NY Times:
By Eric Schmitt and Souad Mekhennethttp://www.nytimes.com/index.html?partner=msnbcpoliticshttp://www.nytimes.com/index.html?partner=msnbcpolitics
updated 2:59 a.m. CT, Fri., July 10, 2009
WASHINGTON - Al Qaeda’s affiliate in North Africa has carried out a string of killings, bombings and other lethal attacks against Westerners and African security forces in recent weeks that have raised fears that the terrorist group may be taking a deadlier turn.
American and European security and counterterrorism officials say the attacks may signal the return of foreign fighters from the Iraq war, where they honed their bomb-making skills.
If this indeed is the correct analysis, we can expect increasingly effective attacks to begin occurring in Europe and other areas.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Afghanistan is NOT Iraq.
U.S. commander: More troops are needed. Surprise. Throughout history, just about ALL commanders say that they need more troops. In this case, I believe that he is referring to more Afghan units, although I am certain that he would accept more U.S. soldiers. (Note - General Grant was one of the few exceptions to this general rule as he cut back on the artillery the army of the Potomac brought with it when it engaged the Army of Northern Virginia in 1864. He believed that too much would hinder his movements, as was subsequently shown.)
Even if everything else were the same, just the terrain alone would require far more troops per capita in Afghanistan than Iraq. Everything else is not the same and in many cases aggravates the need for more units, both combat and support. I doubt that we will obtain anywhere near the same level of support from the Afghan population that we obtained in Iraq, although this is yet to be determined.
The ‘surge’ required the better part of a full year before it became obvious that we were making positive progress. I expect Afghanistan to take longer, although I am not so certain that the outcome will be as decisive as the result was in Iraq.
Even if everything else were the same, just the terrain alone would require far more troops per capita in Afghanistan than Iraq. Everything else is not the same and in many cases aggravates the need for more units, both combat and support. I doubt that we will obtain anywhere near the same level of support from the Afghan population that we obtained in Iraq, although this is yet to be determined.
The ‘surge’ required the better part of a full year before it became obvious that we were making positive progress. I expect Afghanistan to take longer, although I am not so certain that the outcome will be as decisive as the result was in Iraq.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Iran plans to place British embassy personnel on trial.
Once again, Iran flouts international norms. The embassy of all countries is considered property of that country, not the country where the embassy is physically located. The taking of the U.S. embassy staff as hostages in 1979 was an act of war, much like an actual invasion. Embassy staff is considered off limits, as are the diplomats stationed there. Even when diplomatic ties are broken, or a war breaks out, embassy staff is escorted out of the country. Without this protection, many people would not become diplomats in the first place and communication between governments would be compromised. Iran once again demonstrates that they are outside of international rules and norms. The leadership of Iran is expert in Islamic law. I guess that Islam allows for such things. After all, Islamic law does not recognize any other legal system or rules.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
FDR and President Obama
I have been hearing about how President Obama is like FDR. I have to disagree. FDR believed that capitalism needed help to get the United States economy out of the great Depression. President Obama believes that capitalism is greedy and evil. He has been saying that people should work for the government or a non-profit organization. He believes government and non-profit organizations to be fair and have the best interests of humanity at heart. And these differences are not the greatest between President Obama and FDR.
I believe that the most important function of the federal government is the decision to kill people. To wage war or not to. Politically, FDR not only moved closer to our allies, but he actively armed them. England, France and China were being threatened and attacked. FDR was instrumental in shipping weapons and support to all of them. This contrasts sharply with President Obama’s non-support of Israel. Our current President will pressure our best ally in the war region of the Middle East to end all ‘occupation’ and attempt to pacify their enemies. Our withholding of missile intercept technology is an example of how we will NOT be supplying our wartime ally with neither new weapon systems nor upgrades. In addition, President Obama is actually cutting our procurement of new weapons and weapon systems.
FDR was arming the country. New orders for everything from aircraft to tanks were being implemented many years before we became involved in the war. The greatest impact was in building a fleet. A bunch of new aircraft carrier and battleship keels were laid down in the years 1939 to 1941. Enough to double the number in service, a number that had taken more than 20 years to build. In addition, the first time the U.S. had a peacetime draft was implemented in October 1940. President Obama is doing the opposite.
In summary, unless President Obama changes his ideas about spending on defense and waging war, I cannot think of many Presidents who are more different than FDR. The real key will be how well we are positioned if and when we are Sunday punched, like at Pearl Harbor. I believe that President Obama will be like FDR in this regard. However, we will not be able to hit back nearly as early, nor as effectively because we will be caught much more unprepared than we were with FDR at the helm.
I believe that the most important function of the federal government is the decision to kill people. To wage war or not to. Politically, FDR not only moved closer to our allies, but he actively armed them. England, France and China were being threatened and attacked. FDR was instrumental in shipping weapons and support to all of them. This contrasts sharply with President Obama’s non-support of Israel. Our current President will pressure our best ally in the war region of the Middle East to end all ‘occupation’ and attempt to pacify their enemies. Our withholding of missile intercept technology is an example of how we will NOT be supplying our wartime ally with neither new weapon systems nor upgrades. In addition, President Obama is actually cutting our procurement of new weapons and weapon systems.
FDR was arming the country. New orders for everything from aircraft to tanks were being implemented many years before we became involved in the war. The greatest impact was in building a fleet. A bunch of new aircraft carrier and battleship keels were laid down in the years 1939 to 1941. Enough to double the number in service, a number that had taken more than 20 years to build. In addition, the first time the U.S. had a peacetime draft was implemented in October 1940. President Obama is doing the opposite.
In summary, unless President Obama changes his ideas about spending on defense and waging war, I cannot think of many Presidents who are more different than FDR. The real key will be how well we are positioned if and when we are Sunday punched, like at Pearl Harbor. I believe that President Obama will be like FDR in this regard. However, we will not be able to hit back nearly as early, nor as effectively because we will be caught much more unprepared than we were with FDR at the helm.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Momentum is being lost
Strategic momentum is being lost. Iran will crush its opposition. I expect them to be hunted down, interrogated (Not as nicely was we would) and then buried. This is a setback of major proportions. Iran is one of the three countries that are actively supporting terrorist organizations. Within a few months, the leadership of Iran should have even better control over their country. It will be a very long time before internal, organized resistance recovers. During this time, it will take an overt invasion from external sources to rid Iran of its current leadership. Iran will then be free to continue it’s current policy of exporting terrorism and development of nuclear weapons.
While we are pressing issues more forcefully in Afghanistan, Pakistan is looking more like it is attempting to get a real handle on the issue. The fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons with missile systems and that so many Pakistanis are supportive of the Taliban make any progress susceptible to reversal. The area is known for loyalties changing side, often during a shooting war. Osama said it himself. They will back a winner. It will become apparent that it is not so clear-cut a case of the U.S. winning. Many people compared Iran with the U.S. experience in Vietnam. As has been demonstrated, Iraq is quite different from Vietnam. Afghanistan is much more likely to develop like Vietnam than Iraq. The leadership of the United States has an extreme reluctance to take military action on the strategic level. This will contribute to eventually persuading loyalties to switch more and more against us. More like Vietnam than Iraq, although I expect many loyalties to switch away from us in Iraq as well. After all, we are no longer willing to risk our necks for them. When shooting begins, this quality is valued more than any other.
While we are pressing issues more forcefully in Afghanistan, Pakistan is looking more like it is attempting to get a real handle on the issue. The fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons with missile systems and that so many Pakistanis are supportive of the Taliban make any progress susceptible to reversal. The area is known for loyalties changing side, often during a shooting war. Osama said it himself. They will back a winner. It will become apparent that it is not so clear-cut a case of the U.S. winning. Many people compared Iran with the U.S. experience in Vietnam. As has been demonstrated, Iraq is quite different from Vietnam. Afghanistan is much more likely to develop like Vietnam than Iraq. The leadership of the United States has an extreme reluctance to take military action on the strategic level. This will contribute to eventually persuading loyalties to switch more and more against us. More like Vietnam than Iraq, although I expect many loyalties to switch away from us in Iraq as well. After all, we are no longer willing to risk our necks for them. When shooting begins, this quality is valued more than any other.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Hamas leader wants President Obama to become more involved.
I pulled this article from CNN today 6/26/09.
(CNN) -- Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal on Thursday called on the United States to take a more active role in the Mideast peace process "so that America and the rest of the world can take a break from the headache of the region." Khaled Meshaal says United States needs to take a more active role in Mideast peace process. "We appreciate the new language Obama used toward Hamas, and it is the first step in the right direction toward launching direct dialogue without any preconditions," Meshaal said in his address from Damascus, Syria. "We welcome this." Meshaal -- who lives in exile in Syria -- is the head of Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory of Gaza. U.S. and Israeli officials have accused Iran of providing weapons, training and cash to Hamas militants in Gaza. The Hamas leader said the United States and its allies must emphasize "the need to lift the Israeli occupation" if it wants to rally the Palestinians and their Arab allies behind a peace deal. "When the Obama administration starts this kind of effort, we and the rest of the Palestinians will be very prepared to cooperate with this administration and with every international effort that serves this goal," he said.
Yes, Hamas understands that having the United States get more directly involved will help them. Hamas sees that President Obama is no friend of Israel and is on their side. This cannot do anything but help their position. Please note that Meshaal lives in Syria. I consider Hamas and Syria to be overt enemies. I believe that the 3 greatest threats to the region today are Pakistan, Iran and Syria. We shall see how well President Obama handles these three threats over the next four or more years.
(CNN) -- Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal on Thursday called on the United States to take a more active role in the Mideast peace process "so that America and the rest of the world can take a break from the headache of the region." Khaled Meshaal says United States needs to take a more active role in Mideast peace process. "We appreciate the new language Obama used toward Hamas, and it is the first step in the right direction toward launching direct dialogue without any preconditions," Meshaal said in his address from Damascus, Syria. "We welcome this." Meshaal -- who lives in exile in Syria -- is the head of Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory of Gaza. U.S. and Israeli officials have accused Iran of providing weapons, training and cash to Hamas militants in Gaza. The Hamas leader said the United States and its allies must emphasize "the need to lift the Israeli occupation" if it wants to rally the Palestinians and their Arab allies behind a peace deal. "When the Obama administration starts this kind of effort, we and the rest of the Palestinians will be very prepared to cooperate with this administration and with every international effort that serves this goal," he said.
Yes, Hamas understands that having the United States get more directly involved will help them. Hamas sees that President Obama is no friend of Israel and is on their side. This cannot do anything but help their position. Please note that Meshaal lives in Syria. I consider Hamas and Syria to be overt enemies. I believe that the 3 greatest threats to the region today are Pakistan, Iran and Syria. We shall see how well President Obama handles these three threats over the next four or more years.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Iran and the 'war on terror'
The events in Iran have caught me by surprise. Now I have had a few days to think about what is going on and what the potential side effects can be. Several outcomes are possible.
1) The government stays the same.
2) The President is sacked and the new guy is installed, but the government remains controlled by the ‘Revolutionary Council’.
3) The government is toppled and a new order is installed.
Outcomes 1 or 2 will mean disaster. The people who exposed themselves during the demonstrations will be hunted down. I would expect most, if not all to be eventually executed. The ability of Iranians to obtain control of their own government without an invasion from the outside would be set back at least a generation. Most likely multiple generations. After all, it has taken two generations to reach this point.
If the government of Iran is toppled, the holders of the most extreme views of the enemy within Iran will be exposed. They will fight to maintain control and risk being seen and known by the public. The ones who do not escape the country will be hunted down and imprisoned. I would expect many to be brought in front of a court. These people are the enemy that supports Islamic terrorism.
The most difficult problem in the war today is in knowing who our enemies are. This is why it is imperative that the government of Iran is toppled. If we lose, OUR side will be exposed. The loss will be incalculable. This is the time we must fight. We can be quiet about it, but we must ensure that the government of Iran changes in a fundamental way. Iran has been at war against the U.S., our allies and our way of life since the beginning of Iran’s current government in 1979. This is the time to make the effort. Iran is one of the major obstacles to defeating organized terrorism simply because of Iran’s support of terrorist organizations.
This will determine President Obama’s first term. And 2nd term, if re-elected. How effective he is will tell us everything that I need to know about him. It is times like this where caution can be an enemy. There are times in life when you have to take violent action against the bully or aggressive enemy. Conflict is as basic a part of human nature as eating and sleeping. If we do not fight for freedom here, our cause will be immeasurably injured. Acting here just may set back terrorist forces from obtaining nuclear weapons for another 5 to 10 years. This is priceless. It makes open warfare worth the losses sustained, if necessary. The point is, we have to do it when it will make the difference between winning and losing. This is part of the war that we CANNOT afford to lose.
I doubt that President Obama will see it this way. I expect him to under react, or react much too mildly. I can be wrong here, but I see him as being risk adverse to an extreme. He will wait until the dust settles and deal with who wins out. In a way, I can see why he will do this. Many are saying that any overt help from the U.S. would do more damage to the demonstrators than help. To a certain degree, this view is correct. However, this is an extreme situation. The results either way will be extreme. Our war against Islamic terrorism will be either aided immeasurably or hindered beyond calculation. To not take any risks at this time is to allow others to decide how the war will go for the next decade or more. As an American, I want OUR voices hear in this fight. We do have a major stake here as well as the Iranians.
1) The government stays the same.
2) The President is sacked and the new guy is installed, but the government remains controlled by the ‘Revolutionary Council’.
3) The government is toppled and a new order is installed.
Outcomes 1 or 2 will mean disaster. The people who exposed themselves during the demonstrations will be hunted down. I would expect most, if not all to be eventually executed. The ability of Iranians to obtain control of their own government without an invasion from the outside would be set back at least a generation. Most likely multiple generations. After all, it has taken two generations to reach this point.
If the government of Iran is toppled, the holders of the most extreme views of the enemy within Iran will be exposed. They will fight to maintain control and risk being seen and known by the public. The ones who do not escape the country will be hunted down and imprisoned. I would expect many to be brought in front of a court. These people are the enemy that supports Islamic terrorism.
The most difficult problem in the war today is in knowing who our enemies are. This is why it is imperative that the government of Iran is toppled. If we lose, OUR side will be exposed. The loss will be incalculable. This is the time we must fight. We can be quiet about it, but we must ensure that the government of Iran changes in a fundamental way. Iran has been at war against the U.S., our allies and our way of life since the beginning of Iran’s current government in 1979. This is the time to make the effort. Iran is one of the major obstacles to defeating organized terrorism simply because of Iran’s support of terrorist organizations.
This will determine President Obama’s first term. And 2nd term, if re-elected. How effective he is will tell us everything that I need to know about him. It is times like this where caution can be an enemy. There are times in life when you have to take violent action against the bully or aggressive enemy. Conflict is as basic a part of human nature as eating and sleeping. If we do not fight for freedom here, our cause will be immeasurably injured. Acting here just may set back terrorist forces from obtaining nuclear weapons for another 5 to 10 years. This is priceless. It makes open warfare worth the losses sustained, if necessary. The point is, we have to do it when it will make the difference between winning and losing. This is part of the war that we CANNOT afford to lose.
I doubt that President Obama will see it this way. I expect him to under react, or react much too mildly. I can be wrong here, but I see him as being risk adverse to an extreme. He will wait until the dust settles and deal with who wins out. In a way, I can see why he will do this. Many are saying that any overt help from the U.S. would do more damage to the demonstrators than help. To a certain degree, this view is correct. However, this is an extreme situation. The results either way will be extreme. Our war against Islamic terrorism will be either aided immeasurably or hindered beyond calculation. To not take any risks at this time is to allow others to decide how the war will go for the next decade or more. As an American, I want OUR voices hear in this fight. We do have a major stake here as well as the Iranians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
