All the President's Wars
Dysfunctional, defeatist, depressing. Those adjectives are just three that describe the Obama administration’s first 20 months, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars.
In an article entitled, “Bob Woodward’s Book Details Obama Battles with Advisors over Exit Plans for Afghan War,” Steve Luxenberg of the Washington Post reveals that the book goes far beyond tactics and strategies in Afghanistan.
All in all, it doesn’t present a pretty picture of the Obama administration nor is it a flattering insight into Obama’s handling of that war.
In addition to the president’s incessant disputes with his advisors and generals. what comes across most glaringly in Obama’s Wars is Obama’s fixation, not with winning the war, but with getting out, with extricating our forces in order to fulfill his campaign pledges to the Democrat Party faithful.
To the surprise of very few people, his obsession with that “exit plan” at all costs makes the Afghan War clearly a domestic political war with concern for politics the governing force over any strategies. Our troops over there getting shot at and dying will find no comfort in that fact.
A curious facet of Woodward’s book and Luxenberg’s review is the amazing similarity between Barack Obama’s attitude toward a future terrorist attack or attacks and that expressed by Newsweek editor and CNN commentator, Fareed Zakaria.
In a 2007 Newsweek article, Zakaria proposed a policy of “resilience” in the event of terrorist nuclear attacks. He believed we should be prepared to take such attacks on our soil after which we can simply “bounce back from a disruption:” http://tiny.cc/mllpi
Resilience? Bounce back? A disruption?
Now note President Obama’s words . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1937)
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Questions of Ethics: Charles Rangel, Bradley Manning, et al.
Questions of Ethics: Charles Rangel, Bradley Manning, et al.
Making ethical judgments is a complex business, fraught with nuances and subjectivity.
Ethics has been defined as “the study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles. . . the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Ethics has developed as people have reflected on the intentions and consequences of their acts.”
That definition may be reduced to four words, doing the right thing.
There’s a narrow distinction between unethical behavior and simply lying although some form of lying is usually associated with a lack of ethics.
Thus, when Elena Kagan dissembled in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by saying she had merely “suggested” changes in the language of an anti-partial birth document to which she objected she was both lying and acting unethically to accomplish her goals: http://tiny.cc/9l5jb
On the other hand, when President Obama appeared on “The View” today and listed dealing with the H1N1 “pandemic” as one of the “thorns” of his first 18 months in office he was dramatizing, bloviating, in a word, lying. There was no H1N1 pandemic in 2009 as he well knew. It was no more a pandemic than the average year’s flu. The Center for Disease Control had grossly exaggerated the H1N1 virus danger and the manufacturers of the Swine Flu vaccine reaped a windfall in the billions.
Much more clearcut as unethical behavior were the actions of United States congressman Rep. Charles Rangel and Pfc. Bradley Manning of the 10th Mountain Division Second Brigade in Baghdad. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1812)
Making ethical judgments is a complex business, fraught with nuances and subjectivity.
Ethics has been defined as “the study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles. . . the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Ethics has developed as people have reflected on the intentions and consequences of their acts.”
That definition may be reduced to four words, doing the right thing.
There’s a narrow distinction between unethical behavior and simply lying although some form of lying is usually associated with a lack of ethics.
Thus, when Elena Kagan dissembled in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by saying she had merely “suggested” changes in the language of an anti-partial birth document to which she objected she was both lying and acting unethically to accomplish her goals: http://tiny.cc/9l5jb
On the other hand, when President Obama appeared on “The View” today and listed dealing with the H1N1 “pandemic” as one of the “thorns” of his first 18 months in office he was dramatizing, bloviating, in a word, lying. There was no H1N1 pandemic in 2009 as he well knew. It was no more a pandemic than the average year’s flu. The Center for Disease Control had grossly exaggerated the H1N1 virus danger and the manufacturers of the Swine Flu vaccine reaped a windfall in the billions.
Much more clearcut as unethical behavior were the actions of United States congressman Rep. Charles Rangel and Pfc. Bradley Manning of the 10th Mountain Division Second Brigade in Baghdad. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1812)
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Rolling Stone and the Sacking of Stan McChrystal Part Two
Rolling Stone and the Sacking of Stan McChrystal Part Two
The oddest thing about President Obama canning General McChrystal as commander of United States forces in Afghanistan is that the general didn’t do anything grievously wrong.
When Lincoln dumped 5 generals (McLellan twice) during the Civil War, it was largely due to general incompetence.
When Truman sacked MacArthur in the midst of the Korean War, it was the last straw in the brilliant yet haughty and insubordinate general’s rocky relationship with his civilian bosses in Washington, and especially with Harry.
The fact MacArthur wanted to invade China and use nuclear weapons to subdue that Communist nation which had intervened and turned the tide in Korea by sheer force of numbers was another factor as was the fear it could ignite a Third World War.
In retrospect, MacArthur’s plan was viable, would not have started a new world war, and would have removed the threat that China poses for the United States in the twenty first century. But that’s another story.
Stanley McChrystal’s chief offense was neither incompetence nor gross insubordination. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1774)
The oddest thing about President Obama canning General McChrystal as commander of United States forces in Afghanistan is that the general didn’t do anything grievously wrong.
When Lincoln dumped 5 generals (McLellan twice) during the Civil War, it was largely due to general incompetence.
When Truman sacked MacArthur in the midst of the Korean War, it was the last straw in the brilliant yet haughty and insubordinate general’s rocky relationship with his civilian bosses in Washington, and especially with Harry.
The fact MacArthur wanted to invade China and use nuclear weapons to subdue that Communist nation which had intervened and turned the tide in Korea by sheer force of numbers was another factor as was the fear it could ignite a Third World War.
In retrospect, MacArthur’s plan was viable, would not have started a new world war, and would have removed the threat that China poses for the United States in the twenty first century. But that’s another story.
Stanley McChrystal’s chief offense was neither incompetence nor gross insubordination. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1774)
Saturday, June 26, 2010
When Stanley Met Barry, Part Three
When Stanley Met Barry, Part Three
. . . Part Three presents an insider’s objective if speculative outline of what went down when Stanley had his sitdown with Barry. I can attest to its accuracy although, admittedly, it’s based on the testimony of that fly in the White House that has bedeviled the president and that finally came to rest on the Oval Office wall:
(By the way, “B” = the president, Barry, as he was once known, and “S” = General Stanley McChrystal, as he is still known.)
B: Welcome to the White House, General. Have a seat.
S: Thank you, Mr. President. I’m flattered to be here.
B: May I call you Stanley?
S: Well, no. unless I should address you as Barry.
B: Umm, then let’s stick with general and Mr. President.
S: Fine by me, sir. As you wish.
B: Care for a beer or anything?
S: No thanks, Mr. President. I don’t drink.
B: Oh, that’s right, I heard that. You also run 8 miles a day, eat one meal a day, and sleep 4 hours a night, right?
S: Yes, sir.
B: Don’t smoke either I’m sure. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1758)
. . . Part Three presents an insider’s objective if speculative outline of what went down when Stanley had his sitdown with Barry. I can attest to its accuracy although, admittedly, it’s based on the testimony of that fly in the White House that has bedeviled the president and that finally came to rest on the Oval Office wall:
(By the way, “B” = the president, Barry, as he was once known, and “S” = General Stanley McChrystal, as he is still known.)
B: Welcome to the White House, General. Have a seat.
S: Thank you, Mr. President. I’m flattered to be here.
B: May I call you Stanley?
S: Well, no. unless I should address you as Barry.
B: Umm, then let’s stick with general and Mr. President.
S: Fine by me, sir. As you wish.
B: Care for a beer or anything?
S: No thanks, Mr. President. I don’t drink.
B: Oh, that’s right, I heard that. You also run 8 miles a day, eat one meal a day, and sleep 4 hours a night, right?
S: Yes, sir.
B: Don’t smoke either I’m sure. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1758)
Friday, June 25, 2010
When Stanley Met Barry, Part Two
When Stanley Met Barry, Part Two
Part One of this very mini miniseries dealt with the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, America’s head honcho in the Afghanistan War, and the contention that his and his aides’ remarks in a Rolling Stone article reflected immaturity and poor judgement.
Okay. . . a general 8 years Obama’s senior on the field of battle made immature comments that reflected poor judgement on a president whose chief pre-political experience was serving as a neighborhood organizer on the Chicago front.
Whatevah!
But the general was summoned to an audience with the president, a meeting that promised to be a dressing down for his impertinence, a summons from the boss he could not ignore.
We are privileged to be the only source privy to the stream of consciousness thoughts of General McChrystal as he winged the miles from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to Obama’s air base in D.C.
We are also privy, via sources that cannot be revealed, to the dialogue between McChrystal and Obama in the White House on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010.
WARNING: Some of what follows is not suitable for the eyes or ears of children. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1753)
Part One of this very mini miniseries dealt with the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, America’s head honcho in the Afghanistan War, and the contention that his and his aides’ remarks in a Rolling Stone article reflected immaturity and poor judgement.
Okay. . . a general 8 years Obama’s senior on the field of battle made immature comments that reflected poor judgement on a president whose chief pre-political experience was serving as a neighborhood organizer on the Chicago front.
Whatevah!
But the general was summoned to an audience with the president, a meeting that promised to be a dressing down for his impertinence, a summons from the boss he could not ignore.
We are privileged to be the only source privy to the stream of consciousness thoughts of General McChrystal as he winged the miles from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to Obama’s air base in D.C.
We are also privy, via sources that cannot be revealed, to the dialogue between McChrystal and Obama in the White House on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010.
WARNING: Some of what follows is not suitable for the eyes or ears of children. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1753)
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
"In War,There Is No Substitute for Victory"
"In War, There Is No Substitute for Victory"
President Obama has summoned the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal to the executive mansion to explain critical and dismissive comments the general and his aides made of top administration and Afghan officials.
See the New York Times version of the McChrystal story here: http://tiny.cc/9n1zp
McChrystal is in a situation very similar to that of MacArthur in Korea. He wants to win the war in Afghanistan but the administration won’t allow him to. He has issued an abject apology to the president for his remarks published in Rolling Stone; he should have resigned. MacArthur apologized to no one; he didn’t believe he was wrong.
Instead of the “limited war” restraints dictated by the Truman administration MacArthur faced in Korea, McChrystal faces the contraints of the “rules of engagement” as determined by the Obama administration.
As commander-in-chief, Obama has every right . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1748)
President Obama has summoned the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal to the executive mansion to explain critical and dismissive comments the general and his aides made of top administration and Afghan officials.
See the New York Times version of the McChrystal story here: http://tiny.cc/9n1zp
McChrystal is in a situation very similar to that of MacArthur in Korea. He wants to win the war in Afghanistan but the administration won’t allow him to. He has issued an abject apology to the president for his remarks published in Rolling Stone; he should have resigned. MacArthur apologized to no one; he didn’t believe he was wrong.
Instead of the “limited war” restraints dictated by the Truman administration MacArthur faced in Korea, McChrystal faces the contraints of the “rules of engagement” as determined by the Obama administration.
As commander-in-chief, Obama has every right . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1748)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wars and Rumors of Wars Part Two
Wars and Rumors of War Part Two
People and nations being what they are, our world has never been starved for war but rarely in history have so many wars of consequence been threatened which are contemporaneous with one another.
All wars are consequential, of course, but most are limited in scope to tribes or other small groups and many are of the civil war variety contained within a single country. The continent of Africa is a case in point.
Today we face three very hot spots any one of which could erupt into a widespread conflagration with the potential of involving various other nations if not resulting in World War III.
An overview of the threats:
Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. has been mired in those two interrelated hellholes for almost nine and for seven years respectively and though the president has announced plans to pack up and bug out of both, the outcomes are far from undecided.
The British were defeated by the Afghanis in the 19th century, the Russians in the 2oth. If we are seen as retreating or if we should lose the upcoming, crucial battle in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, it will be seen as yet another sign of weakness. In this age of terrorism, that’s not a good image to project. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1702)
People and nations being what they are, our world has never been starved for war but rarely in history have so many wars of consequence been threatened which are contemporaneous with one another.
All wars are consequential, of course, but most are limited in scope to tribes or other small groups and many are of the civil war variety contained within a single country. The continent of Africa is a case in point.
Today we face three very hot spots any one of which could erupt into a widespread conflagration with the potential of involving various other nations if not resulting in World War III.
An overview of the threats:
Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. has been mired in those two interrelated hellholes for almost nine and for seven years respectively and though the president has announced plans to pack up and bug out of both, the outcomes are far from undecided.
The British were defeated by the Afghanis in the 19th century, the Russians in the 2oth. If we are seen as retreating or if we should lose the upcoming, crucial battle in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, it will be seen as yet another sign of weakness. In this age of terrorism, that’s not a good image to project. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1702)
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Ethical Murder
Ethical Murder
. . . On a much smaller scale is the ethical issue of killing one man or a group of men who you are reasonably certain are plotting to decimate cities and commit mass murder. Today we have the ability to accomplish such precision acts of war without risking the lives of the guys with boots on the ground or of the pilots in the sky.
Some are calling the use of very successful predator drones in the Afghani war as unethical, others call it a great advancement in the conduct of modern warfare. Pinpointing a high value target certainly seems to beat the destruction of large swaths of real estate tenanted by unknown numbers of innocent non-combatants.
And, yes, there will be drone mistakes, casualties that occur in the fog of war described with the sanitized term ”collateral damage” which happens no matter the military tactics employed but do those mistakes constitute unethical warfare?
A related ethical question has arisen in conjunction with Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1685)
. . . On a much smaller scale is the ethical issue of killing one man or a group of men who you are reasonably certain are plotting to decimate cities and commit mass murder. Today we have the ability to accomplish such precision acts of war without risking the lives of the guys with boots on the ground or of the pilots in the sky.
Some are calling the use of very successful predator drones in the Afghani war as unethical, others call it a great advancement in the conduct of modern warfare. Pinpointing a high value target certainly seems to beat the destruction of large swaths of real estate tenanted by unknown numbers of innocent non-combatants.
And, yes, there will be drone mistakes, casualties that occur in the fog of war described with the sanitized term ”collateral damage” which happens no matter the military tactics employed but do those mistakes constitute unethical warfare?
A related ethical question has arisen in conjunction with Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1685)
Monday, November 30, 2009
Small Consolations
Small Consolations
There’s some small consolation in the hackneyed truism that some things never change. A very small consolation.
On the eve of the president’s highly touted address to the nation on what he called during the campaign the “necessary” war, the Reid-ites are again crawling out of the Democratic woodwork.
By hearing the struggle in Afghanistan was “necessary,” the electorate may have foolishly assumed Obama must have meant it was an absolute requisite that we win it.
After months of conferencing and soul-searching (and weighing the political repercussions?), after months of diddling and dithering while our undermanned troops needlessly died, we should find out tomorrow whether Obama said what he meant and meant what he said.
Pre-empting the West Point speech with what has become typical Democrat sentiment, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Rep. David Obey has already pulled a Harry Reid by announcing the anticipated troop surge is ”a fool’s errand.”
You may remember Harry, the soon-to-be-deposed Democrat Nevada senator who infamously and incorrectly denounced GWB’s Iraq surge as a failure before it began. That troop increase in 2007 proved to be the turning point in the Iraq War.
Now Obey has taken up the defeatist Dem line, but with a twist.
Feigning interest in winning in Afghanistan, the Wisconsin pol told CNN, “The problem is you can have the best policy in the world but if you don’t have the tools to implement it it isn’t worth a bean bag:” http://bit.ly/80Q3XA
Obey would purchase those tools . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1351)
There’s some small consolation in the hackneyed truism that some things never change. A very small consolation.
On the eve of the president’s highly touted address to the nation on what he called during the campaign the “necessary” war, the Reid-ites are again crawling out of the Democratic woodwork.
By hearing the struggle in Afghanistan was “necessary,” the electorate may have foolishly assumed Obama must have meant it was an absolute requisite that we win it.
After months of conferencing and soul-searching (and weighing the political repercussions?), after months of diddling and dithering while our undermanned troops needlessly died, we should find out tomorrow whether Obama said what he meant and meant what he said.
Pre-empting the West Point speech with what has become typical Democrat sentiment, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Rep. David Obey has already pulled a Harry Reid by announcing the anticipated troop surge is ”a fool’s errand.”
You may remember Harry, the soon-to-be-deposed Democrat Nevada senator who infamously and incorrectly denounced GWB’s Iraq surge as a failure before it began. That troop increase in 2007 proved to be the turning point in the Iraq War.
Now Obey has taken up the defeatist Dem line, but with a twist.
Feigning interest in winning in Afghanistan, the Wisconsin pol told CNN, “The problem is you can have the best policy in the world but if you don’t have the tools to implement it it isn’t worth a bean bag:” http://bit.ly/80Q3XA
Obey would purchase those tools . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1351)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Have an Obscene Christmas!
Have an Obscene Christmas!
Christmas may sometimes involve obscenities such as atheists’ continuing war against its celebration and its degradation to a greed fest and old Uncle Charlie getting looped and re-telling the dirty jokes of his youth but Christmas has never been called obscene by a clergyman. Until now.
The Right Reverend Humphrey Southern, Anglican Bishop of Repton, thinks that, “Wishing people a Happy Christmas could be seen as an ‘insult’ or even an ‘obscenity’ as not everyone is in a position to celebrate” the holy, Christian holiday.
Bishop Southern, a politically-correct prelate guiding his flock in a dying Anglican church, added a little strichnine to the sacramental wine by saying, “This is the ‘Happy Christmas’ month. Yet to many that greeting will be hollow, coming as an insult, or even an obscenity.”
Americans opt for “Merry Christmas” and “Happy New Year” but Southern’s admonition is presumably as applicable to us across the Pond as it is to Englishmen even if it is passe’ in contemporary America where the articulation of the words “merry” and “Christmas” can cause the dismissal of store clerks and correction by co-workers.
PC now dictates the use of the generic “Happy Holidays,” as if the mere mention of any reference to the reason for the season, namely the birth of Jesus Christ and, incidentally, a national holiday, is offensive.
Or, as Bishop Southern believes, it could be an insulting obscenity.
His rationale is that wishing a Happy or Merry Christmas to “a family whose father has been killed in a military operation in Afghanistan that fewer and fewer people understand (still less support)” is obscene and insulting. . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1345)
Christmas may sometimes involve obscenities such as atheists’ continuing war against its celebration and its degradation to a greed fest and old Uncle Charlie getting looped and re-telling the dirty jokes of his youth but Christmas has never been called obscene by a clergyman. Until now.
The Right Reverend Humphrey Southern, Anglican Bishop of Repton, thinks that, “Wishing people a Happy Christmas could be seen as an ‘insult’ or even an ‘obscenity’ as not everyone is in a position to celebrate” the holy, Christian holiday.
Bishop Southern, a politically-correct prelate guiding his flock in a dying Anglican church, added a little strichnine to the sacramental wine by saying, “This is the ‘Happy Christmas’ month. Yet to many that greeting will be hollow, coming as an insult, or even an obscenity.”
Americans opt for “Merry Christmas” and “Happy New Year” but Southern’s admonition is presumably as applicable to us across the Pond as it is to Englishmen even if it is passe’ in contemporary America where the articulation of the words “merry” and “Christmas” can cause the dismissal of store clerks and correction by co-workers.
PC now dictates the use of the generic “Happy Holidays,” as if the mere mention of any reference to the reason for the season, namely the birth of Jesus Christ and, incidentally, a national holiday, is offensive.
Or, as Bishop Southern believes, it could be an insulting obscenity.
His rationale is that wishing a Happy or Merry Christmas to “a family whose father has been killed in a military operation in Afghanistan that fewer and fewer people understand (still less support)” is obscene and insulting. . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1345)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Obama Dithers, Our Military Withers
Obama Dithers, Our Military Withers
With no military experience, no international relations experience, no executive experience, it’s no wonder our naive president is dithering over yet another campaign pledge.
It would be comical if not for the fact that particular reneging is proving deadly to our troops.
It’s not in the same category as the president’s forestalling gay demands that he fulfill his promise to end Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the military; Obama knows his queer constituency will hang as tough as they can hang tough until he gets around to revamping that policy.
It’s not in the same category as reneging on his pledge to close GITMO in a year, either; aside from obamaniacs, everyone knew that was impossible and no state and no other country will agree to house any appreciable number of GITMO’s reprobates.
On the other hand, Obama’s stalling on General Stanley McChrystal’s request to provide him with more boots on the ground in Afghanistan to enable him and our forces there to do their jobs amounts to nothing more or less than an execution warrant for our troops.
Obama’s self-declared “war of necessity” as opposed to the Iraqi “war of choice,” is costing America dozens of valiant solders with many more casualties to come as the president weighs his options and consults his advisors.
One such military advisor is bumbling Joe Biden, his VP, the man who has never voiced a thought that wasn’t inane, who would cut and run full speed in retreat and screw the consequences.
Precisely who Obama’s other advisors are is unclear. Could one be Bill Ayers? That old buddy and unrepentent domestic terrorist hasn’t yet graced Obama’s White House, at least through the front door.
Or maybe his former spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright is unavailable for comment and Obama needs his guidance?
To be generous, perhaps the president is wary of introducing more troops in fear that it will be called a “surge.” That tactic was employed by Bush to help accomplish the Iraq mission and was promptly condemned by Sen. Harry Reid before it was even implemented.
It infuriated the Left with prospects of the “V-word,” as in victory. That same Left would get their knickers in a wad again if it looks like we could win the Afghan war as well.
McChrystal isn’t playing games with Afghanistan. He knows that every day Obama dithers on sending more troops means more and more troops will die: “Eight American soldiers were killed last Saturday when tribal militia stormed two combat outposts in eastern Afghanistan, the worst U.S. loss in more than a year,” http://bit.ly/10NKCh.
Defense Secretary Gates is fully on board with the idea of more troops but will a president whose only combat experience was serving as a community organizer on the mean streets of Chicago listen to Gates or to his generals?
Fully cognizant of Gen. MacArthur’s remonstrance that, “There is no substitute for victory,” McChrystal . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
With no military experience, no international relations experience, no executive experience, it’s no wonder our naive president is dithering over yet another campaign pledge.
It would be comical if not for the fact that particular reneging is proving deadly to our troops.
It’s not in the same category as the president’s forestalling gay demands that he fulfill his promise to end Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the military; Obama knows his queer constituency will hang as tough as they can hang tough until he gets around to revamping that policy.
It’s not in the same category as reneging on his pledge to close GITMO in a year, either; aside from obamaniacs, everyone knew that was impossible and no state and no other country will agree to house any appreciable number of GITMO’s reprobates.
On the other hand, Obama’s stalling on General Stanley McChrystal’s request to provide him with more boots on the ground in Afghanistan to enable him and our forces there to do their jobs amounts to nothing more or less than an execution warrant for our troops.
Obama’s self-declared “war of necessity” as opposed to the Iraqi “war of choice,” is costing America dozens of valiant solders with many more casualties to come as the president weighs his options and consults his advisors.
One such military advisor is bumbling Joe Biden, his VP, the man who has never voiced a thought that wasn’t inane, who would cut and run full speed in retreat and screw the consequences.
Precisely who Obama’s other advisors are is unclear. Could one be Bill Ayers? That old buddy and unrepentent domestic terrorist hasn’t yet graced Obama’s White House, at least through the front door.
Or maybe his former spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright is unavailable for comment and Obama needs his guidance?
To be generous, perhaps the president is wary of introducing more troops in fear that it will be called a “surge.” That tactic was employed by Bush to help accomplish the Iraq mission and was promptly condemned by Sen. Harry Reid before it was even implemented.
It infuriated the Left with prospects of the “V-word,” as in victory. That same Left would get their knickers in a wad again if it looks like we could win the Afghan war as well.
McChrystal isn’t playing games with Afghanistan. He knows that every day Obama dithers on sending more troops means more and more troops will die: “Eight American soldiers were killed last Saturday when tribal militia stormed two combat outposts in eastern Afghanistan, the worst U.S. loss in more than a year,” http://bit.ly/10NKCh.
Defense Secretary Gates is fully on board with the idea of more troops but will a president whose only combat experience was serving as a community organizer on the mean streets of Chicago listen to Gates or to his generals?
Fully cognizant of Gen. MacArthur’s remonstrance that, “There is no substitute for victory,” McChrystal . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wars and Rumors of War
Wars and Rumors of War
The handwriting is all over White House walls: The U.S. will cut and run out of Afghanistan, and probably out of Iraq, if things get dicey there too.
In a repeat of our sorry experiences in Korea in the 50’s and in Viet Nam in the 70’s, President Obama will soon declare victory in Afghanistan and pack up all our cares and woes and retreat under fire from that chaotic nation, the same nation that was the breeding ground for the 9/11 maniacs.
Iraq may follow as Obama tries to placate the multitude of defeatists in the Democratic Party.
“Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it,” [Lt. General Stanley] McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander’s Summary. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama.”
“Under-resourcing”=an inadequate number of boots on the ground.
He has asked for 60,000 additional troops to insure the defeat of the growing strength of the Taliban, a surge, if you will, the same tactic that Democrats scorned when Bush supplemented the boots in Iraq and which resulted in a tentative victory in that country.
“McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. ‘risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.’ ”
Obama’s response? ”I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration:” http://bit.ly/4E8Wvi.
That says it all, folks. In the recent tradition of the new Democratic Party, Obama will deftly tuck America’s tail between its legs and scurry off in failure and ignominy.
In related news, another retreat, this time from close allies and supporters Poland and Czechoslovakia, Obama has cancelled plans for a missile defense/radar system in those countries.
Rather than negotiate a tit-for-tat deal with the Russians, the president unilaterally undercut two valuable friends in Eastern Europe. Interviewed on “Face the Nation,” he explained, “My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians. The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”
Oh, really, Mr. Obama?
So, “our defense posture” has no bearing on strategic moves in Moscow? Are you saying . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1232)
The handwriting is all over White House walls: The U.S. will cut and run out of Afghanistan, and probably out of Iraq, if things get dicey there too.
In a repeat of our sorry experiences in Korea in the 50’s and in Viet Nam in the 70’s, President Obama will soon declare victory in Afghanistan and pack up all our cares and woes and retreat under fire from that chaotic nation, the same nation that was the breeding ground for the 9/11 maniacs.
Iraq may follow as Obama tries to placate the multitude of defeatists in the Democratic Party.
“Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it,” [Lt. General Stanley] McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander’s Summary. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama.”
“Under-resourcing”=an inadequate number of boots on the ground.
He has asked for 60,000 additional troops to insure the defeat of the growing strength of the Taliban, a surge, if you will, the same tactic that Democrats scorned when Bush supplemented the boots in Iraq and which resulted in a tentative victory in that country.
“McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. ‘risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.’ ”
Obama’s response? ”I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration:” http://bit.ly/4E8Wvi.
That says it all, folks. In the recent tradition of the new Democratic Party, Obama will deftly tuck America’s tail between its legs and scurry off in failure and ignominy.
In related news, another retreat, this time from close allies and supporters Poland and Czechoslovakia, Obama has cancelled plans for a missile defense/radar system in those countries.
Rather than negotiate a tit-for-tat deal with the Russians, the president unilaterally undercut two valuable friends in Eastern Europe. Interviewed on “Face the Nation,” he explained, “My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians. The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”
Oh, really, Mr. Obama?
So, “our defense posture” has no bearing on strategic moves in Moscow? Are you saying . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1232)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Rape, War, and Sharia Law
Rape, War, and Sharia Law in Muslim Nations
Content: “I had thought it was simple.” Thus said the 20 year old brother of a 14 year old Afghani rape victim after he was arrested for using a razor blade to abort his sister’s baby.
The young girl had been raped by a construction worker and had the further misfortune of residing in an orthodox Islamic community where an illegitimate birth meant that she and her family would be treated like pariahs by their fellow Muslims. So her brother, Ali, took her to a cowshed and, as her mother helped restrain her, used the razor blade to slice open her womb. He removed the baby, buried it, then stitched up the wound with coarse string used to tie potato sacks. Ten days later, the girl was taken on a 30 mile donkey ride to a provincial hospital suffering from infection and later, to protect her from family and community members, was evacuated to Bagram Air Base where she remained in critical condition: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41777.
Although such lurid and grotesque tales are not unheard of in Western, generally Christian societies, they rarely if ever result from religious motivations. More likely it is a jealous rival or a psychotic, wannabe mother who would perpetrate such acts. Sharia Law, based on the Koran or Qur’an, however, condones such measures to atone for the shame visited upon a family by the sin of being a rape victim.
The other side of the Koranic coin, the rapist’s side, is far more forgiving. The Koran mentions no specific punishment for rapists, the probable reason for their receiving light or no civil penalties, while the victim may receive a hundred lashes for causing the crime. The girls, if not stoned to death, are shunned by their fellow Muslims and their opportunities for a future marriage are nil.
Demonstrating a serious inconsistency, that same Koran denounces rape, except in the event of mitigating circumstances, namely the woman’s religion: The Koran encourages the rape of non-Muslim women, according to more than one source, including http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.australian/browse_thread/thread/74aa640b4928eaaa, which cites a number of verses to support that view.: “Koran clearly sanctions this. No Muslims can deny these verses. They are called “ma malakat aymanukum…. The Koran verses are: 23-6, 33-50, 33-52, 33-55, 70-30.”
That sanction and that crime against the Afghani girl and what they say about Muslim thought are interrelated with our wars in the Mideast.
As the war in Iraq seemingly winds down toward a victorious conclusion and as the companion war...
(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)