat team.)
McKiernan liked painted rocks, haircuts and parade formations. Hated SF mindset; certainly hated the idea of raggamuffin National Guardsmen going native and living in villages unsupervised. A Cold War, ground maneuver, conventional, NATOcommander.
McChrystal, is a light infantry officer, a paratrooper, a Ranger, a Special Forces officer, a Delta Force-commandingAbu-Musab-al-Zarqawi-killer. Not only not risk averse: likes risk, enjoys risk, thinks what sets Soldiers and Marines apart from other,normal people is a desire to (1) kill bad guys and break their shit and (2) take risks. Will have little tolerance for NATO's bullshit. Will have little tolerance for Obama's bullshit.
Will let Soldiers and Marines do their job: kill bad guys and protect everyone else. Will send US special forces into Pakistan and Iran covertly to do their job. Prediction: US forces will begin to get off of the large bases across the theater (not just in those particular places where the local commander gets COIN) and takes risk. Lots of dismounted patrolling. Lots of living with the locals. Lots of money spread around at grass-roots levels. Less bombing from the air; better bombing from the air.
Yes, more US casualties. BUT: Lots of HUMINT. Lots, lots, lots more AQ andTB casualties. Being a jihadist, an opium trafficker, a corrupt police officer working both sides, etc. in A-stan will become a very dangerous thing; this climate will deter fence-sitters, opportunists and those who fight for the hell of it, separating the hard-core enemy from the common schlubs. Al Qaeda already knows McChrystal by name: he killed Zarqawi,he personally inspected the remains, and they fear him. When the enemy reacts with mortal fear, with terror, to your presence, when he knowsthat you are crazier than he is, then you have the initiative.
McKiernan never had the initiative. No one feared him, not even his own men. McKiernan was a nice guy. McChyrstal is not a nice guy.McChyrstal may be the William Tecumseh Sherman of this war. NATO will complain to Obama that this new commander is too aggressive. In fact you will start to hear that when the Senate confirmation and debate process begins to make McC a 4-star, based on allegations that McChrystal's Rangers were mean to terrorists in Iraq.
Obama will succeed as a wartime commander-in-chief if he resists his own apologetic intincts and tells the Germans and French and Italians and the UN and Doctors without Borders and Karzai to go to hell, suppresses his wildly-inflated self image and lets McChrystal fight the war, while supporting him and otherwise staying out of it. McChrystal will ask for another 30,000 troops, beyond the 21,00 going in now, and a redefinition of ISAF's role in the war.
If Obama supports him in these things, then we will win: in five years, Afghanistan will be secure, ont he road to development and good governance at every level, able to defend itself internally and externally, and a contributer to the war against global Islamist terrorism. If Obama does not supportMcChrystal, then we will loose, and the signpost for that will be a movement for us to withdraw in a Vietnam-style "peace with honor"mode,with Taliban accomodated and appeased with "a province or two" inPakistan. And then both Pakistan and Afghanistan will fall. And then we will really need McKiernan's tanks and bombing missions.
Obama and Gates will take and get credit for this bold move. They should not. Petraeus did this. When we were overseas, as soon as we heard that Petraeus was getting CENTCOM, having ourselves seen how badly the theater was being commanded, we knew that McKiernan's days were numbered, no matter who the President was. Look at the attached picture from last week. The SecDef is in a suit,nothing else. The Afghans are in regular clothing. McKiernan is wearing his body armor. I guarantee that the US officer on the rightwho was not wearing his body armor had his ass chewed out after this fornot showing "good leadership" and concern for "soldier welfare" by wearing all of his gear to this photo op with "the Boss."
I have to concur here, McKiernan didn't want to offend anyone, including the enemy. He handcuffed the most effective, professional military force on the planet, due to career driven risk aversion. GOOD RIDDANCE, now let's kill some bad guys.
McKiernan was a tank officer. Not a good mindset for A-stan. Likes vehicles. Typical response to successful IED attack vs. a US mounted patrol in A-stan was a new mandate for even more vehicles (i.e. targets)in future convoys, and if you didn't have enough vehicles on your base due to maintenance issues to support scheduled patrols, then cancel patrols: a horrible climate, not the US Army/USMC of the Battle of theBulge or Iwo Jima at all, a repudation of the warrior ethos (mission first, never accept defeat, never quit, never leave a fallen comrade).
McKiernan didn't get that, didn't get counterinsurgency (COIN), though he paid it a lot of lip service. Risk averse. Liked making rules. Liked briefings. Liked being briefed. Lusted after PowerPoint slides.(I once received a compliment via e-mail from ISAF/HQ that my slides on how to train a province police swat team were appreciated by "the Boss".. . the SLIDES were appreciated, mind you, no commentary or feedback on the swat team concept (first in the country for regular police), no questions about numbers of arrests or dead terrorists as a result of deploying the swat team.)
McKiernan liked painted rocks, haircuts and parade formations. Hated SF mindset; certainly hated the idea of raggamuffin National Guardsmen going native and living in villages unsupervised. A Cold War, ground maneuver, conventional, NATOcommander.
McChrystal, is a light infantry officer, a paratrooper, a Ranger, a Special Forces officer, a Delta Force-commandingAbu-Musab-al-Zarqawi-killer. Not only not risk averse: likes risk, enjoys risk, thinks what sets Soldiers and Marines apart from other,normal people is a desire to (1) kill bad guys and break their shit and (2) take risks. Will have little tolerance for NATO's bullshit. Will have little tolerance for Obama's bullshit.
Will let Soldiers and Marines do their job: kill bad guys and protect everyone else. Will send US special forces into Pakistan and Iran covertly to do their job. Prediction: US forces will begin to get off of the large bases across the theater (not just in those particular places where the local commander gets COIN) and takes risk. Lots of dismounted patrolling. Lots of living with the locals. Lots of money spread around at grass-roots levels. Less bombing from the air; better bombing from the air.
Yes, more US casualties. BUT: Lots of HUMINT. Lots, lots, lots more AQ andTB casualties. Being a jihadist, an opium trafficker, a corrupt police officer working both sides, etc. in A-stan will become a very dangerous thing; this climate will deter fence-sitters, opportunists and those who fight for the hell of it, separating the hard-core enemy from the common schlubs. Al Qaeda already knows McChrystal by name: he killed Zarqawi,he personally inspected the remains, and they fear him. When the enemy reacts with mortal fear, with terror, to your presence, when he knowsthat you are crazier than he is, then you have the initiative.
McKiernan never had the initiative. No one feared him, not even his own men. McKiernan was a nice guy. McChyrstal is not a nice guy.McChyrstal may be the William Tecumseh Sherman of this war. NATO will complain to Obama that this new commander is too aggressive. In fact you will start to hear that when the Senate confirmation and debate process begins to make McC a 4-star, based on allegations that McChrystal's Rangers were mean to terrorists in Iraq.
Obama will succeed as a wartime commander-in-chief if he resists his own apologetic intincts and tells the Germans and French and Italians and the UN and Doctors without Borders and Karzai to go to hell, suppresses his wildly-inflated self image and lets McChrystal fight the war, while supporting him and otherwise staying out of it. McChrystal will ask for another 30,000 troops, beyond the 21,00 going in now, and a redefinition of ISAF's role in the war.
If Obama supports him in these things, then we will win: in five years, Afghanistan will be secure, ont he road to development and good governance at every level, able to defend itself internally and externally, and a contributer to the war against global Islamist terrorism. If Obama does not supportMcChrystal, then we will loose, and the signpost for that will be a movement for us to withdraw in a Vietnam-style "peace with honor"mode,with Taliban accomodated and appeased with "a province or two" inPakistan. And then both Pakistan and Afghanistan will fall. And then we will really need McKiernan's tanks and bombing missions.
Obama and Gates will take and get credit for this bold move. They should not. Petraeus did this. When we were overseas, as soon as we heard that Petraeus was getting CENTCOM, having ourselves seen how badly the theater was being commanded, we knew that McKiernan's days were numbered, no matter who the President was. Look at the attached picture from last week. The SecDef is in a suit,nothing else. The Afghans are in regular clothing. McKiernan is wearing his body armor. I guarantee that the US officer on the rightwho was not wearing his body armor had his ass chewed out after this fornot showing "good leadership" and concern for "soldier welfare" by wearing all of his gear to this photo op with "the Boss."
I have to concur here, McKiernan didn't want to offend anyone, including the enemy. He handcuffed the most effective, professional military force on the planet, due to career driven risk aversion. GOOD RIDDANCE, now let's kill some bad guys.
27 February 2009
What Stratergies?
You can say what you want about our last president, and liberals and democrats surely have. In the final analysis, though, George W. Bush not only kept the nation free from terrorist attack, but he and his National Security team provided a consistent and coherent strategy. A strategy that not only guided the combined efforts of our military and civilian agencies, but signaled to our allies and our potential foes where and why we would commit our blood and treasure.
Strategy is a misunderstood word. Webster’s defines strategy, derived from the Greek word for generalship, as: The science and art of employing the political, economic, military and political forces of a nation to afford maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war. Put another way strategy is a broad plan to achieve a nation’s goals. It is not, however, merely a list of those goals.
The Obama Administration, or as they sometimes prefer, the Obama-Biden administration (wait didn’t Joe Biden criticize Cheney for dominating Bush’s team?), has been reasonably certain of victory since September. They won an election victory in early November. They have been governing for more than a month now, after being afforded one of the smoothest transitions in White House history. But after all that, here we are without a strategy.
That’s right folks. Obama-Biden, have quietly replaced Bush’s National Security Strategy with a set of Agenda’s. I guess we’re going to defeat terrorists by holding a series of meetings. This would of course be in keeping with the current administration’s preference for engagement over conflict. After all Nazi Germany was overthrown not because of the strategy developed by Roosevelt, Churchill and George Marshall, or through the tireless wartime sacrifices of millions of Allied soldiers, but because the world “came together.” At least that’s the Obama-Biden version of history.
Joe Biden predicted before taking office that America’s enemies, and potential enemies would test our new president. Like a busted clock, even Joe Biden, has to be right occasionally. Our enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Northwestern Pakistan continue continue their efforts against us, and surely wait to see if Obama will be weaker than Bush. Elsewhere leaders of such diverse nations as Iran, North Korea, Peru, China and certainly Russia look to see if the new administration will allow them to advance there interests over America’s and those of the world’s democracies.
In the face of all this Obama (and Biden) have chosen to scrap coherent strategy for a few lists consisting of goals and vague intent. This in spite of their prior unrelenting criticism of the Bush strategy. Compare the Bush’s strategy to Obama’s agenda’s.
From the introduction to the National Security Strategy 2008:
The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people…
The chapters that follow will focus on several essential tasks. The United States must: ...
...
• Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
• Work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
• Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with weapons of mass destruction (WMD);
• Expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
• Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power;
• Transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st century; and
• Engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization.
From Obama’s Agenda:
FOREIGN POLICY
President Obama and Vice President Biden will renew America’s security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership. The Obama-Biden foreign policy will end the war in Iraq responsibly, finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, secure nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and renew American diplomacy to support strong alliances and to seek a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That ties to this howler further in:
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists:
Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years.
Wow, sounds like they may be too busy to govern while they’re out rounding up uranium. Funny it was never what Bush and Cheney were going to do, it was what America was going to do. I hope the dynamic duo will let us know if they need a hand.
To be fair Obama-Biden do mention strategy in their Agenda’s and some of their goals are the same as Bush’s. In fact most of them are. But it’s worth asking: Why did we de-link our goals from our plans? Just to be different from the last administration?
When The president says:
...And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.
(Speech to Congress Feb. 24, 2009)
Well then I’m anxious to hear that strategy. How will you “not allow it Mr. President? Because somewhere is a terrorist feeling very safe, plotting our demise right now. With the US forces soon to be retreating from Iraq, with the Guantanomo detainees soon to be released, and any new terrorist detainees given trials, I wonder what we have in place that will “not allow it.” As far as I can see not only do we have no new strategy in place, some of us have no idea how to achieve our goals.
Strategy is a misunderstood word. Webster’s defines strategy, derived from the Greek word for generalship, as: The science and art of employing the political, economic, military and political forces of a nation to afford maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war. Put another way strategy is a broad plan to achieve a nation’s goals. It is not, however, merely a list of those goals.
The Obama Administration, or as they sometimes prefer, the Obama-Biden administration (wait didn’t Joe Biden criticize Cheney for dominating Bush’s team?), has been reasonably certain of victory since September. They won an election victory in early November. They have been governing for more than a month now, after being afforded one of the smoothest transitions in White House history. But after all that, here we are without a strategy.
That’s right folks. Obama-Biden, have quietly replaced Bush’s National Security Strategy with a set of Agenda’s. I guess we’re going to defeat terrorists by holding a series of meetings. This would of course be in keeping with the current administration’s preference for engagement over conflict. After all Nazi Germany was overthrown not because of the strategy developed by Roosevelt, Churchill and George Marshall, or through the tireless wartime sacrifices of millions of Allied soldiers, but because the world “came together.” At least that’s the Obama-Biden version of history.
Joe Biden predicted before taking office that America’s enemies, and potential enemies would test our new president. Like a busted clock, even Joe Biden, has to be right occasionally. Our enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Northwestern Pakistan continue continue their efforts against us, and surely wait to see if Obama will be weaker than Bush. Elsewhere leaders of such diverse nations as Iran, North Korea, Peru, China and certainly Russia look to see if the new administration will allow them to advance there interests over America’s and those of the world’s democracies.
In the face of all this Obama (and Biden) have chosen to scrap coherent strategy for a few lists consisting of goals and vague intent. This in spite of their prior unrelenting criticism of the Bush strategy. Compare the Bush’s strategy to Obama’s agenda’s.
From the introduction to the National Security Strategy 2008:
The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people…
The chapters that follow will focus on several essential tasks. The United States must: ...
...
• Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
• Work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
• Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with weapons of mass destruction (WMD);
• Expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
• Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power;
• Transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st century; and
• Engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization.
From Obama’s Agenda:
FOREIGN POLICY
President Obama and Vice President Biden will renew America’s security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership. The Obama-Biden foreign policy will end the war in Iraq responsibly, finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, secure nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and renew American diplomacy to support strong alliances and to seek a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That ties to this howler further in:
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists:
Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years.
Wow, sounds like they may be too busy to govern while they’re out rounding up uranium. Funny it was never what Bush and Cheney were going to do, it was what America was going to do. I hope the dynamic duo will let us know if they need a hand.
To be fair Obama-Biden do mention strategy in their Agenda’s and some of their goals are the same as Bush’s. In fact most of them are. But it’s worth asking: Why did we de-link our goals from our plans? Just to be different from the last administration?
When The president says:
...And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.
(Speech to Congress Feb. 24, 2009)
Well then I’m anxious to hear that strategy. How will you “not allow it Mr. President? Because somewhere is a terrorist feeling very safe, plotting our demise right now. With the US forces soon to be retreating from Iraq, with the Guantanomo detainees soon to be released, and any new terrorist detainees given trials, I wonder what we have in place that will “not allow it.” As far as I can see not only do we have no new strategy in place, some of us have no idea how to achieve our goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)