By now most Americans are aware that the former commanding general in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been replaced by former Central Command head, Gen. David Petraeus, the officer who brought us success against a wily insurgency in Iraq.
The crux of McChrystal’s demise – that he and his staff were grossly insubordinate and disrespectful of the civilian chain of command – is entirely accurate. As much as we might disagree with President Obama and his advisers in terms of military policy, the United States is not a third-world country and can’t be allowed to mimic one. Civilian leadership of the military must be preserved, without question, at all times, regardless of who is commander-in-chief and how badly we may disagree with his point of view and policies. If you disagree, imagine for a moment that we had a commander-in-chief you did support, and this same general and his staffers made the same remarks.
Having said that, regardless of whether Gen. McChrystal had made his sentiments public or not, the fact is there are problems with our strategy. First, we are currently operating under a grossly unrealistic timeframe here in Afghanistan, and that much, at least, is the president’s responsibility. For it is he who, on the advice of his national security and policy team, set the now widely quoted deadline of June 2011 to begin pulling out U.S. forces – a deadline I criticized at the time as wrongheaded and unrealistic, and one that is being used by our friends and enemies alike in a manner detrimental to our overall war strategy and the safety of our troops and those of NATO.
It was wrongheaded for a number of key reasons, not the least of which, I worried, is that it would cause Afghan President Hamid Karzai angst and make him nervous and unreliable, since he knows better than anyone his own army and national police are nowhere near ready to assume the role of U.S. and NATO troops in providing peace and security to this war-torn nation.
As pointed out by columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, the deadline – and the lack of substantial progress in preparing Afghan forces to assume our role – has forced Karzai to begin “working in secret back channels to cut a deal with the Taliban.”
Worse, Buchanan reports – quoting British news sources – Pakistan’s intelligence service, long supporters of the Taliban, may actually be fully cooperating with them now, which means our pseudo-allies in Islamabad are cooperating with the very forces that are killing our soldiers.
Clearly the Afghan theater of “overseas contingency operations” – the Obama administration’s politically correct name for the former “Global War on Terror” – is out of control, rudderless, and is being run by incompetent, inexperienced, disinterested parties in Washington, D.C.
In short, the Afghan theater of operations is shaping up to be our next Vietnam, even though once upon a time we had the Taliban and al Qaeda down, out and on the run. We are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and Gen. McChrystal’s “misguided” commentary is merely a symptom of this disease process; clearly he was frustrated by both the pace of the war and, most likely, the manner in which he was asked to fight it. Sure, the current COIN (counter-insurgency) strategy was authored by him, but we don’t know the parameters he was given when the Obama national security team asked him to devise a new Afghan strategy.
Further, there are no clear military objectives here – and if there are, no one seems to know them – other than to “avoid civilian casualties.” In terms of genuine war strategy, I am betting you can’t find 10 privates in the entire country who know what our military objectives are, let alone senior non-commissioned officers or regular officers. None of us really know what we are supposed to be accomplishing, with the exception of immediate goals: perform our missions, try to stay alive and kill the enemy if we happen to see him and we’re allowed to shoot. That’s not strategy; that’s aimlessness, which leads to futility, which will eventually lead to what I call “defeat by attrition” – we lose the initiative and, while the enemy can’t beat us head-to-head, they merely do enough to keep us from regaining the initiative, and they win – simply because we didn’t.
By any stretch, the resilient Taliban is following that tact. And so far, we don’t have a legitimate answer.
During my months here, in our sector, I’ve seen combat action go from largely encountering IEDs and occasional IDF (indirect fire) to a rise in IED incidents combined with complex ambushes. And while we were “warned” when we arrived in country that the spring and summer months meant an increase in enemy activity, we’re not sure it was supposed to be this bad. For an American public that is expecting results, I’m not sure that, overall, their military has delivered enough of them, though we’ve certainly tried.
That’s not the fault of the soldiers and commanders here. We are doing our level best to accomplish our mission and, even still, the overall objective of “winning the war” by being successful in our own right. But that’s not enough. We need a cohesive strategy – one that involves every unit, in every theater of operation that puts us closer to the overall singular goal of “victory.”
I’ve often wondered if President George W. Bush would have pulled out all of our forces at the conclusion of the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in, say, late 2003, there would have been no doubt we could have realistically declared victory and no one would have argued with us. But now, nine years into this war, with a resurgent enemy and no clear objectives, we can no longer pull out and say that, at least with a straight face.
But the alternative – staying for many more years – isn’t, in my view, a feasible strategy either. We have obviously chosen not to dedicate the proper amount of resources and adopt the proper strategy to win here. And nation-building, which is what we seem to be more interested in now, is not a viable strategy either. We would have to remain here another 100 years for that kind of strategy to work, if it even would by then (remember, Afghanistan’s people are stuck in the 7th century) and I’m betting the American people aren’t going to buy off on that.
If there is some other reason why our leaders want to remain in Afghanistan – and there could be – then they need to tell us that reason. Not just soldiers, but the American people as well, who support us back home with their tax dollars, patience and prayers. Otherwise, we all might as well start coming home with Gen. McChrystal.
-30-
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A Fine Mess
When you have normally rational, highly educated thinking people begin to speculate about the demise of our great nation, average Americans ought to start paying attention because it means something is terribly wrong.
Just this week conservative writer and scholar Thomas Sowell warned that the Obama regime has so regularly violated the letter and spirit of the Constitution that the likelihood of future administrations following suit – and expanding such violations – is dangerously great. He wrote of the American equivalents of the “useful idiots” referenced by Vladimir Lenin in the heady days when he was implementing authoritarian communism in the former Soviet Union.
After already commandeering the banking and automobile industries – in the name easing crises – Sowell worried that the recent White House shakedown of BP, in pressuring a private company to pony up $20 billion that some administration aide can distribute as he or she sees fit, was just a prelude to further abuses of power in the years ahead. Not that BP shouldn’t be held liable, Sowell argued, but he points out – correctly – that the Constitution grants no power to the federal government to confiscate a private company’s resources “without due process of law.” BP’s liabilities should be decided by a court, as well as how damages will be paid out – not some White House hack with an agenda.
A few months ago commentator, writer and former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan openly hypothesized that, under current governmental abuses, America could not survive. And fellow scholar and economist Walter Williams posited that our differences had grown so sharp and the political chasm so wide that perhaps it was time for American to peacefully divorce – with the political right and left dividing simply agreeing to disagree and parting ways.
Whether you agree politically with these men or not, none of them are prone to excitable hyperbole. They are very obviously concerned about the direction our country is headed and, indeed, whether or not our republic will even survive.
Whether we are battling ourselves over the recent Gulf oil spill and whether or not we should continue to exploit our own resources versus depending on other volatile nations for our energy needs; over gays in the military; over what to do about illegal immigration; over who is most at fault for the recent financial meltdown; over the massive new healthcare entitlement; over the widening budget deficit; over what does and does not constitute marriage; over God in our schools and in public; over the right to keep and bear arms anywhere and everywhere; or over half-dozen other issues – it is painfully obvious that our nation hasn’t been this divided, this politically crippled, and this financially strapped perhaps in our history – the notable exception being the time of the Civil War.
Who is at fault is less important than what we are to do about our issues and problems. Can they really be solved? It’s doubtful at this point.
Some say the art of politics centers around the art of compromise but too many of us feel we have compromised too much already and, frankly, we are tired of compromising – because each time we do, we also compromise our principles, our Constitution and our republic.
Let’s look at just the last two presidents, since they have elicited the sharpest responses from both sides of the political fence.
Backers of George W. Bush would deny this, but Obama supporters believe he was the most constitutionally compromising president in U.S. history. Obama supporters would deny this, but Bush supporters believe Obama fits that bill. The fact is both of them have had their extra-constitutional moments, but when you look at motivation – if there needs to be any justification for ignoring constitutional mandates – clearly the pendulum swings against Obama and his socialistic thinking and policies.
For instance, Bush may have authorized widespread wiretapping and less-than-savory interrogation techniques of terrorist suspects in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but a number of constitutional scholars have argued that as commander-in-chief and chief executive he had the power and right to do so during a time of war to protect the country from future threats. By any measure, Bush was successful in doing that.
Obama, by comparison, has overseen a government takeover of the automobile and financial industries; passage of the largest entitlement (healthcare) bill in U.S. history; the shakedown of a private industry; the appointment of dozens of unelected, unaccountable “czars” to oversee a variety of policy initiatives, outside of Congress’ – and the public’s – purview; and he is pushing new bills that will further erode private enterprise and industry in favor of more government control and oversight.
Obama’s vision is not that of a constitutional republic, clearly. So it’s with good reason that a number of our brightest thinkers increasingly view this administration as not only dangerous to the future of our freedom but the survival of the republic itself.
And yet it is possible Obama knows exactly what he is doing. For if the country remains in perpetual “crisis,” then he will portray himself as perpetually “doing what he must” in order to “maintain order” and “head off disaster,” even if – or especially if – it means trashing the Constitution.
Regardless of your political leanings, you can’t be supportive of any leader who wants to emulate the path Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler and, more recently, Hugo Chavez, took to power.
If you are, you are one of the “useful idiots” contributing to the fine mess we currently find ourselves in.
But there is a way out and it starts with getting educated, getting involved, and getting to the polls this November. Peaceful resolution of this conflict is much better than the alternative. And there’s no time to waste.
-30-
Just this week conservative writer and scholar Thomas Sowell warned that the Obama regime has so regularly violated the letter and spirit of the Constitution that the likelihood of future administrations following suit – and expanding such violations – is dangerously great. He wrote of the American equivalents of the “useful idiots” referenced by Vladimir Lenin in the heady days when he was implementing authoritarian communism in the former Soviet Union.
After already commandeering the banking and automobile industries – in the name easing crises – Sowell worried that the recent White House shakedown of BP, in pressuring a private company to pony up $20 billion that some administration aide can distribute as he or she sees fit, was just a prelude to further abuses of power in the years ahead. Not that BP shouldn’t be held liable, Sowell argued, but he points out – correctly – that the Constitution grants no power to the federal government to confiscate a private company’s resources “without due process of law.” BP’s liabilities should be decided by a court, as well as how damages will be paid out – not some White House hack with an agenda.
A few months ago commentator, writer and former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan openly hypothesized that, under current governmental abuses, America could not survive. And fellow scholar and economist Walter Williams posited that our differences had grown so sharp and the political chasm so wide that perhaps it was time for American to peacefully divorce – with the political right and left dividing simply agreeing to disagree and parting ways.
Whether you agree politically with these men or not, none of them are prone to excitable hyperbole. They are very obviously concerned about the direction our country is headed and, indeed, whether or not our republic will even survive.
Whether we are battling ourselves over the recent Gulf oil spill and whether or not we should continue to exploit our own resources versus depending on other volatile nations for our energy needs; over gays in the military; over what to do about illegal immigration; over who is most at fault for the recent financial meltdown; over the massive new healthcare entitlement; over the widening budget deficit; over what does and does not constitute marriage; over God in our schools and in public; over the right to keep and bear arms anywhere and everywhere; or over half-dozen other issues – it is painfully obvious that our nation hasn’t been this divided, this politically crippled, and this financially strapped perhaps in our history – the notable exception being the time of the Civil War.
Who is at fault is less important than what we are to do about our issues and problems. Can they really be solved? It’s doubtful at this point.
Some say the art of politics centers around the art of compromise but too many of us feel we have compromised too much already and, frankly, we are tired of compromising – because each time we do, we also compromise our principles, our Constitution and our republic.
Let’s look at just the last two presidents, since they have elicited the sharpest responses from both sides of the political fence.
Backers of George W. Bush would deny this, but Obama supporters believe he was the most constitutionally compromising president in U.S. history. Obama supporters would deny this, but Bush supporters believe Obama fits that bill. The fact is both of them have had their extra-constitutional moments, but when you look at motivation – if there needs to be any justification for ignoring constitutional mandates – clearly the pendulum swings against Obama and his socialistic thinking and policies.
For instance, Bush may have authorized widespread wiretapping and less-than-savory interrogation techniques of terrorist suspects in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but a number of constitutional scholars have argued that as commander-in-chief and chief executive he had the power and right to do so during a time of war to protect the country from future threats. By any measure, Bush was successful in doing that.
Obama, by comparison, has overseen a government takeover of the automobile and financial industries; passage of the largest entitlement (healthcare) bill in U.S. history; the shakedown of a private industry; the appointment of dozens of unelected, unaccountable “czars” to oversee a variety of policy initiatives, outside of Congress’ – and the public’s – purview; and he is pushing new bills that will further erode private enterprise and industry in favor of more government control and oversight.
Obama’s vision is not that of a constitutional republic, clearly. So it’s with good reason that a number of our brightest thinkers increasingly view this administration as not only dangerous to the future of our freedom but the survival of the republic itself.
And yet it is possible Obama knows exactly what he is doing. For if the country remains in perpetual “crisis,” then he will portray himself as perpetually “doing what he must” in order to “maintain order” and “head off disaster,” even if – or especially if – it means trashing the Constitution.
Regardless of your political leanings, you can’t be supportive of any leader who wants to emulate the path Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler and, more recently, Hugo Chavez, took to power.
If you are, you are one of the “useful idiots” contributing to the fine mess we currently find ourselves in.
But there is a way out and it starts with getting educated, getting involved, and getting to the polls this November. Peaceful resolution of this conflict is much better than the alternative. And there’s no time to waste.
-30-
Monday, June 21, 2010
‘Two-Father’ Homes Aren’t Good for Children
All societies evolve, but when we have “evolved” to the point where we can no longer recognize or accept reality – because of some arbitrary political and societal rules imposed upon us by an out-of-touch class of elitists – can our decline and fall be much further behind?
Over the weekend President Barack Obama, already identified in many circles as perhaps the most left-wing of all our presidents, recognized Father’s Day during his Saturday morning radio and Internet address. In doing so he praised equally all sorts of fatherhood – the traditional father-and-mother model; the single-father model; guardianship-style fatherhood; and, finally, “two-father” homes.
By praising “two father” homes on Father’s Day, Obama was, of course, voicing approval for, and agreement with, children being raised by homosexual partners – a position not supported by sound scientific research, as well as plain old common sense.
Obama’s galling comparison notwithstanding, some fathers in a mom-and-dad household are far from perfect – I should know because I was one of the less than perfect. And not all mother-and-father households are the picture of wholesome goodness. But overall, they are much better suited to raising balanced, well-adjusted kids than are “two father” or, for that matter, two-mother, homes.
And that doesn’t even take into account the sinful nature of homosexuality, which is another societal issue in and of itself. But the fact is the order of living things on this planet is prefaced on male-female procreation and interaction; male-male and female-female interaction is simply outside the norm of behavior, human and otherwise, because it isn’t conducive to survival of the species.
And since it’s not the norm, it only follows that those forcefully exposed to it – like children of two-daddy homes – are subjected to a range of mental and behavioral issues they otherwise wouldn’t have to, and shouldn’t have to, deal with. In fact, homosexual couples who subject children to their lifestyles because they think it’s their right to do so are being incredibly selfish; children exist in a social environment that is tough and unforgiving enough. Making them do so as children of homosexual parents, in a world where most kids have mommies and daddies, is cruel – not “enlightened” or “progressive.”
Yet here is our president not only recognizing the phenomenon of homosexual households with children but actually praising them, as if there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles. There is ideology and there is reality, and seldom the two meet. And truth is truth; it never changes, regardless of how much certain self-righteous factions wish it would.
Obama’s might be the politically correct position, as it were, but in the real world it is the wrong position. Worse, if we as a people can’t recognize this and other simple and obvious truths because we’re too afraid of what self-anointed people think of us, then we are on an unsustainable path as a society.
If consenting adults want to choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, fine – but let’s leave the kids out of the equation.
30-
Over the weekend President Barack Obama, already identified in many circles as perhaps the most left-wing of all our presidents, recognized Father’s Day during his Saturday morning radio and Internet address. In doing so he praised equally all sorts of fatherhood – the traditional father-and-mother model; the single-father model; guardianship-style fatherhood; and, finally, “two-father” homes.
By praising “two father” homes on Father’s Day, Obama was, of course, voicing approval for, and agreement with, children being raised by homosexual partners – a position not supported by sound scientific research, as well as plain old common sense.
Obama’s galling comparison notwithstanding, some fathers in a mom-and-dad household are far from perfect – I should know because I was one of the less than perfect. And not all mother-and-father households are the picture of wholesome goodness. But overall, they are much better suited to raising balanced, well-adjusted kids than are “two father” or, for that matter, two-mother, homes.
And that doesn’t even take into account the sinful nature of homosexuality, which is another societal issue in and of itself. But the fact is the order of living things on this planet is prefaced on male-female procreation and interaction; male-male and female-female interaction is simply outside the norm of behavior, human and otherwise, because it isn’t conducive to survival of the species.
And since it’s not the norm, it only follows that those forcefully exposed to it – like children of two-daddy homes – are subjected to a range of mental and behavioral issues they otherwise wouldn’t have to, and shouldn’t have to, deal with. In fact, homosexual couples who subject children to their lifestyles because they think it’s their right to do so are being incredibly selfish; children exist in a social environment that is tough and unforgiving enough. Making them do so as children of homosexual parents, in a world where most kids have mommies and daddies, is cruel – not “enlightened” or “progressive.”
Yet here is our president not only recognizing the phenomenon of homosexual households with children but actually praising them, as if there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles. There is ideology and there is reality, and seldom the two meet. And truth is truth; it never changes, regardless of how much certain self-righteous factions wish it would.
Obama’s might be the politically correct position, as it were, but in the real world it is the wrong position. Worse, if we as a people can’t recognize this and other simple and obvious truths because we’re too afraid of what self-anointed people think of us, then we are on an unsustainable path as a society.
If consenting adults want to choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, fine – but let’s leave the kids out of the equation.
30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
