Thursday, December 24, 2009
Here was my comment:
Mr. Daley is correct in his observation that no side in any political system has a monopoly on good ideas. Where I believe he is mistaken is in his observation that the Republicans have been captured by their own radical fringe and that the Democrats have only to moderate their position. The Democrats presently in power are not Clintonians; they are extremists. They can't ‘moderate’.... It isn't in them.
Clinton was enough of a realist to moderate is position, thus stay 2 terms and be seen as "successful". Pelosi, Reed, Obama and their sycophants are ideologically incapable of making the changes necessary as Clinton once did. When Clinton tried to nationalize the healthcare delivery system in the early 90's he was excoriated and the plan shelved. Obama and his minions have made huge attempts to pass extremely leftist programs like ‘Cap and Trade’ and the so-called healthcare reform bill that just passed the Senate and faces conference committee review.
How did we end up where we are now? Republicans have fielded weak candidates and have not articulated strong conservative economic or fiscal plans. Their managing of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq has been disjointed and poor, even if well intentioned. The Democrats came to power due to that poorly executed war policy and seemingly lackluster response to the economic problems that were beginning to come to light in 2007 and 2008. That protest vote brought charismatic radical leftists to power.
Conservative Republicans, who were generally ignored by the ‘Neo-cons’ who took control of the Republican Party after the Bush defeat in 1991, have now begun to reassert control of the party. This is best seen in the resurgent rise of Reaganesque Conservatives who are made up partly of conservative Democrats, who are fiscally conservative and who resent the massive debt Obama has run up and the radical nature of a majority of his policies; Independents who have seen the debt rise and unemployment swell nearly 3% in 11 months and no apparent plan to correct the job losses; and the more traditional conservative Republican elements who make up what is being called the "Tea Party" conservatives, who are livid at the massive debt, loss of jobs, fall of the dollar, and the seeming lack of assertive leadership when it is needed most. They resent the Obama ‘Apology Tours’ and the chummy behavior towards the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Daniel Ortega and the kowtowing to foreign potentates. They also resent the damage the neo-cons did to the party during the Bush II years and want to return to a more Reagan-like conservatism that seemed to them the best option for the country. They especially want tax relief for small business and reduction of the tax burden on those who carry a majority of the burden as key to stimulate the economy. There are even those who advocate a removal of the regressive personal and corporate income tax; a repeal of the 16th Amendment, and the establishment of the so-called ‘Fair Tax’, which would spur an immediate economic and business revival.
Mr. Daley is also incorrect in his assessment that the extreme liberal wing need only come up with a better way to sell their position to the American People...that they not surrender or in any way concede defeat in the wake of the rising tide of anger and vitriol. The problem with that opinion is that when surveyed, most Americans are conservative in their positions. Even abortion, the great litmus test of the left and the right, is less popular according to recent polls. What most leftist don’t understand is that what the “New Right” wants is a return to constitutional government, a more lawful and less radical, activist government. They have seen what the Obama Cabal has in store for the nation and are revolted and even frightened by that agenda. No amount of consoling or creative wordsmithing is going to sell a majority of the American people that multi-trillion dollar budgets and ever-mounting debt and confiscatory taxation or nationalized healthcare, or increasingly intrusive and extra constitutional activities is a good thing. Increasing debt ceilings, printing dollars by the billions, and borrowing cash from our adversaries to fund even more programs is a recipe for disaster, and every intelligent person knows it....except the Liberal Congress and Obama.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Has anyone considered that the new Healthcare de-evolution bill that just passed the Senate may do for the insurance industry what the Community Reinvestment Act did for the banking industry?
In short, The Community Reinvestment Act required lending institutions to lend money to marginal characters living in even more marginal geographical areas. In time, this degenerated into the lending of money to people who began playing fast and loose, speculating on real estate with other people’s money. The insurance industry is on track to become like the banking and savings and loan industry when the government mandates are implemented and activated. We will see people who presently are unable to qualify for policies in the free market for many reasons, forced into that market at bayonet point (by the government) and private companies forced to sell them health insurance policies. The private insurers will be compelled to do so at that same governmental “bayonet point”. Meanwhile, as the persons with pre-existing conditions draw on the system, causing a corresponding increase in costs, the private insurers will loose billions of dollars due to extra claims, increasing the cost for the rest of the pool which will rise to cover those additional costs. So we will see nearly all Americans forced to pay into a system by force of law and see them additionally forced to pay what is in effect a ‘tax’ for healthcare to private insurers that will rise as the load increases.
What could very well happen is that people, who were paying their own way, will reach the breaking point when the costs become too great and simply opt out of the whole private health insurance system and pay the fine for non-compliance to the government rather than pay ever increasing premiums. That point could be reached relatively quickly for
As the pool of insured people falls in response to the increasing premiums, due in part to added burdens caused by pre-existing condition customers and due to losses of individual and business group policy holders, private insurers may simply shut down and drop health coverage as a product. If that were to happen en masse’, the nation may find itself with few if any health insurance providers. This is not a scenario beyond the pale when you consider that products like group annuity and whole life insurance have dramatically declined due to market forces. It is possible that these lines of coverage may in the fullness of time; disappear entirely, as the administration costs and servicing costs make them uneconomical to offer. If this were to happen with health insurance, what would happen to the existing policy holders? Who or what would rise to fill the void?
The answer seems obvious. The government would undoubtedly step in to fill that void they caused by their attempt to provide coverage to all in the first place. Single payer would become defacto as the government took over in the void created by them and all the worst case scenarios would come to pass: price controls, ‘death panels’ and eventually, rationing of care. Complete government control of the health delivery services of the nation would become a fact of life for all Americans, thus destroying arguably, the world’s greatest health care delivery system...
As the old Community Reinvestment Act began the march that lead to the collapse of the housing finance industry in
Is that what we want? Is that the best we can do for our country?
And that's the point. Planets change.... they are cyclic, even when there is no life at all on them. Glacial ice sheets form and then recede; continents drift; ice caps grow, fragment, then shrink; oceans grow and recede; atmospheric temperatures vary up and down, ranging from tropical to polar-like despite the latitudes. And all of these things have occurred on Earth. The all have happened long before man evolved as a species. They all have happened prior to the industrial age of man began. They are also happening elsewhere in the solar system too.
I wonder if it’s too late to let the folks in Copenhagen know.....
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Sherri.... I knew when I wrote my remarks, somebody would take exception...you did so here goes. I am an Objectivist. I always try and separate emotion from my decision making process when deciding things like who is going to lead the free world at the most dangerous time since 1930’s. I do so with as cold, ruthless and logical mindset as I can muster. I do this because when you are talking about the survival of the Republic, we can’t afford otherwise. Sarah Palin for all her attributes earlier on now has earned a less than passing mark as far as I am concerned as a candidate for the highest office in the land. There are OBJECTIVE reasons for this, none of which have to do with gender. She had reasons for resigning office as Governor. Fine...she had reasons, good ones even, but that doesn’t mean that her actions lack consequence. In my mind there are few good reasons to resign. Illness, indictment, arrest, or promotions are the reasons one leaves office early. The consequence is that you will most likely be unable to pursue further high office if the reasons aren’t administrative, like promotion. This is Palin’s problem. She left for what are essentially personal reasons and that smacks of a lack of fortitude..a "quitter" if you will, regardless the circumstances. Her leaving makes her a good mom, a good wife, and all that, but it makes her a questionable leader when the going gets tough. What happens if the stars cross in her life while occupying the White House? Will she bail then too? As a former military person, I know that true leaders can’t just quit because things become hard or inconvenient. I have made many decisions that were life and death caliber decisions. I made them and lived with the consequences. I question her ability to make those choices, especially if her family has to take a hit (for the good of the country). If she can’t do that, then she shouldn’t be in the big chair. Another thing Sherrie, why are you playing the "sexist" card??? That is like playing the "Race" card... You are better than that Sherrie...I know that. My remarks on her appearance are completely valid...Be objective...look at the men and women who are elected today...most are rated "very photogenic/telegenic" ...objectively, that IS an asset. I have worked on campaigns and know this is a fact. Understand this as well... I am a CONSERVATIVE.. not a Republican nor a Libertarian. Where you are also dead wrong is that there is nothing 'squishy' about me or my beliefs. As for what I "feel" about her...I don't. I don't "feel" about candidates. “FEELINGS” got us into the mess we are in now. We need some cold, hard, and yes, ruthless logic to fix what “feelings” have broken. You also mentioned my stooping to low levels... The only thing 'low' around here is the bar we as a nation have set for those we have been electing. Real achievement and real intellect and real experience and real courage under fire are what matter. Failure is NOT an option.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The great irony is that this time, we are architects of our own demise.
The great, Marxist / Socialist movements of the past and present has found a safe sanctuary in the United Nations, specifically; they have found aid, comfort and active assistance both political, scientific in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This cabal of third world and socialist politicians and scientists has found a method of unifying their efforts and perpetrating a massive fraud on the rest of the world. Corrupt and sympathetic scientists at such institutions as the University of East Anglia, which was revealed (by a whistle blowing computer hacker)to have been the epicenter of much of the fraud of Global Warming, was the point of origin for leaked documents and e-mails indicating that scientists actively manipulated data, destroyed data, actively subverted the peer review process and sought to “black ball” those who were in opposition to the orthodoxy of global warming from participating in peer review panels. These corrupt scientists freely admitted to having tailored data and results to fit their thesis that the earth’s climate was changing due to man made releases of carbon dioxide. Some e-mails even acknowledged that there were counter indicating data streams against their initial belief in global warming and lamented the fact that they could not explain the cooling that was occurring globally.
Diplomats with axes to grind from every third world cesspool, corrupted scientists, politician who are the bought dogs of special interests as well as left wing radicals, displaced and discredited when the Cold War brought their visions of world communism to an end, have found new purpose in attacking and destroying the great, productive and prosperous democracies of the western world. All this is being done in the name of the fantasy called Global Warming. The meet and greet in Copenhagen will try to cement a treaty that will result in the greatest transfer of wealth and greatest impediments to progress that have ever been conceived. Massive new taxes on all forms of energy, designed to “spread the wealth” between the failed, corrupt and inefficient third world and the free, prosperous and technologically advanced economies of the west. The costs of this agreement will be so large as to dwarf any financial or economic agreement or compact that has ever existed. Over 190 nations are participating in this process and all will be affected by the outcomes of this meeting. The fly in the ointment however, is that the entire process is based on what appears to be a lie.
Our government and special interests led by such luminaries as our own President Barack Hussein Obama and former Vice President Al Gore, both of whom seem to be more internationalist than American in their outlooks, are doing all they can to advance the agenda of this meeting. The fact that Al Gore has massive conflicts of interest in that he sits on boards of directors of organizations that profit handsomely from the Global Warming and alternative energy and technology industry seem lost to most people. That the leftist Congress and White House seem bound and determined to do all they can to tax energy production via the “Cap and Trade” legislation languishing on the back-burner of the U.S. Senate’s agenda and to prevent exploitation of oil, coal and natural gas discoveries all in the name of Global Warming.
What the American people seem not to realize is that this little meeting in Copenhagen has many other consequences that aren’t being published in the neo-Marxist press in this country. Willing stooges of the liberal Democrat party, they leave out very salient points about pending legislation and agreements like the treaty that will come out of Copenhagen.
The U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire in 2012. Copenhagen is designed to replace this failed treaty. Why did the U.S. not ratify the Kyoto treaty? Simply, it was an unfair and ruinously expensive enterprise that would have cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars with little or no effect on emissions levels due to massive exemptions on emissions to third world nations like China and India who were and still are considered developing nations. What is interesting is that comparing those nations who signed and did not sign, the U.S. as an outsider from the treaty did better on reducing emissions than did many signatories like Japan or Canada who ratified the agreement. This is a point that seems not to be talked about by the mainstream media here or abroad. The fact that such exemptions for nations like China and India would most likely occur again rendering the treaty pointless. It may also prove, like most treaties, unenforceable. If those 2 economies are exempted or given “special considerations” the brunt of attention will fall on the U.S. and other Asian counties and Europe, which are improving their emissions profile via technological advancements even without any treaty. As automobile, industrial and electromechanical devices and equipment becomes more efficient, the natural consequence of that increased efficiency is reduced energy use and reduced emissions.
Another point to be made is what the costs to the American people will be if these sorts of treaties and laws are passed into effect. Cap and Trade (the Waxman-Markey Bill) will cost the average American household of 4, approximately $3000.00 yearly and a loss of an additional 1 million jobs in the energy and higher emission industries. These are the most critical jobs in our economy as they are basically the heavy industrial areas needed to defend the nation and the agriculture industry which feeds us. Nobody seems to speak of the issue in these terms.
Having said all this there is an even more insidious agenda afoot that has only been mentioned in a couple of the more learned circles who have looked at the treaty in depth.
One of the major warnings about this potential treaty came from a most unexpected source. A British politician and hereditary Peer, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Monckton and Brenchley, who has been instrumental in sounding the call to arms against this latest assault against the western world.
Lord Monckton has been a major critic of the concept of anthropogenic causes for climate change for decades. An advocate of the Solar Variation Theory which states that solar activity has caused and does cause changes in terrestrial temperatures.
Lord Monckton has made a review of the draft treaty and came to some startling conclusions.
Beginning on page 18 of the draft, there appears to be the beginnings of a scheme to create a transnational institution that will have governing powers that cross borders and take precedence over sovereign states’ established governments. The purpose of this entity is to give this as yet unnamed organization the power to circumvent national laws and directly intervene and control financial, tax, economic and environmental law in all signatory countries. The reasons for this are clear when you consider that with this sort of power, this new “government” would be able to levy taxes across national boundaries and cede monies to those whom they deem worthy of receiving them. These “adaptation debts”, paid by wealthy countries will flow to the favored developing countries supposedly to give those nations parody with the developed ones in mitigating climate change. Clause 33 on page 39 of the draft outlines the scope and amounts, some in the range of $70-$140 billion dollars a year. You, the American people will be paying this... on the top of any taxes that come from “Cap and Trade” which is still pending approval in the U.S. Senate.
During an interview with an Australian journalist, Alan Jones, Lord Monckton said “this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts asserting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."
In another venue, the Minnesota Free Market Institute, Lord Monckton gave a 95 minute address on October 14, 2009 during a symposium outlining what may be the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution and our sovereignty in decades. An excerpt of this address can be viewed at:
I encourage you to see this address to get the full picture of the danger posed by Copenhagen and any agreement that comes from it.
This revelation alone gives me pause enough to question the motives of our government and when viewed along with the evidence from the whistle-blower e-mails and documents showing a pattern of scientific fakery on the part of climatologists involved in the whole Global Warming effort; I think there is enough evidence to warrant shelving the entire process until all known data worldwide is made public and all processes used to evaluate that data is made fully public and cross-discipline reviews are done to establish the veracity of all the data on the subject. If the science is proved a hoax, all funding for any compromised scientists and institutions must cease and be repaid to the granters, and legal redress pursued against those individuals responsible for the hoax.
This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii
For his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes
All over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body,
He has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.
He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13
of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my
age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the
world,"America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try
preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all
over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of
strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor
do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious
gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness
is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
"After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than
discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people
understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue.
You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of
murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people
not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13
of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts,
Who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police
calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by
calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the
Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission,give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political
strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
Harold B. Estes
When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
I have never made any secret of that fact and consider myself fortunate to live in the times we find ourselves in. History is all around us and when we have opportunities to see it unfold before us we should feel ourselves fortunate, even if it is a negative event.
As I was growing up, the benchmark events were always marked by my elders who asked questions like “where were you and what were you doing when Kennedy was shot?” or “where were you when Pearl Harbor was bombed?” For my generation, the benchmarks were somewhat the same. The questions “were where you and what were you doing when Reagan was shot?” or “where were you when the towers fell..?” All these have been watershed events of our time. The problem is that in the not so distant past, we had leadership that followed through and would accept nothing less than absolute victory. That concept seems to have been lost to our political and governmental leadership and become nothing more than historical footnote. Neither we nor our leaders seem to know how to think things through or to follow through as we used to. Now we are involved in two major land actions in the Mideast and yet the concept of absolute victory seems as distant as the stars above.
Last evening, we had the opportunity to listen to the President of the United States give a speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point. As Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, this venue is somewhat apropos considering that the young people who attend will most likely find themselves facing combat situations themselves in very short order. It is a situation I have found myself in when I was lucky enough to see both the President and the Secretary of Defense address us back in the 1980’s when the Cold War was still very real and the Soviet Union was still very much a threat to western security. I even had the privilege to spend some quality one-on-one time with the Secretary of the Navy, who during my period of service was a reserve Naval Aviator who did his requisite drill time with my squadron, flying the venerable A-6E Intruder with my old unit, VA-42 at NAS Oceana, Virginia. Seeing and talking with someone at that level, seeing them as people and not just positions is something rather special. I was just a junior enlisted man but Mr. (Commander) John Lehman never made me feel like an inferior underling. He respected my knowledge and experience with the weapons system that I worked on day after day, year after year. He was really a leader of men, and it showed when he was in and among those who were in his nominal if not actual charge. His leadership was real, and actual. Q.E.D...something that was demonstrated to us all.
President Obama is a gifted speaker. None can doubt that, but in the last few months it has become evident that his gift of speaking is no longer ringing well with the majority of Americans and is also loosing its effectiveness. Even in Europe, where they still were seeing him as the “Anointed One”, his words and behaviors are falling very flat. Last June, he insulted the French at the D-Day commemorations and has also gone on a host of world wide “Apology Tours” to Europe, Asia and to the Mideast. He told the world that America was going to step back off the world stage, and that we had made many mistakes, that we had been wrong about much. Then adding insult to that injury, the President made several major gaffs in protocol and custom by bowing before foreign potentates. That simple act was the last straw for most of us. It showed not humble respect as the folks in the White House thought it would. It was perceived as weakness, subservience and deference that a President of the most powerful nation on the planet does NOT do...ever. America fought a revolution against a despotic monarch over 230 years ago to have the right NOT to bow before such people. We in naval parlances saw that bow as something akin to “dipping the colors” to another nation’s vessel. That is something that is never initiated... ever. Others dip their colors to us first, and we may return that salute.
But as a matter of national dignity and sovereignty, Presidents don’t bow down...ever. Subjects bow. Vassals bow. Inferiors bow.... Not the American President.
He, unlike the leaders of the past, lacks the mantle of a true leader, and is shows....a lot.
When the President went to West Point, he was a man on trial. He and his staffers may not have realized it but he was. His remark made over a month ago that being in the presence of the military was a “great photo op”. That remark still weighed heavily in my mind. What an incredibly crass and disrespectful thing for a Commander and Chief to say to those whom he must lead to say. Essentially, he had characterized out troops as nothing more than window dressing...little more than props to be used in his pursuit of policy approval. The cadets at West Point have seen all that has happened over the last year and now have the measure of the man who is their Commander and Chief. By the expressions on their faces and the very overly polite and measured responses to his remarks, it is clear that they aren’t impressed. They clearly seemed to want to be anywhere but there. They felt undoubtedly like they were just another photo op.
Commentators like Chris Matthews at MSNBC said that Obama had been in an “enemy camp”..... It is utterly extraordinary that Mr. Matthews, a member of the so-called mainstream media would make that characterization. Labeling West Point an “enemy camp” and by extension, the cadets “the enemy” is unconscionable. What further amazes me is that he obviously didn’t pay attention to the substance or nature of the speech when viewed in context with the surroundings that it was given. Mr. Obama was in the very bastion of military orthodoxy. He was surrounded by those who have placed themselves into positions where they will possibly be called upon to fight and die for this country. The have made commitments that will last decades for some. He gave a speech that was one part Neville Chamberlain, one part George Custer, and no parts Franklin D. Roosevelt, for whom he tries to channel.
Why refer to the former British Prime Minister and the late U.S. Cavalry General? Mr. Chamberlain was the quintessential appeaser and apologist; the poster boy for denial in the face of potential conflict. General Custer was arrogant, felt he was infallible, and failed to recognize the danger the enemy presented and failed to utilize the superior capabilities available to him. He went off half-cocked as it were, to face a force he believed he could beat with a too small a force, in unfamiliar terrain. He engaged a motivated, determined, capable and well equipped enemy and came up short.
Objectively, the same can be said of our forces in Afghanistan.
The substantive points of the Presidents speech were that he would dispatch 30,000 additional troops, when his field commander asked for 40,000. He also outlined his exit strategy and gave a specific timetable on the withdrawal of our forces, 18 months hence.
The historian in me harkened back to World War II, and I imagined F.D.R and Prime Minister Winston Churchill sitting at a great conference table planning Operation Overloard, the liberation of Western Europe, with their theater commanders, Generals Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Bradley. I can just see Roosevelt saying something along the lines of “Sorry Ike. That invasion of France thing...that liberation of the Continental Europe thing you, Monty and Omar are planning.... well, it is just too much, too big, too costly and politically dangerous. Too many troops, too much equipment and by the way, you only have 18 month to finish the job against Germany. I’ll give you 25% fewer troops than you asked for and incidentally, I have already given the press a statement that will be in world wide distribution by lunch on our new war plans and policies....”
Obama has in effect if not in fact done just such a thing.
He has given General Stanley McCrystal, his theater commander in Afghanistan, less than he asked for, and is relying on others (Europeans) to make up any shortfall in troop numbers. He has also given specific information on when we will leave and under what circumstances. The enemy; Al-Qaida and the Taliban, now can sit back and formulate a counter-strategy to this new situation.
If one sits back and really thinks this trough, the multitudes of scenarios that come from Mr. Generalissimo & President Obama are truly scary. Let’s examine two possible and very real possibilities...
1. “The sit and wait them out” scenario.
The “Bad Guys” simply hunker down in the mountains and valleys in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and simply husband their resources: train up, acquire supplies, and build coalitions among the tribes in places like the Swat Valley and in Waziristan, recruiting and scheming away. Then when things have cooled off, and American and European troops have been drawn down according to the Obama war plan, they can slowly and quietly infiltrate back in and then when ready, strike in great numbers across the frontier and overwhelm the Afghan National Army and Government, which can no longer rely on massive back-up they enjoy now.
2. “The keep up the pressure and go after the Europeans” scenario.
The weak link in the present coalition is the NATO contingent. The threshold for casualties is much lower for those European governments who are operating forces so far from home. Other than the British and to a lesser extent the Canadians, the other forces present are token numbers at best. These smaller NATO contingents are operating in more humanitarian modes; training police, conducting civil affairs and some small scale security operations. If I was the operations planner for the opposition, I would target the smaller contingents of troops, inflicting and wounding as many of their forces as possible, and try to poison the European “street” against the Afghan operation. By inflicting body count on these smaller national contingents, the citizens in the affected countries may well demand their troops be withdrawn. This then would drive a further wedge between Europe and the U.S. and force the U.S. military to pick up the slack.
I , as operational commander of the opposition, might also at the very end of the 18 month period outlined by President Obama, mount a “surge” of my own, infiltrating fighters into the cities like Kabul and Kandahar and just before the major forces have departed, initiate a massive numbers of small attacks against Afghan National Army, police and government installations. I would especially target personnel; run up a body count as high as possible in order to demoralize and sew confusion. It would be politically difficult if not impossible for Obama and his European allies to reverse themselves and their militaries and redeploy back in country. It would take on a Vietnamese War-like tone and feel. The liberal, mainstream press, being useful stooges for the opposition, would make the logical comparisons to the Tet Offensive of that war, the liberal base of the Obama governmental coalition would turn up the heat on him politically and excoriate him if he attempted to retrench especially after beginning a long publicized withdrawal. The whole rotten, stinking policy mess would collapse around his head. He would then be forever “the President who lost Afghanistan”....
Both of these nightmare-like scenarios are very possible consequences of the Obama policy as articulated last evening. The question begs: Do Obama or his staff and sycophants realize what they have done? There are only three possible answers:
1. Yes, they know and don’t care if we loose, or
2. Yes, they know and they want to loose, or
3. No, they don’t know because he, as commander in chief and they as his group of advisers are totally incompetent and can’t understand military necessity, operational art, or the ramifications of incongruent and disjointed planning, obtuse Rules of Engagement, nor do they understand the enemy we fight.
I hope number 3 is the correct answer because number’s 1 and 2 would be too cynical or even treasonous to believe as possible.
If it is in fact choice 3, we can hope that our forces can hold the line and make some headway in spite of the lack of Administration support. We can also take some comfort in the knowledge that the mistakes and miscues to date can be corrected in 2010 and 2012 when sober and serious men and women of conscience and resolve can be put back a the helm of the Ship of State.