Middle East

Last year the United States assisted the Libyans and Egyptians in disposing of their dictators in an effort to bring Democracy to the region. Yesterday the citizens of those two countries showed us thanks by storming our embassies and killing an ambassador and three others. The mob also tore down the United States flag and burned it in protest. In Libya they replaced the burnt American flag with a Islamic banner too.

For over a decade we have been dealing with the tragic 9/11 events and we used that as a rally cry to take the fight to those responsible. We still have troops in Afghanistan - which are being killed nearly every day by "friendly" Afghans - and a presence in Iraq as well. We currently are using predator drones to assist those fighting for "freedom" in Syria with the stark possibility that US military troops are on the ground as well.

The events at the two embassies and the continual attacks on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan should be sign enough to any administration that we no longer need to have a presence of any kind in the region.Colonial times are over and our nation building of the late 70's and early 80's was a losing proposition as well. Why in the 21st Century do we continue to allow our President and Congress to act in such an Imperial manner?

The United States has a partner in the region, a reliable partner, in Israel. Leverage that partnership and the build on the rickety one with Saudi Arabia to ensure stability in the region. We no longer need to be the police of the world; especially when the reward is the death of our ambassador's and our troops.

Accountability?

Recently I engaged into an interesting topic with a close friend of mine. We were discussing various political topics which included the "Buffet Rule", entitlements, health care and other topics. During our conversation we touched on war. The question my friend offered up is, and I paraphrase, why is it that in war today that the country doesn't sacrifice as it was expected when the United States entered in World War II?

 It is a great question. So we brainstormed on why there isn't the level of sacrifice displayed now with two wars going on as there was during World War II. The reason for our resurgence into Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden - well we have him yet we have troops still there and in Iraq. While I acknowledge it is not as easy as flipping the light switch to pull out, it should be noted that we still have not. True a time table exists for Iraq. Throughout our conversation my friend pondered if we should feel guilty for not making sacrifices as brave men and women fight in a land with no clear objective. Granted one could argue that the objective is to root out Al Queada.

 I offered up a theory as to why American's may not feel guilty or have the sense of sacrifice that has allowed Iraq and Afghanistan to drag on and on and on. That theory is that American's have become so reliant on the Federal Government that if our elected officials say its good to stay then it must be so. When our ancestors lived through their Great Depression they did something about it. They didn't look for the government to provide them a paycheck for 99 months or pay for the health care. We have become so reliant on the Federal Government that we have lost our way as Americans. Freedoms have been slowly eroded away for various reason - National Security, general health and welfare - and instead of America standing up to our elected officials, we cower and wait for our next entitlement.

 After Sen. Obama won the Presidency a sector of society started to wake up to the fact that our deficits are too large, our spending is out of control and we have lost a number of person freedoms. Freedoms that our Founding Fathers agreed to, in the end, belonged at the State level. Instead of American's embracing this movement - Tea Party or the Coffee Party - the Right worked hard to CO-OP them while the Left looked to demonize them. The same can be said of the Occupy (fill in the blank) group. The Left is working to back them while the Right is looking to point out their flaws. We have lost the ability to be accountable for ourselves, our town, our community, our county, our state and our Federal Government. While a small part of society gives the ultimate sacrifice in the Middle East, the rest of us go about our lives looking for the next entitlement program. We don't demand that our Commander in Chief go before Congress to engage our country in armed conflict nor do we demand our Congress to hold said Commander in Chief in contempt for doing so. Instead both parties play their political theater and grand stand the soupdujour in an effort to get re-elected.

 Damn straight we should feel guilty. Trouble is that we allow this to continue, we allow our elected officials to dictate to us how it is we are to live and which freedoms we get to enjoy. Be accountable, hold others accountable. Call, write, visit your elected officials at every level of government and demand accounability. America is living on borrowed time and money - time has come for all of us to make sacrifice and demand our society to do so as well.

Wikileaks: Investigative Journalism or “Irresponsible” Journalism?

A newspaper called Wikileaks is at the center of controversy today as it will release 92,000 "secret" documents on the Afghanistan war. The White House is saying the release of information is irresponsible and is a threat to security of our forces in the region. "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," National Security Adviser James Jones said in a White House statement (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-25/u-s-denounces-publication-of-classified-documents-on-war-in-afghanistan.html). Wikileaks provided the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel access to these documents several weeks ago. All three news outlets are stating that the documents bring to light certain elements of the 9-year war but "no smoking gun" exists.

In light of last week's knee jerk reaction by the White House and the NAACP and the fact that wiki is part of this groups name begs the question of the legitimacy of their documents or how they obtained them. To Wikileaks credit they did allow other organizations, see above, to vet the information. The article "CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident: 'Something's Going to Have to be done'" from newsbusters.org highlighted the suggestion that a "gatekeeper" is required on the internet because bloggers can post items anonymously without any accountability. Everyone knows, or at least should know, that anyone can post anything in the blogosphere and one should do their due diligence to vet the information before taking it as gospel. Perhaps if organizations like CNN did their journalistic job and got back to investigative reporting the deceptions of the blogosphere would never see the light of day.

Then again, without the internet press, like Wikileaks, would the truth about the Afghanistan War come to light? Don't we, as readers of things on internet, need to ensure the information we are reading is accurate? Or are we suppose to once again turn to the government to tell us which information is true and which are not? I fear a society that relies so heavily on the government to vet the information.

Matthews Marginalized West Point Cadet’s after Obama’s Speech

After President Obama spoke to United States Troops at West Point, Chris Matthews, MSNBC's host of the Chris Matthews show, said afterwards about the cadets in attendance, "It seems like in this case there isn't a lot of excitement. I watched those cadets they were young kids, men and women, who are committed to serving their country professionally it must be said as officers. I didn't see much excitement but among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that President chose to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp to make his case today." Did I miss something? Tell me why, Mr. Matthews, a group of people who have been told there are murders by the Democrat party and seen their General in the Afghan arena treated like a leper during the discussions.

Those cadets that lacked the "excitement" and held "resentment or skepticism" of the plan being laid out by President Obama may be justified after the manner Obama's administration has treated the military community during the Presidential campaign and after coming into office. If I were a cadet in the crowd my ethusiasm would be diminished too as my Commander-in-Chief telegraphed the plan of battle. Matthews attempted damage control later in the night on his show by saying, "I used the wrong words and worst than that I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize." The mistake was referencing our cadets at West Point the "enemy camp" for President Obama for which your apology rings hollow.

Matthews went onto say, "As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image." The one thing Matthews has been successful at is prove that a) he is not a news source, b) lacks original thought, and c) lost his tingling feeling. Instead of focusing his assessment on the content of Obama's speech, Matthews focused on the reaction by the crowd. Why? Perhaps the crowd's reaction was accurate reflection of the plan being laid out.

We all agree that an open-ended war is not an answer nor will it reverse the economic trend being experienced. At the same time, what fool gets before a national audience and tells the world the battle plan? Before anyone gets to crazy, I understand that he did not expose the tactical plan. Rather he telegraphed to the Taliban and other insurgeants that after to 30,000 troops hit the ground you will have just 18 short months to hunker down until we are gone. Then after that, the country is yours. The cadets in the room were not alone in their disappointment with President Obama, the international community is not gushing over the revealing of the plan either.

"Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric – and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught," wrote Gabor Steingart in his piece "Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic" published in Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html#ref=nlint). United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, "I call on all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy. Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign" (http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE5B133L20091202). Sir Jock Stirrup, UK's Chief of the Defence Staff, said, "There's absolutely nothing wrong with having targets and milestones against which we can measure progress and against which to be frank we can force the pace" (www.telegraph.co.uk). But Sir Stirrup also warned "that a British withdrawal in earnest could not begin until 2014" (www.telegraph.co.uk).

If our most powerful ally is looking for 2014 and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is saying July 2011 – who is right? Also, perhaps the reason why the cadets and senior officers at West Point held their perceived point of view is due to their military training and understanding of the situation. Maybe the media and pundits, like Chris Matthews, should remove their Obama-colored glasses and see the speech and plan from the military perspective.

Obama’s delay in Afghanistan kills Americans.

During the Presidential campaign, Sen. Obama lambasted the Bush Administration and painted McCain as Bush 2.0 in regards to the war in Iraq. Part of the disdain was due to a lack of an exit plan in Iraq by the Bush administration. Prior to leaving office President Bush did set an 18-month timetable that was acceptable by both the Generals on the ground and the new Iraqi government. President Obama is keeping the plan intact rather than following up with his campaign promise to get combat troops out of Iraq by the end of his first year. In addition to his promise to draw down troops was the switch in focus on the "War on terror". That switch in focus was to take place in Afghanistan.

America enters the final week of October without a clear plan of action for Afghanistan. One of the concerns many had with Sen. Obama was his lack of foreign policy experience. President Obama has met with Gen. McChrystal only twice who has asked for an additional 40,000 troops. During a speech given to troops in Jacksonville, Fla., the president said, "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt." While the president crafts a strategy we continue to see more and more troops being killed. According to icasualties.org 267 U.S. troops have been killed thus far this year compared to 155 being killed all of last year in Afghanistan.

It has been nearly 10 months since Obama has taken office. Granted some data and situations have changed on the ground but in the grand scheme of things little has changed. It appears that an increase in troops may part of the answer with Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) stating that he'd "support a decision by President Obama to 'send some additional troops' provided improvements are made in Afghan troop training and government, and civilian aid efforts are increased" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-afghan27-2009oct27,0,7820767.story). Yet, Sen. Kerry believes that 20,000 troops would be enough and not the 40,000 that Gen. McChrystal is looking for.

Perhaps a bold move in Afghanistan is required in light of the resignation of United State Senior Civilian Representative Matthew Hoh. Hoh said his decision was not because of any political ideology; rather on the current and potential strategies. Hoh said, "I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end" (http://www.examiner.com/x-4454-Chicago-Geopolitics-Examiner~y2009m10d28-US-diplomat-resigns-over-Afghan-war-and-puts-Obama-on-hot-seat). Mr. Hoh raises a great question in regards to our involvement in a war that has raged for over 8 years; is U.S. presence really having the desired effects.

"I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul," stated Hoh. There is a run-off election going on in Afghanistan because objections were raised over the previous election results. The bumper crop in Afghanistan is opium. According to the United Nations, the market for "Afghan opium, heroin or morphine is about $65 billion per year" (http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/10/opium-afghanistans-other-big-problem.html). These funds create a cash cow for the drug lords and terror networks in Afghanistan. It also employees the peasants, the very peasants that NATO is claiming to "liberate". Now why would these peasants want to be liberated if that means their job will go away as well?

President Obama has been given the opportunity to make a drastic change in the drug war and the war on terror. Especially in light of a report that is linking Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President, to the opium trade and the Central Intelligence Agency payroll. For decades Americans have seen taxpayer dollars being poured down the abyss known as the war on drugs. It is time for a drastic change. The plan is twofold.

First, President Obama needs to stand up and establish a plan – today – that will remove troop presence in Afghanistan within the next six months. Some will argue that pulling out of Afghanistan will only increase the fervor of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as it will be the second "Super Power" they have defeated. Allow them to think this as part two of the plan will greatly decrease their cash cow to fund their recruitment, training, and funding in carrying out attacks on Western targets.

Second, legalize illegal drugs. It is time for Americans to accept that drug use exists and to concede the war on drugs. The legalization of the drug market will have many benefits to American society. The benefits are:

1. Remove a cash cow from terror networks, street gangs and drug cartels.
   
2. Regulate the purity to reduce the risk of "hot" doses.
   
3. A revenue strain for the government through taxation along the lines of alcohol and tobacco.
   
4. Increase treatment of illicit drug users by removing the stigma.
   
5. Reduce prison populations thus saving taxpayer's money.
   

I understand that this is not a popular decision but neither is watching billions of dollars being wasted on the drug war. President Obama needs to act now on Afghanistan before more of our troops die needlessly. We need change we can believe in. Why not remove the troops while legalizing illicit drugs?

Afghan pullout will boost morale of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban

For the past few decades United States military actions around the globe have been seen as imperialistic. During that same time frame, I wondered why it is our role as Americans to defend those in the world from tyranny. We have assisted, overtly and covertly, countries to stay off an aggressor or overthrow a dictator. Now we fight an enemy that holds no allegiance but to a book of words. With no country to affiliate Al-Qaeda or the Taliban with it makes engaging them difficult as well as a legal nightmare at home. President Obama promised to close Gitmo by year end and looks to be inching closer to accomplishing that. While the focus has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal, U.S. Commander in the region, has hit a road block with the Obama Administration. In fact, Gen. McChrystal has limited, only two meetings, with the president on the issue of Afghanistan.

Gen. McChrystal seeks additional troops in the region to take the fight to the Taliban. In an unprecedented move General Sir David Richards, head of the British Army, said, "If Al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up" (Telegraph.uk.com). Gen. Richards added, "Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and NATO, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxication effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

Gen. McChrystal has asked President Obama for 30,000 to 40,000 additional troops. Yet, President Obama wants to take a "wait and see" approach to Afghanistan. I recall back when the first Gulf War took place and troops were sent without the proper gear and armor. Why if the General on the ground is asking for more troops does the president balk at the idea? Vice President Biden has stated that NATO should reduce troop numbers and concentrate on a counter-terrorist approach of using Special Forces; an approach the Gen. Richards believes will be a failure. In listening the Gen. Richards words and reading his interview it is the first time in recent memory that another NATO member has voiced concern of this magnitude.

Imagine if NATO fails in Afghanistan. Imagine the ego boast it will give, as Gen. Richards points out, to the militant Islam nation. Not only have they defeated NATO but not too long ago they embarrassed, with the help of anti-aircraft missiles from the United States, Russia. With Russia, US, Britain, and NATO all groups the Taliban have conquered in their region, can you imagine the reaction and recruitment abilities of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban? The recruitment and Western hatred will multiply more than any transgressions the CIA may have undertaken with water boarding or other torture methods.

In the mean time our Commander-in-Chief Obama will use this week to determine what is the best approach with two meetings with his war council. The one thing I cannot understand is why Gen. McChrystal is not part of the war council. While we wait, 8 more Americans died yesterday when Taliban insurgents attacked a lightly manned outpost near the border of Pakistan. According to an article in L.A. Times, 8 Americans die in fierce Afghan battle, the two outposts attacked had "recently received word that they soon would be pulling out" to defend higher populated areas.

President Obama is in a difficult situation as the Democrat base is pushing for a complete withdrawal of the Afghanistan while Gen. McChrystal, and others, are pushing for more troops and resources to finish the battle. The Afghan War is now Obama's War. During the Presidential campaign, Sen. Obama said he'd pull out of Iraq and bring home the troops while taking the fight to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Many missed this impossibility and recognizing the shell game Sen. Obama was playing. A recent CBS/New York Times poll said that 47% of the people approved of the War in Afghanistan while 42% oppose it.

The poll also revealed that 55% of Democrats oppose the war. As President Obama continues his push for Health Care reform it will be intriguing to see where he puts his political capital. No matter which course President Obama decides on, I hope it is done quickly so events like yesterday do not continue. Leaving our troops in undermanned outpost is suicidal and their blood is on Obama's hands.

Iacocca's words still applicable to Obama's adminstration.

In his book, Where Have all the Leaders Gone? Lee Iacocca writes :

“Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bit: Throw the bums out!

You might think I’m getting senile, that I’ve gone off my rocker and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking the hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean. I’ve had enough. How about you?”

Lee Iacocca was writing about the Bush administration. The interesting point by the excerpt above is that much of what Mr. Iacocca writes is applicable to Obama administration as well. Media is still waving their pom-poms, President Obama is taking deficits to new heights (just hit $1T this morning), we have move our focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we are still leading corporate crooks off in handcuffs.

A wave of nationalization is flowing across the United States. It started with our financial industry where regulations put in place prior to the meltdown were not enforced; rather Congress asked, begged, and strong armed the financial markets to offer mortgages to those who could not afford them. Now those same “leaders” in Congress are crying foul. Leadership, as Iacocca mentions, is failing us.

President Obama nationalized the auto industry by taking controlling interest in GM. The “Leadership” forced GM in to bankruptcy while Michigan is experiencing unemployment rate at 14.1% and expected to go higher as GM and Chrysler emerge from bankruptcy. Now the Auto Czar, Steven Rattner, is stepping down amid a kickback scandal; yet the Obama administration gives Rattner a “vote of confidence”. I agree with Iacocca in his question and outrage at the lack of “leadership” in both public and private sectors.

America has been a country of innovators. That aspect of America is being threatened by Obama administration. No business is too big to fail!!! Markets still exist for the products of companies that are labeled “too big to fail” and smaller companies will pick up the pieces once the larger ones fail. The nationalization of the financial and automotive markets will hamper growth in both industries. The next move is for Obama to nationalize the Health Care industry through offering a public option.

A public option is not leadership in action. It’s an enabling program. To bring leadership into the Health Care system, do it through regulation to guide the course. Many options are on the board, some of which I have stated in a previous blog, but Obama is sticking to the public option as the savior for the Health Care industry. The public option will not advance the Health Care industry; rather it will stagnate it. The public option is not one that will spur innovation that Iacocca said lacked back in 2007.

Now I did not agree with all of actions taken under the Bush administration and the “Change” candidate is not doing much more than Bush that excites me either. Yes, the Bush administration stripped away freedoms through the guise of protecting America post 9-11 but Obama is going to bankrupt America before he can nationalize it. Either aspect, bankruptcy or nationalization, are not an America I want to see take place.

War against Islam not true, then why do we hunt the terrorists?

President Obama stated in Anakra, Turkey that the United States “is not and never will be at war with Islam.” The number one terrorist is still Osama Bin Laden who, unless recently converted, is a Muslim. Now Bin Laden does preach and practice very strict Islam, one that believes there is no other “God” then Muhammad. This Muhammad dictates that all infidels must kneel before or perish. By definition the infidel is anything non-believer. The reason President Obama is ramping up troops, we won’t call it a surge because we know those don’t work, in Afghanistan to go after Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida belief system is driven by a strict interpretation of Islam.

The United States does not have a state recognized religion. Yet, the common belief is that Christianity is the unofficial religion of the United States. Since the birth of Christianity, a war has been waged between Islam and Christianity. The fact that one of President Obama’s plans in the Middle East is the eradication of terrorist safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is an extension of the war on Islam.

For President Obama to state that the United States is “not and never will be at war with Islam” slaps every man, woman, and child who lost a loved one in the attack on 9/11. We are at war with Islam. Right now we are focused on the Opus Dei wing of Islam. Wake up America and realize the vote for “change” was a vote for the death of the American Dream. Religious tolerance is built into our Constitution but I do not think our Fore Fathers took into account the revenge factor of the Crusades. Either President Obama is naïve or does not understand the reason behind those that seek to destroy the West. Personally I hope President Obama is naïve as the alternative is scarier.