Don’t punish the troops for political failure
October 19, 2009
Afghanistan has been a failed state for my entire lifetime. They have no history of democracy and their current leadership was installed by our government. From all accounts the most recent election was evidently a massive failure – fraught with fraud and malfeasance. Obama and his team are using the failure to put any military decision on hold until the government has legitimacy. All the while Obama’s generals are begging for more troops. The generals have told Obama that he can’t wait to decide. If we do the war will be lost. My opinion is that we should substantially reduce our troops strength and focus on a ’skynet’ approach. The worst option is no decision at all. Leaving our troops in theater without the support they need is unconscionable. Despite that fact, Rahm Emanuel explained that any troop decision would have to wait until the Afghans could be an effective partner. Either give them the tools to win or let them get out – don’t defer the decision until the Afghans get their sh*t together. They never will.
On a side note, my eight year old was listening to NPR with me last week during a report on the war in Afghanistan and suggested that the war would be over when the Taliban runs out of IEDs. Out of the mouths of babes. The sad part is that he is right, but what he couldn’t understand was that they will never run out of IEDs. I tried to explain that they would not run out because they could always buy more; Ethan didn’t why people would sell them explosives if they knew they were going to use them to kill people.
Obama to be ousted in bloodless coup? Really?
September 30, 2009
The media is all a flutter with reports that the military may be planning to oust Obama. John Perry has the lead story titled, “Obama risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention“. Gore Vidal chimed in suggesting “We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US“. Okay, this must be just a couple of kooks, right? Lots of folks are actually discussing the possibility including Rick Moran, Logan Murphy, Kathy Kattenburg, Darren Hutchinson, Will Bunch, Alan Colmes, John Marshall, Ed Morrissey, The Washington Monthly and the Times of London. First, good thing I still have my gun (do you have yours?). Second, I think it is offensive to make the charge that our military leaders would consider the possibility of ousting Obama. There are real men standing in those uniforms – men with honor and courage – to suggest they would commit treason is offensive.
So who would take over for Obama? Admiral Michael Mullen is currently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen graduated high school from Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, CA and attended the United States Naval Academy. He has served our country his entire adult life. Want to make a bet as to whether or not Admiral Mullen will depose Obama? I would take your action that he wouldn’t.
So what about General James Cartwright, he is a marine and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – maybe he would be the one to depose Obama. General Cartwright graduated West High School in Illinois and attended the University of Iowa where he studied medicine. Cartwright is a naval aviator and has served in the military his entire adult life. Do you like him better for traitor than Mullen? Are you offended yet – I am sure he is.
So what is all the chatter REALLY about? The real issue is that the Left is trying to scare the American people – to further divide us. Conservatives have ZERO interest in a military dictatorship.
Good thing we canceled the missile shield
September 25, 2009
Just eight days ago Obama announced that we were not going to build the missile defense shield. The ground based system was to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama made the decision to cancel the missile shield after reviewing a report suggesting Iran was five years behind on their nuclear missile program. The May 2009 report suggested that Iran’s intercontinental missile capability would be live by 2020, instead of the 2015 the last National Intelligence Estimate reported. When I read the reasoning I thought to myself, “I hope they aren’t wrong.”
This morning we learned that Iran began construction on a secret underground nuclear fuel plant five years ago. The facility is now largely completed and will begin generating nuclear fuel early next year. I guess the NIE report might be a little off. What if Iran is capable of launching an intercontinental missile before 2015? I guess the good news is that our original missile shield wouldn’t have been ready anyway. The bad news is that we won’t be ready until at least 2020 – and the planned shield is a ‘theater shield’ for Europe. The original shield was designed to protect Europe AND the United States. Note in the image below the red area originating in Iran – the flight path of any missile would fly directly over Poland or the Czech Republic – evidently location is important when intercepting nuclear missiles.
So what will Obama do? Will he call the Polish or Czech representatives and ask them if we can go ahead with the shield? I guess that is what he should do, but I suspect he won’t. Iran promises their secret nuclear program is for peaceful medical and energy purposes. Maybe we should just believe them. What do you think?
Give Obama a pass on Afghanistan
September 23, 2009
Obama and many on the Left suggested the real fight was in Afghanistan, while Iraq was an unnecessary distraction. Without rehashing that old argument it is important to note that Obama is now reconsidering his original position, having to decide whether or not the ‘real fight’ in Afghanistan is worth the price. My opinion is that a strategy shift is necessary. The Soviets spent a decade fighting in Afghanistan – a war that cost the lives of more than 14,000 Soviet soldiers and more than 1,000,000 Afghans. The only way to end a war in Afghanistan is to kill everyone – this sort of genocide is impossible to justify. We need a new plan and everyone should give Obama a pass as he sorts through the various options.
I am all for taking the fight to our enemies. I don’t mind crushing the Taliban day after day, but why make the fight fair? Or as John Lyly wrote in 1578, “The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war.” Our control of the skies over Afghanistan is incontrovertible. Our UAVs allow our service people to sit in air conditioned bunkers safe inside of Georgia and Nevada while they kill the enemy. This manned and unmanned air superiority combined with small, nimble fighters (Seals, Marines, Rangers) allows us to kill the enemy while risking very few American lives. The truth is we can’t stop the Taliban unless we kill every Afghani citizen – instead our only option is to contain them. We don’t need thousands of additional troops – we need fewer troops and more UAVs. What do the Taliban have to say? Their leaders say, “The more troops they send, the more targets we have“. The Taliban can’t win if they can’t kill us. If we aren’t there they can’t kill us and as a result they can’t win.
We keep fighting our enemies as if they are a single, monolithic entity. The Taliban isn’t a single entity – but a bunch of very small, but determined fighters. We don’t need a huge force to counter them – instead we need a VERY small force to constantly harrass them. Daniel Korski has an interesting article in the Guardian that explores the fallacies we embraced during the cold war compared with the fallacies of the war we are fighting with the Taliban. At the end of the day if we convince the Taliban that there is no price to be paid by Americans they may eventually tire of dying for nothing. If we keep supplying them with fresh American troops to kill they will NEVER give up.
Where you stand on a issue isn’t as important. . .
September 22, 2009
…as how you would go about solving the issue. My friends on the Right and Left have no problem articulating their positions on the various issues of the day, but they rarely have the same level fluency when it comes to outlining their own plan. Most people take the time to decide which side of an issue they will take, but few actually take the time to really think through how they would propose to solve the issue. I think the process of really dissecting the issue and coming up with a plan to resolve it from your own point of view and based on your own value system is VERY important. At the end of the day you really start to understand where you fit in the political spectrum when you actually start to outline solutions. For example, I have outlined my position and plans for the various issues facing our nation and many of my friends on the Left agree with my solutions. I think this is the way forward for America – for rational people to sit down and come up with reasonable solutions. Why not sit down and outline your ideas and then share them? I spent some time outlining my various plans and thoughts, tell me what you think.
- My plan for health care reform
- My plan for immigration reform
- My plan for tax reform
- My plan for the environment and energy
- My thoughts on the right to keep and bear arms
- My thoughts on capital punishment
- My thoughts on church and state
What this day means . . .
September 11, 2009
Michelle Malkin reminds us,
“This is not a day for fighting climate change or changing light bulbs or hugging trees or cheerleading expansions of government national service programs. This is a day to honor innocent men, women, and children slaughtered by evil Islamic jihadists — and to resolve that “Never again” remains America’s operational stance, not an empty slogan. What will you remember? What will you resolve?”
My Resolution:
White House Lying About Iranian Nukes?
September 9, 2009
I seriously doubt it, but it does make a good title. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, is seriously concerned that Iran has the materials necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Today the administration, along with the IAEA, suggested, “Iran is now either very near or in possession already of sufficient low-enriched uranium to provide a nuclear weapon.”
Two questions: a) where are all the stories from the Washington Post and New York Times about the administration using these reports as an excuse to go to war with Iran? and b) what is Obama going to do about it. Sadly the answer to both questions are obvious. First, the media is in the tank for Obama (see Van Jones) and second, just as the Bush administration failed to deal with the Iranian problem – Obama will fail to deal with it as well. At the end of the day, who knows, Iran might be a good steward of nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis haven’t blown anyone up and they are a little crazy. Maybe the Iranians will surprise us all.
George Will Reads my Blog?
August 31, 2009
On August 16th I wrote a post titled, “Fight on our terms, not theirs…” where I argue that we need a new strategy for Afghanistan. George Will’s strategy and mine seem very similar. In a story scheduled for publication later this week Will suggests,
“[F]orces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters,”
Wow. That was my idea. To be honest, it is the ONLY logical option for us at this point. It isn’t surprising George Will would come to the same conclusion – it is only surprising that our leaders haven’t.
Fight on our terms, not theirs. . .
August 16, 2009
I am all for taking the fight to our enemies. I don’t mind crushing the Taliban day after day, but why make the fight fair? Or as John Lyly wrote in 1578, “The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war.” Our control of the skies over Afghanistan is incontrovertible. Our UAVs allow our service people to sit in air conditioned bunkers safe inside of Georgia and Nevada while they kill the enemy. This manned and unmanned air superiority combined with small, nimble fighters (Seals, Marines, Rangers) allows us to kill the enemy while risking very few American lives. The truth is we can’t stop the Taliban unless we kill every Afghani citizen – instead our only option is to contain them. We don’t need thousands of additional troops – we need fewer troops and more UAVs. Of course, I am not in charge so we are sending thousands of additional ground troops to fight the Taliban. What do the Taliban have to say? Their leaders say, “The more troops they send, the more targets we have“. The Taliban can’t win if they can’t kill us. If we aren’t there they can’t kill us and as a result they can’t win.
We keep fighting our enemies as if they are a single, monolithic entity. The Taliban isn’t a single entity – but a bunch of very small, but determined fighters. We don’t need a huge force to counter them – instead we need a VERY small force to constantly harrass them. Daniel Korski has an interesting article in the Guardian that explores the fallacies we embraced during the cold war compared with the fallacies of the war we are fighting with the Taliban. At the end of the day if we convince the Taliban that there is no price to be paid by Americans they may eventually tire of dying for nothing. If we keep supplying them with fresh American troops to kill they will NEVER give up.
