ushanka.us

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Shock on Christmas Day

Some were shocked that the threat of ~~terrorism~~ man-made disaster still exists, and that they would choose a religious holiday to attack.

The rest of us were shocked to learn people still want to fly to Detroit.

Shoe/ankle bombers are 0 for 2 now. Is there anyone in our national security agencies that think our luck may be running out? Or, are they too busy tracking all those right-wing extremists?

Stewart Baker from blog Skating on Stilts - his first of ten points:

1. According to early reports, the suspect is 23-year-old Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his name "appears to be included in the government's records of terrorist suspects, according to a preliminary review." The first question, then, is how he managed to get a visa to come to the United States.

Jules Crittenden:

If Al Qaeda is an idea in the hearts of jihadis everywhere, and he thinks he’s a part of it, why not grant him the full rights and privileges? Off to Guantanamo, give him a dunking, some AC/DC and Barney, you know, a little of the old “I love you, you love me,” and a military tribunal … oh yeah, never mind. Bungled attack by a wannabe in the post-post-9/11 era? Sounds like a suspended sentence, a couple years of probation, community service and maybe some counseling.

Comments from President Obama:

Not available. On vacation in Hawaii.

Check out Steven Crowder's recent visit to Detroit:

UPDATE 1.8:

UPDATE 1.9:

U/T: DougM at SondraK

UPDATE 1.10:

Labels: Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 10:23 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Friday, December 11, 2009

Karl's Weekend Reading

Our work schedule has kept us from posting our Weekend Reading posts in recent weeks. It'll still be off-n-on for a while. Please excuse the inconsistency.

We HAVE to start this post with WSJ's Bret Stephens' piece, The Totalities of Copenhagen. He uses the term "totalitarian impulse" much like we use the term "communist-inspirations" when describing the ~~liberals~~ ~~progressives~~ communists that are now running our country. He wears a tie to work where we're typing away in our jammies, but the message is the same. The impulses/inspirations he outlines include: "Revolutionary fervor, Utopianism, Anti-humanism, Intolerance, Monocasalism, Indifference to evidence and Grandiosity. He concludes:

Today, of course, the very idea of totalitarianism is considered passé. Yet the course of the 20th century was defined by totalitarian regimes, and it would be dangerous to assume that the habits of mind that sustained them have vanished into the mists. In Copenhagen, they are once again at play—and that, comrades, is no accident.

The more enlightened among us would say Bret's unspoken connection to communism suggests he has a screw loose. But Charles Krauthammer makes a call to action for Congress in today's Townhall, The New Socialism. That makes 2! Pretty soon right wingers are going to be launching blogs with hammers and sickles in the title bar - unless we put a stop to this nonsense!

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.
---
Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

More comments on our Ditherer in DC. Charles Krauthammer reviews the West Point speech in his Townhall article from last week, Uncertain Trumpet. "...so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive".

Words matter because will matters. Success in war depends on three things: a brave and highly skilled soldiery, such as the U.S. military 2009, the finest counterinsurgency force in history; brilliant, battle-tested commanders such as Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal, fresh from the success of the surge in Iraq; and the will to prevail as personified by the commander in chief.

There's the rub. And that is why at such crucial moments, presidents don't issue a policy paper. They give a speech. It gives tone and texture. It allows their policy to be imbued with purpose and feeling. This one was festooned with hedges, caveats and one giant exit ramp.

No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge -- Iraq 2007 -- with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching -- and salutary -- determination.
---
Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.

Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?

Victor Davis Hanson chimes in at NRO, Has War Really Changed?

If our leaders today could consult great generals like the Roman Scipio Africanus or William Tecumseh Sherman — who won what were once near-hopeless wars — they might receive the following advice:

Prepare the public to shoulder human and financial costs.

Be candid about why enduring the horrors of war now is preferable to risking even costlier violence later.

Talk always of winning, never leaving or quitting a war.

Have no apologies for crushing the enemy. The quicker the enemy loses, the fewer get killed on both sides.

Inform the public of the other side’s losses just as you do your own.

And be magnanimous to the defeated — after the war, not during the fighting.
---
President Obama talked of many things in his recent Afghanistan speech. But he never once mentioned the words “victory” and “win.” All that may seem like an out-of-date idea to postmodern Americans. But it is still a very real one to the premodern Taliban, who seem to understand the ageless nature of war far better than we do.

Labels: Losing a War, Weekend Reading

posted by Karl @ 3:40 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Sunday, December 06, 2009

To Dither or Not to Dither...

First - our apologies for our recent unannounced absence. Despite the end of capitalism, we've found reason to 'live in the past' in recent days. We can't multi-task like Tiger Woods hence the dust on the blog.

The big news of this past week was the Ditherer in Chief finally making a decision, sorta, regarding that troublesome thing he chose to inherent by becoming President - Afghanistan. We've collected some images and comments on this event and share with you below. The cartoons were found at Townhall.

President Obama visited West Point to give his speech. It was not lost on anybody that the rat sleeping under the stage knows more about national security than the guy reading the teleprompter.

From Der Spiegal:

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Lib Bob Sheiffer doesn't have much good to say about the speech:

How do you on the one hand say we need to send these troops over there? It's critical. It's in our national security interests to do this. But, then say we're only going to keep them there for 18 months?

Sweetness & Light has the full transcript.

Iain Martin at the WSJ ponders the Taliban view of this speech:

...it sounds like you’re going to have to steel yourself for a year more of increased fighting. But what’s one more year in Afghanistan’s long and troubled history? And your opponent has just told you, on television in front of the world, that after that he’s going to start withdrawing.

Now, Taliban commander, do you feel depressed or perhaps rather encouraged?

Labels: Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 12:44 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Ditherer in Chief

A few items that can be properly grouped under this title:

From Instapundit, quoting a reader:

The towers fell in New York on 9/11/01, Kabul fell to American led forces on 11/14/01. That’s 65 days.

President Obama’s hand-picked replacement commander in Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal, delivered his Afghanistan war plans to President Obama on 8/30/09, and President Obama hasn’t acted on his General’s recommendations as of today, 11/11/09. That’s 73 days, and waiting.

From Denise Sherman, mother of soldier that died last week while trying to save a fellow soldier who had fallen into a river:

I think it is time that a decision is made that this country comes together and supports our troops or whatever (Obama) decides. God will guide him. But it is time. It is time.

Found at Townhall:

Labels: Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 1:21 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Saturday, October 31, 2009

"Dithering"

Dick Cheney made the following comments on October 21st:

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." End quote.

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America's armed forces. "I will give you a clear mission," he said, "defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That's my commitment to you."

It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Bravo Mr. Vice President. May we say on behalf of all Americans who give a s**t about the security of this country, we miss you. Click here for the full speech.

The mothers of our soldiers chime in (4min):

Rush Limbaugh's Oct. 29 Morning Update, copied in full:

For over a year, there have been warnings that our military face deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan. Candidate Obama, remember, claimed that if elected, he would withdraw from Iraq, the so-called war of choice, and focus on Afghanistan -- which he said was the "war of necessity."

Well, despite all the promises and all the warnings (including dire pleas for additional troops from Obama's handpicked general on the ground), the military still awaits a decision from their Commander-in-Chief. This week, while they wait, multiple bomb attacks killed more American soldiers, making October the deadliest combat month since the war began after 9/11.

As terrorists become emboldened, the death toll in Pakistan and Iraq is also rising. There was even a deadly terror strike against Iran. The entire region seems to be imploding.

Democrats here upbraided Dick Cheney after he called out Obama for "dithering" in Afghanistan, yet the State-Controlled Media will not ask Obama why his decision is taking so long, or if domestic politics are a factor. Nor do they question the time he spends fundraising, campaigning, golfing (poorly, I might add), playing basketball, attending White House concerts -- while the troops wait... and die.

If you don't like the word "dithering," then come up with another word. But it is clear: neither national security, nor the war in Afghanistan, is top priority for this "young administration", but it is a top priority for our brave fighting troops -- and for the parents of those fallen, who are still waiting, in vain, for presidential leadership.

Cartoons on the topic from Townhall, with text below for those of us with reading glasses...

"It's another "Heads" Mr. President." Obama: "Flip again. We'll make it best out of 2,750."

"You'll have to wait, General... We're planning our strategy against Fox News, First."

Chess Board with all the pieces on Obama's side: "Afghanistan"

Obama: "To be or not to be." General: "Still no decision, huh?"

Soldier: "We just got word from Washington. Obama declared swine flu an emergency."

"68,000 reasons whey the President should "listen to the generals" as candidate Obama promised."

Are there still those that will argue that Democrats aren't weak on national security?

Labels: DNC, Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 2:06 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Hurry Up and Wait

Coming up on 80 days for our Commander in Chief to decide if he will stick to the strategy he announced six months ago, or try something different. The only option off the table is to accept the recommendations of the professional he appointed in March. Leadership can be lonely.

Today at FoxNews:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that the Obama administration cannot wait for the Afghan election to be resolved before making a decision on troop levels, appearing to be at odds with White House officials who have tied a decision on U.S. strategy to the resolution of the election and political stability.

Found at Doug Ross' site:

Found at Townhall:

Labels: Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 8:43 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Karl's Weekend Reading

The WSJ's Daniel Henninger reviews Michael Moore's latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, in his opinion article, Michael Moore's 'Socialist' President.

Of all the issues raised in the two-year campaign, Mr. Moore picks one, the famous charge that will not die: "Obama is a socialist."

Unlike the president, Mr. Moore doesn't duck. "The more they called Obama a socialist," he says, "the more he rose in the polls."
---
We live in an age of ideologically transgendered leaders.
---
The most immediate problem facing the U.S. is not that we have too much capitalism, but that we don't have enough of it.
---
The important difference between the "socialist" Barack Obama and the Republicans is he'd settle for 2% annual growth (gotta pay for the green dreams) and they might get 3%. In a world of China, India and Brazil, growing at rates between 5% and 9%, we need more. A future president who puts the U.S. back in the race with these fast runners could call himself a communist for all I care.

For those not born, too young or who weren't paying attention in the 60's, you no longer have to wonder what it looks like when a US president loses a war that could otherwise easily be won. Obama's behavior since Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to fulfill the mission Obama hired him to do several months ago is disgraceful. It is, in our opinion, and we've never said this before... impeachable. McChrystal's critics say he is trying to dictate policy through his public statements. One such public statement was the fact that his commander in chief spoke with him exactly once in his first 70 days as the war commander. WSJ Opinion Page: Obama and the General:

Recall that in March Mr. Obama unveiled his "comprehensive new strategy . . . to reverse the Taliban's gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government." The Commander in Chief pledged to properly resource this "war of necessity," which he also called during the 2008 campaign "the central front on terror." The President then sacked his war commander, who had been chosen by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in favor of Gen. McChrystal, an expert in counterinsurgency.
---
Gen. McChrystal's liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama's Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama's order to fight the war properly. His superiors, the Central Commander David Petraeus and Adm. Mullen, back him, but can hardly be said to question civil control of the military.

In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn't resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he'd have given a different answer. But we don't think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn't think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.

It is the General's public image that has gotten Obama off his **s on this issue. There are four scenarios: 1) Obama steps up and we win this war - real victory, 2) Obama is shamed into giving McChrystal some of the requested troops and resources and we continue to take the fight to the enemy, or 3) Obama surrenders but keeps troops there to die, or 4) Obama surrenders and pulls out of Afghanistan.

An AP story reported on Drudge today: US forces leave isolated Afghan base after attack.

KABUL (AP) - U.S. forces have withdrawn from an isolated base in eastern Afghanistan that insurgents attacked last week in one of the deadliest battles of the war for U.S. troops, the NATO-led coalition said Friday.
The pullout from the Kamdesh outpost near the Pakistani border is likely to embolden insurgent fighters in the region. The Taliban swiftly claimed "victory" for forcing the coalition to leave and said they had raised their flag above the town.

Obama's hesitation is sending a very clear signal. Even if he gives McChrystal the requested troops, McChrystal's job will be harder now than it would have been. In short, more great American soldiers will suffer.

Labels: Losing a War, Not a Socialist, Weekend Reading

posted by Karl @ 8:17 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Friday, October 09, 2009

Let 'em Wait

There are some who think the President shouldn't continue stalling and hesitating and deferring and floundering and straddling and vacillating and waffling and wavering and delaying and demurring and hedging to fill Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to Afghanistan. But those people are obviously motivated by base partisanship and petty political gain.

Read the story behind the pic at Sigmund, Carl and Alfred.

U/T: Knowledge is Power

Labels: DNC, Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 9:02 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Monday, October 05, 2009

Afghanistan

Remember Afghanistan? A bit lower in priority than the Olympics.

Apparently our Dear Leader is waiting for the soldiers to step up and pay for their own health care before giving Gen. McChrystal the 40,000 additional troops requested. The reliable media, aka British media, has this to report:

Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
---
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.

The General's bluntness?

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

Barbed reference? Slow pace? Surely the General understands the Dear Commander in Chief has priorities.

UPDATED 5PM Found at Contra Obama:

UPDATED 8PM Gateway Pundit offers a not-so-old quote:

"His plan comes up short. There's not enough troops, not enough resources and not enough urgency. What President Bush and Senator McCain don't understand is that the central front in the War on Terror is not in Iraq and never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the terrorists who hit us on 9-11 are still plotting attacks seven years later."

Senator Barack Obama, On the Bush war strategy, September 9, 2008

And from Jed Babbin at Human Events:

...it’s become clear that the White House will try to compromise McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops in favor of a smaller buildup or no buildup at all.

There is no course more dangerous to the lives of our troops -- and our future security -- than to do what President Obama clearly wants to do: apply Lyndon Johnson’s failed brand of indecisive warfare to Afghanistan.

Labels: DNC, Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 11:35 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Too Few: The Resignation

Our biggest frustration during the Clinton years was not with Clinton, but with so-called honorable men and women that allowed the President's poor decisions and actions to continue without their resignations. Two events come to mind:

1) Clinton meeting with his cabinet members during the Lewinsky rumors to lie to them as he did the American people. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the cabinet members stood by Clinton. Not one resignation. Not an honorable one among them.

2) During the same time, August 1998, when Clinton fired on Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings - three weeks prior. A liberal using deadly force in foreign affairs rather than domestic affairs is a red flag, and most believed this pathetic show of force was to distract from Lewinsky, his most recent scandal. Not one member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or any other senior military official resigned in protest.

There are policy decisions one can support, one can disagree with, and one that requires a resignation. The resignation sends a very clear statement of protest while giving the resigning official the space necessary between his honor and the offending politician.

According to a McLatchy story last Friday, those who know General McChrystal well suggest he will resign if not given the necessary support in Afghanistan. Just guessing at this point, but it appears Obama replaced the commander just a few months ago with a principled general, someone he is now pulling the rug out from underneath. For foreign, and war, policy, this is called voting "Present".

Remember, the generals on the ground asked for 35,000 more troops for the original Afghanistan surge. Obama sent 17,000. And guess what? The surge did not achieve the intended results. Hmmm...

Obama is in a pinch here. The seasoned leaders in uniform all joined the military during the Cold War. They prepared for the worst for most of their careers, served with the best, and will be having some reservations with a national policy of apology, quagmire and defeat.

No resignations during Clinton. Let's not make that mistake again.

U/T: Threat Matrix

Labels: Losing a War

posted by Karl @ 10:28 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment

Our Sponsors