Military 2009

Custom Search

  
 Obama did NOT include one dollar of military spending in the entire "stimulus"

 



help fight the media


click here
 the bumper sticker
 

 

 

 

 
Items are archived in this category chronologically or in the order of discovery.
Obama Milks Military To Offset Domestic Spending
Obama's strategy for obtaining deep cuts in Pentagon weapons buying has emerged: squeeze the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to pick up more war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, forcing them to forego new planes, ships and vehicles.

Obama's 2010 budget outline now being debated in Congress provides $130 billion to fund the two wars.  But that is $11 billion less than this year at a time when 17,000 new troops are moving to Afghanistan and when savings from a phased withdrawal from Iraq are unclear.

Added to this scenario is the fact that 2010 will be the last year of a separate war budget, or supplemental, as it is known.  So the four branches will have to absorb even more war costs in the so-called "out years."

An analysis by Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee reveals the four military branches will be forced to make up a $141 billion shortfall over two years.  The White House needs to milk the military to help offset soaring domestic spending that will create trillion-dollar annual deficits.

The crunch can only have one result: deep cuts in programs.

"They are really setting the stage to drop the hammer in 2011 and 2012," said James Jay Carafano, a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation.  "And at the same time what they're trying to do is basically come up with the rhetoric to just disguise this as just good government."

The military will eventually suffer combat readiness problems as it did under Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who both inflicted deep wounds in defense spending.
Military Strained By Obama Trip
And, speaking of Obama's 500-plus G-20 entourage, The Washington Times is reporting that Obama's European visit this week has strained the US Air Force's heavy-airlift capabilities and obliged the military to hire more foreign contractors to help resupply U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, according to military sources.

The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue.  They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials.

The Air Mobility Command, part of the U.S. Transportation Command, was ordered to provide airlift for the president's entourage of nearly 500 people, including senior officials, staff, support personnel, news reporters and some 200 Secret Service agents for the European visit, which began Tuesday in London.

Airlift for the traveling entourage also was used to move the president's new heavy-armored limousine and several presidential helicopters used for short transits.

To make up for the shortfall, the Air Force had to increase the number of Eastern European air transport contractors hired to fly Il-76 and An-124 transport jets into Afghanistan loaded with troop supplies, the two officials said.

The airlift crunch comes at a particularly difficult time, as the military is stepping up deliveries of supplies in advance of a surge of 21,000 U.S. troops.

One official said the problem was not only the vehicles and helicopters that were needed for presidential security, but also the unusually large number of people traveling with the president.  The official said U.S. taxpayers are paying twice for airlift, once for Air Force jets that are not available for a war zone and again for foreign contractor aircraft that are.
How The Rescue Happened
Blackfive makes the point that the commander on scene already had the authority to deal with an imminent death situation in his standing rules of engagement.  That means that when this situation was escalated to national command authority, i.e. Obama, those rules were suspended and Obama implemented new ones specific to this incident.  Then he had to restore the authority the captain already had to use deadly force to save a hostage from execution.  There is considerable talk that the initial new "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) that Obama instituted did not allow a rescue so as to allow the negotiations to proceed, and then a second set of ROE was instituted after the Navy could not respond to Captain Phillip's escape attempt.  That is unconfirmed but fits the facts as they happened.

Blackfive just finished listening to the press conference with Admiral Gortney about the rescue of Captain Phillips.  At the time it happened the USS Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat to calmer waters as the sea state was deteriorating.  One of the pirates was on board the Bainbridge as the talks about obtaining Phillip's release continued.  The lifeboat was approximately 25 meters behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads).  The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger.  The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire.  All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips.  It is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available.  This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority, i.e. the President.  It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading.

Obama did affirm the military's authorization to use force if the captain's life was in danger, but the Navy already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement.  If there are innocents about to be slaughtered the same reasoning that authorizes self defense also covers an imminent execution unless the ROE specifically forbid it.  The AP is making it sound like there was an active rescue ordered by Obama.  It was not, there was an imminent threat and the local commander gave the order to fire.  Good on Obama for ensuring their authorization was clear, but let's also be clear that he did not authorize or order an active rescue attempt.

Obama's part in this was apparently to reinforce the authority already possessed by the on scene commander.  Matter of fact if there was a second communication with Obama it may have been because his first order actually restricted them from taking action, i.e. why nothing happened when Phillips made his escape attempt.  Regardless, Obama did not order a rescue and Blackfive doubts he would have.

Blackfive wonders why the pirates would have threatened Phillips or considered killing him.  It would be an obvious death sentence, as evidenced.  The second they shot him, it would have allowed free rein for the Bainbridge to blow them out of the water.

Oh and for you lefty Kossack wankers, these were SEALs, Marines and sailors with zero Special Forces.  Not that an uninformed ass clown would know.

There's more here . . .
Obama Troop Greeting Staged
Newsbusters is reporting that an all-too-predictable gusher was delivered by Jennifer Loven, a Democratic operative disguised as Associated Press reporter:

Cheered wildly by U.S. troops, Barack Obama flew unannounced into Iraq on Tuesday and promptly declared it was time for Iraqis to "take responsibility for their country" after America's commitment of six years and thousands of lives.

"You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country," the Obama said as he made a brief inspection of a war he opposed as candidate and now vows to end as commander in chief.  "That is an extraordinary achievement."

MacsMind contends that the troop contingent was contrived, based on an e-mail he says he received "from a sergeant that was there."  The corresponding sergeant also dropped a telltale clue:

We were pre-screened, asked by officials "Who voted for Obama?", and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line.  They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.

Take a look at the picture at AP and notice all the cameras are the same models?  Coincidence?  I think not.

 

 

Indeed, there are an awful lot of cameras that look awfully identical.

Another consolidated wire report found at the Dallas Morning News at midnight on April 8 described the event as "hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly" and as "a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war."

So it seems that the establishment press got played.  It also appears that New Media made them look like the fools they are.  And it looks like Team Obama is going to have to improve its stealth techniques the next time around.
Obama Fails To Use Best Radar
The Obama Administration denied permission for the U.S. Northern Command to use the Pentagon's most powerful sea-based radar to monitor North Korea's recent missile launch, precluding officials from collecting finely detailed launch data or testing the radar in a real-time crisis, current and former defense officials said.

Jamie Graybeal, Northcom public affairs director, confirmed that Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, the Northcom commander, requested the radar's use, but referred all other questions to the Pentagon.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Mr. Gates' decision not to use the $900 million radar, known as SBX, was "based on the fact that there were numerous ground- and sea-based radars and sensors in the region to support the operational requirements for this launch."

SBX, deployed in 2005, can track and identify warheads, decoys and debris in space with very high precision. Officials said the radar is so powerful it could detect a baseball hit out of a ballpark from more than 3,000 miles away, and that other radars used by the U.S. would not be able to provide the same level of detail about North Korea's missile capabilities.
Veterans Are Also A Focus Of FBI Extremist Probe
It turns out that Janet Napolitano's targeting of America's war veterans is not an isolated event.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."  The report focuses on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, four weeks Obama's inauguration and two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."

The FBI said in the memo, meant for internal distribution only, that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information.  The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat."  The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

OK?  Is anyone really surprised that one of Obama's first directive's to the Justice and Homeland Security Departments is to begin to create dossiers on America's heroes?

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that yesterday evening it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.  The lawsuit claims that her Department’s "Rightwing Extremism Policy," as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.  Click here to read the complaint filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday requesting that she show them the data.
Obama, Back-Seat Commander
On the 14th, Blackfive reported that early reports indicated that Obama had hindered the military's rescue of Merchant Marine Captain Phillips.

Flopping Aces now confirms, from first-hand reports, that Obama did indeed restricted Navy SEALs from rescuing the Maersk Alabama's captain with force.

Aces spoke to some SEAL pals in Virginia Beach yesterday and asked why the incident dragged out for 4 days.  He was told the following:

1. BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in "imminent danger."

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions.  As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. Obama specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge captain and SEAL teams.

6. The Bainbridge captain and SEAL team commander finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage.  4 hours later, 3 dead raggies

7. Obama immediately claimed credit for his "daring and decisive" behavior.  As usual with him, it’s BS.

So per our last email thread, I’m downgrading Oohbaby’s performace to D-minus.  Only reason it’s not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well.  With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors -- and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority -- Obama -- had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates -- and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed.  This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer -- unnamed in all media reports to date -- decided the AK47 that one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in the dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff answered questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours -- as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location -- became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
From Supremacy To Adequacy
U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke on the Senate Floor Monday delivering a detailed review of Obama's proposed cuts to the Department of Defense (DoD) budget.

"I come to the Senate Floor today to speak out of great concern that we are heading down a dangerous road leading to the gutting of our military and settling for 'adequacy' versus 'supremacy,'" Senator Inhofe said on the Senate Floor.  "I first made my concerns known in a YouTube video posted from Afghanistan immediately following the announcement by the Obama administration.

My concerns drew an interesting reaction from the left.  Not only did they say I was wrong to say that there were proposed cuts to the budget, they actually said that Obama proposed to increase the budget.  I must confess it is a rare day when liberals actually claim to support increasing our nation's military.
 
"The problem is the left is focused on one number -- one piece of military spending -- when we need to look the total Defense Budget -- what DoD actually spends on all its operations and how that money is used to maintain our military capabilities.  In actuality, thanks to Obama, overall defense spending has been cut by $10.7B in FY09 and will be cut again in FY10 based on projected inflation and potential use of what is being called 'Overseas Contingency Funds.'  Perhaps this is the new term for our Global War on Terror.

"We have reached a crossroads where we will choose to either invest in the modernization and readiness of our military or mistakenly 'kick the can down the road' once more.  Based on the projected defense budget for the next ten years, it looks like this administration is taking us down a path that leads to a weaker military that is poorly equipped.

"The Obama budget of social welfare will triple the public debt in 10 years.  We have already spent almost $2 trillion.  The $700B for the Bank Bailout, that we now know was Tim Geithner's plan, was simply thrown away.  The October 2008 vote gave $700B to an unelected bureaucrat to spend with no restrictions or accountability.  Yet, all we need is an additional $28B for defense in FY10 to adequately fund our military.

"My fellow Oklahoman Congressman Tom Cole said it best, 'Throughout his campaign and during his short tenure as President, he has made it clear that he believes his charm and eloquence are adequate substitutes for a strong military.  That will not work.'"

But, Jim, Obama is only doing what he said he would do during the campaign -- video.
It Just Doesn't Stop
The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright must be proud of his student, as Obama continues, his "God Damn America" campaign.

On the heels of the firestorm over the release of Bush-era memos on CIA interrogation techniques, Obama agreed late Thursday to release 44 photographs depicting alleged abuses at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush White House.

The decision to release the photos was announced in a letter filed in a federal court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2004.  A "substantial number" of other images, will be released by May 28.

The ACLU says making public additional images of detainee treatment is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU.

The images were part of the military's investigation of potential abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel at facilities other than Iraq Abu Ghraib, though the photos apparently aren't as shocking as those that set off a prisoner abuse scandal in 2004, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Even so, Defense officials say they worry that the new release of photos could set off a backlash in the Middle East against the United States, the Times reports.
A Military Marathon
I have watched the running of the Boston Marathon for over 60 years.  I grew up a stones-throw from the Lake Street checkpoint.

For the first time in 113 years, the National Guard deployed 400 Massachusetts National Guardsmen from the 126th Combat Support Battalion, "to keep the Boston Marathon race route clear" -- never happened before Obama's buddy, Deval Patrick -- sarcastically referred to a "Coupe Deval" -- was selected to govern by the progressives who control this single-party "commonwealth."
The deployment is yet another example of the U.S. military collaborating with local law enforcement around the country.  Under the Posse Comitatus Act passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, the federal uniformed services -- including the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces -- are prohibited from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

National Guard forces operating under the state authority are technically exempt from Posse Comitatus Act restrictions.  However, with the passage of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, federal law was changed so that the governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state’s National Guard, a direct violation of Article I, Section 10 and Clause 3 of the Constitution.

Last year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a fiat accompli when ordered the Pentagon to conduct a "broad review" to determine if the military and the National Guard and Reserve can "adequately deal with domestic disasters," including "a catastrophic attack on the country."  Gates "pressed officials to better integrate reservists into the modern day military and consider treating them on a more equal basis to the active duty troops," according to CBS News.

Earlier this month, we reported on a joint checkpoint operation involving DHS, federal and state agencies, the Air Force, and local law enforcement in Tennessee -- another instance violating Posse Comitatus.

Another example, the U.S. Army dispatching soldiers to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, after a rampaging gunman killed 10 people.

Last June, D. H. Williams of the Daily Newscaster reported the deployment of 2,300 Marines in the city of Indianapolis under the direction of FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Other instances of military deployment and collaboration with local law enforcement are too numerous to mention.  The deployments and exercises have increased significantly since the U.S. military announced last year it will place 20,000 troops on the streets of America by 2011 under the control of the Northern Command.  In October, the Department of Defense announced it was assigning a full-time Army brigade to be "on call' to facilitate military cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security.

A National Guard spokesman said the soldiers were in attendance to "safeguard" the public.  However, this role is usually assigned to the police, not a combat support battalion.  The military’s job is to break things and kill people during war, not protect civilians from participants in a marathon.
On Second Thought
The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is considering reviving military tribunals to try the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  An anonymous administration official sums up:

"The more they look at it," said one official, "the more commissions don't look as bad as they did on Jan. 20."

As Jules Crittenden notes, you can infer the administration's embarrassment from the timing of the Friday afternoon leak.

I hope someone is keeping track of Obama's many sub silentio ratifications of once-criticized Bush administration policies.

I was considering placing this item under "Obama's Lies," but that page is rapidly filling up.  Obama's pronouncements run from simple dissembling to bold-faced lying.
Military Police At The Kentucky Derby

 

A Google News search does not produce a story or even a brief mention of the fact military police were on hand at the Kentucky Derby to keep the restless in line.  However, an Associated Press photograph, posted on the Yahoo! News website, shows two MPs in combat fatigues with side arms restraining a man at the derby.

The military has no business policing citizens except during extraordinarily exceptional times of national emergency by an executive order.  This is very disturbing and completely un-American.  Maybe even more disturbing is that no one seems to care how quietly and easily we have accepted the burgeoning police state.

The presence of uniformed and armed military police at the Kentucky Derby is part of an ongoing campaign to acclimate the populace to the presence of soldiers at public events.
Obama Budget Cuts Target Pentagon
Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs.

In its "Terminations, Reductions and Savings" booklet, which the administration released Thursday, the White House highlighted the results of the president's line-by-line scrubbing of the federal budget.

The administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year.  The Defense Department will take a $9.4 billion hit, constituting 82 percent of the cuts.

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Obama said. (giggle!)

While defense spending accounts for 19 percent of the federal budget, it would absorb 55 percent of $17 billion in total cuts.

The defense cuts send "a very clear signal that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration.  I think that's pretty clear," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican.

Obama's just doing what he said he would do during the campaign. (video)
Obama Cancels Nuke Program
Michael Crowley, writing at The New Republic, says that Obama's new budget plan includes a little-noted sea change in U.S. nuclear policy, and a step towards his vision of a denuclearized world.  It provides no funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, created to design a new generation of long-lasting nuclear weapons that don't need to be tested.  (The military is worried that a nuclear test moratorium in effect since 1992 might endanger the reliability of an aging US arsenal.)  But this spring Obama issued a bold call for a world free of nuclear weapons, and part of that vision entails leading by example.  That means halting programs that expand the American nuclear stockpile.  For the past two budget years the Democratic Congress has refused to fund the Bush-era program.  But Obama's budget kills the National Nuclear Security Administration program once and for all.

"My colleagues just stared at that line," says Joe Cirincione, a longtime nonproliferation expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund.  "They had never seen anything like that."  Killing the program, he said, was "the first programmatic impact of the new [zero nukes] policy.  People have said they want to see more than words, this is the very first action."

Here's the relevant language from Obama's budget explaining the thinking behind the move:

In the upcoming year, NNSA will participate in the national debate to lay out a vision for our nation’s nuclear security and non-proliferation goals.  This vision is based on the reality that nuclear security is not just about warheads and the size of the stockpile.  The vision emphasizes that we must increase our focus on nuclear security and transforming the Cold War nuclear weapons complex into a 21st century national security enterprise.  We must ensure our evolving strategic posture places the stewardship of our nuclear arsenal, nonproliferation programs, missile defenses, and the international arms control objectives into one comprehensive strategy that protects the American people and our allies.

One particularly interesting angle here: Obama has overruled his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who has been pushing for months to maintain the warhead program.  Last October, Gates warned that

"[t]o be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program."

But even though "modernization" has now been halted, Obama will almost certainly not resume nuclear testing.  So one has to presume Gates is not a happy camper on this score.
Obama's War Funding Passes House
With a vote of 368-60, the House on Thursday wholeheartedly approved of Obama's request for extra funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The $96.7 billion bill includes $44 billion for operations, maintenance and military personnel for the two wars and $26 billion to replace planes and equipment.

Not only did the bill easily pass, it came without any timelines or benchmarks that the Democrats have insisted upon in past supplemental requests made by the Bush Administration.  House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., had included a list of conditions to be met within a year's time when he outlined the bill earlier this month, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., took them out.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, threw up her hands when asked why Democrats backed the bill.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama On D-Day
On June 6, 1944, the United States and its allies launched the largest air and sea armada in world history.  The purpose of this mission was clear: liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi despotism.

The landings on the Normandy beaches led to unprecedented death and destruction.  American soldiers leaving their amphibious landing crafts measured their life expectancy in minutes.  In the first hour of battle hundreds lost their lives and in succeeding waves thousands were killed as the beaches at Omaha and Utah were soaked with the blood of young men in their teens and early twenties.

 


click photo for awesome larger image

 

Obama will attend the events on June 6th as George Bush did in 2004 for the sixtieth memorial service.  Here is the rub, as of now Obama’s State Department has asked (read demanded) the French government not allow tour guide services to operate that day.  It is a big day for Normandy tourism.  Yet, the Obamamessiah will not allow those not connected with government to enjoy the day.  Obama is very important you know.  This is an unprecedented request.  I hope the French come to their senses and deny it.

For the fallen heroes lying in their graves this ignorance is lamentable.  Perhaps it explains why Obama can apologize and apologize again and many Americans can applaud, or at the very least, accept his gesture for foreign consumption.  I cannot.  I am appalled that we can ignore, forget or rationalize away American heroism.

I don't think we should ever apologize for what the United States has done to extricate millions from the yoke of totalitarian control.  It is not arrogance to recall the limbs that were shattered and the bodies broken to set history on the course of democracy, imperfect as it is.

Before Obama stands supinely before the G-20 again and engages in a form of national self-flagellation, I would urge him to stand amid the crosses and stars in Normandy cemetery and recall the sacrifices made by those youngsters so that he could stand amongst their graves and breathe an unadorned version of freedom.
Obama's Rules Of War
The Justice Department confirmed last week that FBI agents in Afghanistan are reading Miranda warnings to suspected terrorists captured there, a practice that Republican congressmen this week branded as "crazy" and "stupid."

Miranda warnings were mandated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said domestic law enforcement agencies must inform criminal suspects arrested in the United States of their rights under the 5th Amendment.

"You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," says the typical Miranda warning.  "You have the right to an attorney present during questioning.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.  Do you understand these rights?"

The Obama administration's decision to make this statement to terror suspects captured on the battlefield in a foreign country has sparked outrage among several Republicans Congress who spoke with CNSNews.com.  It also contradicts what Obama said in March, when he indicated that Miranda rights did not apply to terror suspects captured overseas.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), as first reported in The Weekly Standard, said he was recently in Afghanistan and personally witnessed FBI agents reading the Miranda warning to captured combatants.

"I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it," said Rogers.  "We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."

"Anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that’s already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier’s life," said Rogers.

Continue reading here -- with video . . .
Another Major Blow On Gitmo
PatriotRoom.com reports that closing Gitmo in January became one step closer to legally impossible today.

Already this week, the House showed its defiance of Obama's goal of shutting down the facility by approving a $100 billion war-spending bill that stipulates that it will not allow the use of federal money to close Guantanamo in the final months of this budget year.  That bill is expected to be passed by the Senate soon.

The bill before the House Thursday prohibits the release of detainees into the United States during the 2010 budget year.  It would allow the transfer to the United States of detainees for prosecution or detention only after Congress has had two months to read a White House report on how it plans to shut the detention facility and disperse the inmates.

The House bill also requires the Obama administration to notify lawmakers of any plans to transfer detainees to other countries.

But the chamber also rejected an amendment by Rep. Jerry Lewis, a Republican, that strengthened the prohibition by stopping in its tracks funding for any government activity related to closing the facility.

The amendment first went down on a 216-212 vote.  After Republicans demanded a recount, it was defeated again, 213-212.

If the bill passes the Senate, Obama could veto it, which would maim him politically, or he can sign it.  If it doesn't reach his desk for another few weeks, he will still have to craft a still-elusive reason for shutting the place down, and then Congress gets 60 days to review it.  Any plan that specifically lists locations in the United States for relocation of the terrorists will run into a blowtorch of opposition by those states' congressional delegations.

Looks more likely that Obama will have to renege on yet another campaign promise, and keep Gitmo open.  The sound you hear the day he capitulates on that issue will be the sound of liberal heads exploding.
50 Or More Gitmo Trials Possible
Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday there may be 50 or more trials of Guantanamo Bay detainees as the Obama administration works to shut the detention center by early next year.  Holder discussed the plan before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the senior Republican called him "too soft" on terrorism while a second GOP lawmaker said he was on the right track in handling detainees.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., criticized Holder for the release of Bush administration memos that authorized harsh interrogation techniques. Sessions said the memos gave important information to America's enemies.

Holder told senators protecting Americans from terrorists is his top priority.

Under questioning from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Holder outlined efforts to close Guantanamo.  Last week, the administration shipped 10 detainees from Guantanamo, leaving 229 still there. Obama has ordered the center closed by January.

Graham said he expected about one-quarter or fewer of the inmates to be brought to civilian or military trial.  Holder said he thought that figure was "about right."

Continue reading here . . .
Obama’s Rules Of Engagement
Don’t shoot back!

Don’t pick the poppies!

And don’t bother the women and men in burqas!

These are the new rules of engagement for leathernecks in Afghanistan.

Sound incredible?  They’re true.

Welcome to the modern Marine Corps under Barack Hussein Obama.  

 


       
On July 1, the U.S. military initiated Operation Khanjar or "Strike of the Sword," an invasion of the Helmand Province by 4,000 Marines and 650 Afghan soldiers.

"Strike of the Sword" represents the first military operation to be ordered by Obama.  The purpose of the campaign is to flush out Taliban operatives from southern Afghanistan in order to safeguard the re-election of Afghan President Hamid Karzai on August 20.  The military initiative is being conducted by the insistence of Kharzai, who fears that a strong Taliban presence will produce unfavorable results for him on election-day.

To accomplish this objective, Obama remains determined to deploy 68,000 additional U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan within the next six weeks.

But the Marines, thanks to Obama, are conducting this mission with their hands tied.

The first order from America’s new faux-commander is that the Marines must not return enemy fire for fear of killing an Afghan non-combatant.

ABC Correspondent Mike Boettcher, who is embedded with Golf Company, reports that the young Marines, when ambushed by Taliban forces with automatic weapons, were ordered to shoulder their rifles.  Their command, Boettcher writes, warned them that "one civilian casualty could negate the No. 1 objective of this operation -- winning the trust and respect of the farmers of the Helmand River Valley."

Details here . . . and here . . .
1200 Veterans Mistakenly Told They’re Dying
Just as the Obama administration tries to reassure people that the government can manage the health-care system more competently than what we have now, one of its single-payer systems demonstrates exactly what we can expect from ObamaCare. The VA mistakenly informed 1200 veterans that they have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, a 100% fatal condition. They blamed it on a "coding error" (via JWF):

At least 1,200 veterans across the country have been mistakenly told by the Veterans Administration that they suffer from a fatal neurological disease.

One of the leaders of a Gulf War veterans group says panicked veterans from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming have contacted the group about the error.

Denise Nichols, the vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, says the VA is blaming a coding error for the mistake.

The notifications went out in a letter intending to inform ALS sufferers about the benefits available to them through the VA. At that time, one of those benefits was end-of-life counseling and access to "Your Life, Your Choices," the booklet that refers veterans to the Hemlock Society when they feel life is no longer worth living. I wonder how many of these veterans were given the booklet?
War Fighting The Liberal Way
NorCal Blogs reminds us that right after Obama selected a new general to manage the war in Afghanistan casualties began to creep upward as leading military officials said the Taliban presence is growing and the situation in Afghanistan is seriously deteriorating.

In response to the increasing threat, Obama's new man, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, laid down stricter rules of engagement in a tactical directive sent to all foreign forces in Afghanistan.  The US Army spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, said, "The guidance to the troops clarifies that citizens are the centre of gravity and that we should do everything to gain their support and we must do everything to avoid civilian casualties...."  He assured reporters this is absolutely not a repeat of the huge mistake we made in Iraq before General Petreaus introduced the SURGE and wiped out nests of enemy fighters and gained the trust of the locals by a show of force.  This time taking the softer, kinder approach is different somehow, we're not sure exactly how it's different, but that's their story and they are sticking to it.

The new policy has already seen a strong cut back in precision bombing of high value targets due to a concern about possible non-combatant collateral damage.  General McChrystal felt the trade-off from grateful civilians verses killing enemy leaders would be well worth any American causalities this might cause.  Already, this may be working as Taliban soldiers moving caravans of guns and ammo have expressed their deepest appreciation for the lull in aerial bombings.

Soldiers may not fire upon anyone unless fired upon.  Then if the enemy combatants flee in the direction of civilians, they may not be fired upon at all in order to avoid civilian casualties.  Again, General McChrystal made it clear soldiers should consider themselves as good will ambassadors first and soldiers second.  This outreach of concern and friendship should help the Taliban moderate their religious and political views, at least according to the new Obama/Army policy and then eventually we can talk them out of being evil, murderous thugs and we'll all live happily ever after.

The Unofficial US Army spokespeople responded to this and said:

"Obama is F#@$%!#@ nuts and so's his punk General!  We are fightin' and dyin' over here against a determined, fanatical F^#$ing enemy who has NO F@%#ing rules whatsoever and he's telling us to F@*&%$%& cut back on the bombing in areas we can't reach any other way?  Holy SH--!  He's also telling us to check fire until we're shot at before engaging the enemy?  And not to fire at all if there is one F#@#$%^& civilian in the area?  You want us to check the civilians references first or what?  Give us a break!  We're here to fight a war -- we only know one way to do that and this ain't it!

Meanwhile these Muth#%F#$%&%* Huns are running free all over the countryside, terrorizing the civilian populace, planting bombs, planning ambushes and killing soldiers right and left!  What kind of A F%$#@&%% way is this to win a war?  This is so F &^%$%$&#@# unbelievably stupid, and we know it's coming right out of the White House from this stupid F@#^%&*&%$ dope smokin', drug takin', liberal puke who has never spent one day in a uniform.  This F#@#$%^ As#@*&* is getting us killed over here and it's going to get a lot worse... thanks to this F@%^&$#in idiot Obama!

You will never win sh## until the Taliban are taken out (dead) and the locals can finally feel safe.  If this is the stupid F#@#@$%^ way we're supposed to fight you people back home might as well pull us out now and give it back to the F'n Taliban!

NOTE: The Mainstream Media and the White House did not authorize the publication of the unofficial response.
Obama Officially Abandons Missile Defense In Europe
The Heritage Foundation reports, that according to the Polish daily, Gazeta Wyborcza, sources in the United States have confirmed that the Obama administration has made the decision to abandon our anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.  Unfortunately this news is not surprising at all.  In March of this year it was revealed that Obama "secretly" offered Moscow a grand bargain whereby it would sacrifice missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Moscow’s help discouraging Iran’s nuclear program.  Then in his July summit with Moscow, Obama reinforced his message that missile defense remains a bargaining chip that can exchanged for his college dream of a nuclear free world.

This is a grave mistake for several reasons:
  

•  The decision to abandon the "third site" deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic violates President Obama’s pledge to support missile defense that is "pragmatic and cost-effective."  Ground based missile defense is effective, affordable, and available now.

•  According to the Congressional Budget Office, alternatives to the third site do not provide a comparable level of defense. The CBO concluded that the estimated $9-14 billion 20-year cost of the third site was half of the estimated costs of a sea-based alternative.

•  Reneging on our promise to Poland and the Czech Republic sends a terrible signal to our allies in the region.

Abandoning our best missile defense option in Europe only encourages Iran to speed up their ballistic missile program so that they can get their threat in place before a European missile defense system is available. We are in a depserate race to beat the clock on Iran’s nuclear program. Why on earth are we stopping now to let the Iranians catch up?

  
Abandoning our best missile defense option in Europe only encourages Iran to speed up their ballistic missile program so that they can get their threat in place before a European missile defense system is available.  We are in a desperate race to beat the clock on Iran’s nuclear program.  Why on earth are we stopping now to let the Iranians catch up?

Obama is just doing what he said he'd do (video).
Pentagon Worried About Obama's Commitment
The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within Barack Obama's administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.

On Monday, McChrystal sent his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to the Pentagon, the U.S. Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO.  Although the assessment didn't include any request for more troops, senior military officials said they expect McChrystal later in September to seek between 21,000 and 45,000 more troops.  There currently are 62,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting.  With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to the media, said Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the U.S. can't make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaida.  Biden's office declined to comment.

"I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier," a senior Pentagon official said.  "We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war."

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Administration Misleads Congress On Gitmo
Jed Babbin says two parts of the Obama administration are giving conflicting reports on the dangers posed by terrorist detainees to Congress and the U.S. courts, executive branch sources tell HUMAN EVENTS.

In effect, the Obama administration is keeping two sets of books on the terrorist prisoners.

According to rules established earlier this year, the Obama administration is required to send Congress notification of its intent to move or release any inmates at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba facility at least fifteen days before the action is accomplished.

These notifications, called "risk assessments," were supposed to give members of Congress sufficient information for them to determine whether the move of any of the Gitmo inmates to their states or districts would pose a danger to the public.  And the notice was supposed to be sufficiently in advance of the action to allow Congress to act to block it.

Now, according to sources who have requested anonymity, we can report that the Obama administration -- through the State Department, which is preparing the congressional notices -- is apparently manipulating the intelligence and other evidence to sanitize the Congressional notifications.

Our sources say that the State Department is intentionally omitting any information about the detainees derived from intelligence, saying it isn’t "evidence" against them.  As a result, State is sanitizing the notices and presenting Congress with false findings that there is little danger posed by the detainees.

At the same time, another part of the Obama administration is telling the U.S. courts a very different story about some of the same detainees.

Pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court here -- in opposition to Gitmo detainees’ writs of habeas corpus seeking release from detention -- are being prepared in the Defense Department.

These pleadings, called "factual returns," are, according to our sources, much more "robust" and contain specific information that shows how profoundly dangerous the inmates are to the public and why they should not be released from U.S. custody.

The "returns" are apparently filed under seal in the court and not available to the public.

Free people can derive a lot of differing opinions from the facts.  But there is only one set of facts.

Why is the Obama administration telling Congress that these men aren’t dangerous when it is apparently telling the U.S. District Court just the opposite?

Congress is returning shortly to face serious issues, such as the continuing war between the CIA and Democratic leaders.  Before it does anything else -- before talking about ObamaCare, cap-and-trade or any other legislation -- it should get to the bottom of this mess.
Barack Obama And The CIA
Gerald Warner says that if al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself.  Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people -- not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is.  To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the U. S. Constitution.  Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.  He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques.  He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans.  Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered that Obama was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

"Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers.  Is he kidding?  Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them -- or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb.  Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions.  That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock.  Talk about playing party politics with national security.  Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas.  Ponder that -- once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.

Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney.  The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were.  Under Dubya’s administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

Obama’s recent world tour, cozying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies.  Here, they realized, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners.  His only enemies are fellow Americans.  Which prompts the question: why does Obama hate America so badly?
Obama’s UN Gambit
Anne Bayefsky says that Obama is looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, so he has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations.  On September 24, Obama will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American politician has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body.  But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi -- who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right -- will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of "post-racial" scapegoating will pale by comparison.

After all, who among us is not for world peace?

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen.  Obama didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda -- as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month.  His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2nd, at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: "The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries."

This seemingly innocuous language has two profoundly disturbing features.  First, UN documents indicate that the Security Council is currently dealing with over 100 issues.  While "non-proliferation" is mentioned, "disarmament" is not.  Similarly, a UN Secretariat compilation "forecasting the Council’s program of work" for the month of September -- based on prior activities and requests -- lists non-proliferation specifically in relation to Iran and North Korea and does not list disarmament.  But in light of Obama’s wishes, a tailor-made subheading will likely be adopted under the existing entry "maintenance of international peace and security."  The new item will insist on simultaneous consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and make no mention of particular states.

This is no trivial technicality.  The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states.  It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized.  It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate -- those that name Iran and North Korea.  This stretches his "beer summit" technique to the global scale.  Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract.  The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness.  As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: "Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them."

At Ambassador Rice’s news briefing, she gave "an overview of the principal important meetings" to be held in September on her watch.  After finishing the list of subjects without mentioning Iran or North Korea, she added: "So those are the highlights.  We also have . . . three sanctions regimes that are up for regular review, chaired by the heads of the sanctions committees.  We have Sudan, Iran and North Korea, and these are, I expect, likely to be uneventful and routine considerations of these various regimes."

Even hard-boiled UN correspondents were surprised.  Rice was asked to explain how the recent capture by the United Arab Emirates of containers of ammunition en route to Iran from North Korea could be construed as "uneventful and routine."  Her answer highlights the administration’s delinquency: "We are simply receiving . . . a regularly scheduled update....  This is not an opportunity to review or revisit the nature of either of those regimes."

A brutalized Iranian population, yearning for democracy, has repeatedly been met by nothing but sad faces from this administration.  An Iranian president installed by treachery has been legitimized by American recognition of his government, a decision that has sidelined other eminently justifiable alternatives.  The leaders of this state sponsor of terrorism aim to annihilate the Jewish state and are on the verge of acquiring the means to do so.  But instead of making the isolation and delegitimation of Iran the top priority for America’s turn at the council presidency, the Obama administration has taken Iran off the table at precisely the time when top decision-makers will be present.

The administration’s zeal for the front-page photo-op on September 25’s New York Times has now become a scramble to manufacture an "outcome" for the session.  Obama’s idea for a glorious finish was described by Ambassador Rice as some kind of joint statement declaring in part "that we are united in support for effective steps to ensure nuclear nonproliferation."

Such a result would be breathtaking -- for the audacity of claiming exactly the opposite of what it really represents.  Even allied council members France and the United Kingdom are reported to be very unhappy with Obama’s no-names strategy for his September rollout.

Far from bolstering his flagging image, Obama’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality.

One has to remember that Obama fancies himself an expert on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament.  Obama's Columbia senior year's thesis -- missing, of course -- was about nuclear disarmament.

Sounds to me as though this is the beginning of Obama's plan, outlined in this video, to disarm America.
Obama's Politically-Correct Rules Of Engagement Are Killing America's Heroes
GANJGAL, Afghanistan -- We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.

Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines -- despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

"We are pinned down.  We are running low on ammo.  We have no air.  We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters.

Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.  Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border.

Three Americans and 19 Afghans were wounded, and U.S. forces later recovered the bodies of two insurgents, although they believe more were killed.

The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village's first layer cake-style stone house.  Much of their ammunition was gone.  One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.

Obama warfare -- where the body count of Americans determines success or failure.  Day after day, our soldiers are being maimed by crude IEDs, killed in ambushes, suffering in extreme heat and cold, being put in impossible situations trying to find and kill an enemy that wear no uniforms and is willing to hide behind women and children, as well as willing to use them as human bombs.

Obama's new rules of engagement ARE KILLING OUR SOLDIERS AND MARINES.  If Obama is not serious about winning then we must get out now before we lose one more American.
Obama Gives New Rights To Afghan Prisoners
Islam in Action reports that hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system being put in place this week, according to administration officials.

The new system will be applied to the more than 600 Afghans held at the Bagram military base, and will mark the first substantive change in the overseas detention policies that Obama inherited from the Bush administration.

International human rights organizations have long criticized conditions at the Bagram facility, where detainees have been held -- many of them for years -- without access to lawyers or even the right to know the reason for their imprisonment.  Afghans have cited Bagram, where virtually all prisoners in U.S. custody are held, as a major source of resentment toward coalition forces, a senior administration official said.

As part of a prison-wide protest that began in July, detainees at Bagram, located north of Kabul, have refused visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross and have declined video teleconferences with their families. The goal of the new procedures, the official said, is to create a "more robust" system that would "allow detainees to tell their story."

The Bagram system is similar to the annual Administrative Review Boards used for suspected terrorists at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Officials said the review proceedings at Bagram will mark an improvement in part because they will be held in detainees' home countries -- where witnesses and evidence are close at hand.

"This process is about doing the right thing -- only holding those we have to," said the administration official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about policy.

Human rights organizations briefed by the Pentagon described the new system as a step in the right direction but inadequate.  "Any reforms in U.S. detentions in Afghanistan is an improvement, but it remains to be seen whether the new procedures will cure the ills of arbitrary and indefinite detention that have been the hallmark of detentions in Bagram," said Sahr Muhammed Ally of the New York-based group Human Rights First.

Any new procedure, she said, "must provide detainees a legal representative to ensure a meaningful mechanism . . . to challenge their detention, which these procedures do not provide."

This is the first time in our history that the enemy can call witnesses, submit their "evidence."

Obama has our military leaders bowing down to Islam, has established  deadly new rules of engagement for our troops, and now this.  What a weakened country we have become.

Remember, "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." -- Barack Obama
Obama Endangers US Military And All Americans
By now, most of us have heard about the new Osama bin Laden tape which surfaced. In it, the al-Qaeda mastermind -- or a clever imitator -- calls Barack Obama "powerless" to end the Afghan war.  Whether the voice actually belongs to bin Laden isn't as important as the challenging statement.  The truth is that Obama isn't powerless, but rather, that he's chosen to water down the power of our American government and military to advance his foolish pacifist dreams.  Foolish because nobody Obama tries to coddle pays attention to him.  In fact, they regard his olive branches as a sign of weakness and ignore him.  Foolish, also, because by continuing to project such wishy-washiness, Obama is putting the United States military -- and indeed, all of America -- in danger of future terrorist attacks.

A few weeks ago, we learned that captured Afghan terrorists were being read Miranda rights.  Then last week, we heard that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan changed and that if any Afghan civilians are potentially at risk, American soldiers can't attack the enemy.  This new game plan has already cost us American lives.

We also heard that Obama is hamstringing our military from making headway in winning the war.  According to Ralph Peters, "The classified status report from Afghanistan by Gen. Stanley McChrystal was censored by the White House before its submission.  As a result it's all buns and no burger.  According to multiple (angry) sources, McChrystal -- our top soldier on the ground -- intended to ask for 28,000 more US troops.  One of Obama's hatchet men directed the general not to make the request."

In other words, Obama is using military strategists as figureheads and sending yes men to say no.  That's some way to fight a war, isn't it?

Continue reading here . . .
Military Growing Impatient With Obama
Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan, Obama is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.

The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who're trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they're making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.

In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion "premature."  Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."

Continue reading here . . .
Former CIA Heads Ask Obama To End Witch-Hunt
In a rare piece of real bipartisanship seven, count them seven former heads of the CIA asked Obama to abort his investigation into the CIA’s interrogation techniques during President Bush’s term.  The seven are from both Republican and Democrat administrations over the past thirty five years.  They are: John Deutch, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, James Schlesinger, George Tenet, William Webster and James Woolsey.  The current head of the CIA Leon Panetta said he was focused on today and tomorrow not the past.  You could probably add another former head of the CIA to the list who supports calling off any investigation, former President George H.W. Bush.

Undeterred, a spokesman for Eric Holder said there was no change in plans and that he was confident the investigation would not effect current employees.  This is the height of arrogance.  Seven former heads of the CIA have no idea what they are talking about, Holder and Obama know better.

The letter from the seven said that the reopening by political appointees of a new administration of cases that were closed be career prosecutors would not only endanger the aggressive interrogation techniques necessary to stop terrorism but that it would also compromise the cooperation of foreign governments and render declinations of prosecution meaningless.

If this isn’t a banana republic administration I don’t know what is.  But hey, maybe those former heads of the CIA are just all racists.
Obama Says No  --  Witch Hunt Continues
Obama says he has no plans to ask the Justice Department to end its criminal investigation into the interrogations of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration.

Seven former CIA directors have asked the president to do just that. In a letter to Obama on Friday, they warned that the probe could discourage CIA officers from doing the kind of aggressive intelligence work needed to fight terrorism.

Obama tells CBS' "Face the Nation" that he appreciates that the former CIA chiefs are wanting "to look after an institution that they helped to build."

Obama says he wants to make sure that he's not somehow overruling the decisions of prosecutors such as Attorney General Eric Holder who are there to uphold the law.

Gag! -- "...to uphold the law" -- that's rich.

Holder is predictable.  He dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and two of its members who were involved in voter intimidation on Election Day at a Philadelphia, PA, polling station -- there's even videos of their intimidation (at link) -- but Holder (read Obama) wants to prosecute the men and women who are our first line of defense.
Will Obama Surrender Afghanistan To The Mullahs?
Yes -- short answer.  The leak to the Washington Post of the assessment by General McChrystal, the officer in charge of the war in Afghanistan, is quintessential Washington power politics and a major "go screw yourself Barack" by the person or persons who passed the paper to Bob Woodward.  You do not get leaks when there is a policy consensus on an issue.  There are several reasons classified or sensitive information is leaked -- a policy disagreement, a desire to embarrass a principle official or a whistleblower.

Here’s how Woodward started his story:
 

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by Obama and his national security team.

McChrystal concludes the document’s five-page Commander’s Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

  
Did you catch the key sentence?

The assessment was sent to Gates almost three weeks ago.  On an issue of such importance the delay in making a decision can only mean one thing -- Obama does not want to do what McChrystal says he needs in order to succeed -- i.e., deploy more troops.

Continue reading here . . .

Update:  Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal's team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration.  According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn't given sufficient resources (read "troops") to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:
Obama Ready To Slash U. S. Nuclear Arsenal
The Guardian is reporting that Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear.  But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process.  He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

Continue reading here . . .

Obama is just doing what he said he was going to do during the campaign -- disarm America -- video.
British General Quits Over Afghanistan
A British Army general who is reported to have criticized aspects of the war in Afghanistan has resigned.

Reports said Maj. Gen Andrew Mackay, General Officer Commanding Scotland, Northern Ireland and Northern England, was unhappy about strategy.

The Ministry of Defence has insisted that the general's departure was a "personal matter."

Watching your troops killed is very, very personal.

This is about Obama's insane "Rules of Engagement," that favor the Taliban.  There’s a good chance that McChrystal will be next if he doesn’t get the additional troops he's requested.

Bring the troops home.  The real enemy is here, now, in DC.
Breaking -- Camp Delta To Remain Open
Fox News is reporting that Camp Delta, at Guantanamo Bay, will not be shut down, as Obama has promised.  There are approximately 225 detainees still being held at the prison.

From the AP -- The White House acknowledged for the first time Friday that it might not be able to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay by January as Barack Obama has repeatedly promised.

Senior administration officials told The Associated Press that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving thorny legal and logistical questions mean Obama's self-imposed January deadline may slip.  Obama remains as committed to closing the facility as he was when, as one of his first acts in office, he pledged to shut it down, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to more freely discuss the sensitive issue.

The prison in Cuba was created by former President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a landing spot for suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  But it has since become a lightning rod of left-wing criticism around the globe.

Obama promised soon after taking office -- and many times since -- to close the prison, arguing that doing so is crucial to restoring America's image in the world and to creating a more effective anti-terror approach.

But eight months after Obama's pledge and with only four months to go before the January deadline, a number of difficult issues remain unresolved.  They include establishment of a new set of rules for military trials, finding a location for a new prison to house detainees and finding host countries for those who can be released.

Obama -- wrong again -- wrong still.  The wailing from Obama's supporters on the Left will be music to my ears.
Obama's Nuclear-Free Fantasy
When it comes to the nuclear-weapons issue, Obama wants to be a global community organizer.  However, what we really need are some tough beat cops with a mandate to clean up the neighborhood.

On Thursday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution drafted by the United States that calls upon, urges, encourages, but does not require U.N. member states to take various actions to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Obama chaired the meeting and pressed the vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world that he had introduced in April.  In the practical world of counter-proliferation, Obama is making little progress in dissuading Iran from building nuclear weapons, has rewarded serial proliferator North Korea with bilateral negotiations and is silent on Venezuela's announced intention to start a nuclear program.

Obama's "no nukes" stance makes a nice bumper sticker, but achieving it will take more than feel-good rhetoric.  Strategic realities trump feel-good slogans.

The premise that a nuclear-weapons-free world would be safer is highly questionable.  In the right hands, nuclear weapons play an important deterrence role.  The problem is that they increasingly are being obtained by countries ruled by left-wing dictators and other unsavory types who either cannot be deterred or do not want to be.  These bad actors understand that they can harness deterrence to their benefit.  The United States is unlikely to risk concerted action against a country with a demonstrated nuclear-weapons capability and nothing to lose.  Countries such as Iran and Venezuela see North Korea as a positive inspiration -- an extremely poor country with about the same per capita gross domestic product as Chad but treated as a major player in world affairs primarily because of its atomic program.  We shudder to imagine how much more powerful Tehran or Caracas would be with the same capabilities.

Self-interest points toward proliferation, not away from it, and formal arms control of the type Obama advocates has a dubious record when stacked against strategic interests.  The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) agreements between the United States and Soviet Union codified massive increases in what already were the largest nuclear arsenals in human history.  But since the end of the Cold War, the total number of warheads between the two countries has declined 90 percent -- not because of arms-control treaties but as the natural consequence of reduced tensions after the collapse of communism.  Meanwhile, since the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty took effect four decades ago, India, Pakistan and North Korea have tested nuclear weapons; Israel is widely believed to possess them; and the Iranian bomb is right around the corner.

The United States is showing itself unwilling to take the hard steps necessary to stop nuclear proliferation.  Countries that are willing to defy the international community know they can have the bomb if they make the investment and are patient.  They might have to ride out some international sanctions, but once they have conducted a nuclear test and joined the club, they will have all the leverage they need.

Last week, Obama lectured the world that "international law is not an empty promise" -- but laws that are not enforced become exactly that. 

If nuclear arms are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear arms.
Obama's Priorities
During the 2008 campaign Obama charged George Bush with overlooking Afghanistan, and at the beginning of his administration he declared that Afghanistan would be his highest priority national security issue, saying, "I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

He also said that he would listen to his generals.

But, now that he occupies the Oval Office, Obama has clearly placed Afghanistan on the back burner, and "his" generals in the cupboard.

General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday on 60 Minutes that he’s only spoken with Obama once in the 70 days since being appointed by him to oversee our efforts in Afghanistan -- and that convesation was during a VTC [video teleconference] -- it wasn't even face-to-face -- or one-on-one.

Obama has spent more time with David Letterman -- and face to face.  He had the time to get on Air Force One, fly to California and back, for a one-on-one with Dave -- that's the better part of a 24-hour day.

He's recently spent more time with the Sunday morning talking heads from the legacy media than his generals.

Every time I turn on my television, there he is, grinning and spreading more of the bullsh!t that he's fed from TOTUS -- does anyone believe that he knows what those words mean?  I certainly don't.

But he's given his commander in the field 70 minutes -- on a conference call -- and that was probably the call to tell McChrystal that he had new rules of engagement and had to play nice with the Taliban.

In just the last week, four domestic terrorist plots have been uncovered -- not a word from Obama.  A Google search for -- Obama "domestic terrorist plots" -- "did not match any documents."

Now, Obama, ignoring the economy, ObamaCare, the war, and a host of other pressing issues, is jetting off to Denmark with Oprah to lobby for the 2016 Olympics.  He wants them to be held in Chicago -- after all, paying off the machine in his home town is far more important than Iran's nuclear ambitions and its promise to wipe Israel off the map.

How many 70-minute conversations do you think he'll have over there?  More than one, I'll bet.

You can take Obama out of Chicago, but you can’t take Chicago out of Obama.
Obama Risks A Domestic Military Intervention
John L. Perry says there is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem."  Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World.  If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized.  That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont.  Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.  So, view the following through military eyes:

•  All members of the Armed Forces swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  Officers, unlike enlisted personnel, do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

•  Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

•  They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

•  They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

•  They can see Obama waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

•  They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.

•  They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

•  They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Continue reading here . . . NewsMax link broken . . . text version at link
Obama's Strategy Of Delay
Fox News' Stephen Clark asks, "Is this any way to run a war?"

Critics are lambasting Obama for hitting the pause button on the war in Afghanistan, making U.S. commanders seeking thousands more troops there wait for a decision as he tries to get the "strategy right first."

"The commander in chief is the commander in chief, period," said retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.  "You can't fight a war from Washington D.C.  There's only one way this works: You have trust and confidence in the leaders on the ground, or you don't."

Some critics are going so far as to ask whether Obama is more concerned with finding a political strategy to ensure his re-election than he is in finding a military strategy to win the eight-year war.

That question has been raised after Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top general in Afghanistan, revealed Sunday that he has spoken to the president only once since he took command in May.

"It is nutty," said Bing West, a former Marine and defense official in the Reagan administration.  "Obama is stuck with his war of necessity yet he can't bring himself to face the fact he doesn't even know his commander in the field!"

Continue reading here . . .
Even The French Think Obama Is Weak
Nile Gardiner believes it is shameful when the White House is accused of betrayal by close allies in eastern and central Europe, but utterly humiliating when even the Elysee Palace thinks the United States has been transformed from a lion to a lamb in the face of mounting global threats.  As The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported this morning, French president Nicolas Sarkozy was less than impressed with Barack Obama’s performance last week in the face of the Iranian nuclear crisis.

According to the paper, Washington urged Paris to delete key sections of Sarkozy’s UN speech that were critical of Iran and supposedly threatened to undermine Obama’s attempt to project himself as a global peacemaker:
  

"President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard.  He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum.  But the Administration told the French that it didn’t want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde.  So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy."

"Le Monde’s diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy’s speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran’s latest deception.  Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament."

  
Sarkozy was so annoyed with Obama’s weak-kneed approach that he reportedly told Le Monde that "we live in the real world, not in a virtual one", a cutting and mocking reference to Obama’s drive for a new arms control treaty.  The WSJ quotes him as saying:
  

"President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons.  Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment.  Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . . I support America’s 'extended hand.'  But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community?  Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges.  And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations.  What are we to do?  What conclusions are we to draw?  At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."

  
I cannot think of a more damning indictment of US global leadership than a French leader urging Obama to show more backbone in confronting the world’s biggest state sponsor of international terrorism, a rogue nation about to acquire nuclear capability.  It is highly embarrassing that Obama is reminded of his leadership responsibilities yet again from across the Atlantic after the debacle over Washington’s appalling surrender to the Russians on missile defense.

Barack Obama’s weakness on the world stage will inevitably lead to the decline of America as a superpower.  That’s not "smart power" -- it’ is a policy of defeat.

Video -- Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Posy-Gazette, says that French President Sarkozy sees Obama as very naive and arrogant.  Sarkozy is worried about the Western world with such a flawed president leading America.
Obama Dithers -- Heroes Die
CNSNews.com is reporting that another American died in Afghanistan on Wednesday, the final day of September -- and exactly one month after the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan sent a confidential war assessment to the Obama administration, warning that more forces are needed -- soon.

The as-yet-unnamed American serviceman who died on Wednesday was caught in a suicide attack in Khost Province, in eastern Afghanistan, press reports said.

On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops -- and a new U.S. strategy -- are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of much discussion -- and apparently some confusion -- in Washington.  Forty-two of those casualties have been identified by name in U.S. Defense Department press releases, while the 43rd casualty, which occurred today, has been confirmed in press reports, but not by name.

Obama doesn't give a rat's-ass.  He will take several weeks to review U.S. strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the White House said on Wednesday after a meeting between top U.S. officials about the region.

"When it comes to decisions as important as keeping this country safe and putting our troops into harm's way, the president has made it clear that he will rigorously assess our progress," White House spokesman Robert Gibbels said in a statement.

"That is why he held this meeting today and will take the next several weeks to review our strategy."

Meanwhile, Obama is preoccupied with important stuff, like jetting off to Denmark with Oprah to lobby for the Olympics.   After all, he's got his priorities.
Let My People Go
The New York Post reports that closing Gitmo is proving harder than Obama thought -- but that's no reason to simply set terrorists free.  Yet the Obama folks seem set to do just that, based on their decision this week to release 75 of the 223 remaining detainees -- on top of the three freed last weekend.

Sure, Obama's vows to shut the Guantanamo Bay camp are giving him agida.  His left-wing base is restless; it turns out his friends abroad aren't so keen on hosting "Welcome Home!" parties for freed terrorists, after all -- and his defense secretary says Obama's January deadline for relocating them can't be met.

What's a stressed-out Obama to do?  Stage a jailbreak, it seems.

But endangering Americans is hardly the solution.  Remember, of the more than 500 detainees already released from Gitmo, many have gone back to terrorism -- including Said Ali al-Shihri, al Qaeda's second-in-command on the Arabian peninsula and the suspected mastermind of a brutal attack in Yemen this year.

In fact, the Pentagon figures one in seven of those already freed (i.e., those thought the least risky) returned to the fight.  At that rate, at least 11 of the people Obama is freeing now can be expected to pick up arms again against US troops.

That's national security?

The official line is that judges have already cleared these detainees for release.  But the lower-court rulings were often based on incomplete evidence -- and the previous administration fought back, sometimes winning victories on appeal.

With at least a dozen of the 75 detainees, Team Obama could have pursued the same legal strategy -- but instead did nothing, content to spring them loose.

Obama just doesn't seem to understand that his top job isn't placating left-wing voters or winning a global popularity contest, but keeping the American people safe.

When it comes to Gitmo, he needs to make sure he does just that.
Military Puts Obama On The Spot
In the meantime, Dan De Luce says that by openly declaring their views on the Afghan war, US military leaders have placed Obama in a bind as he faces a fraught decision over the troubled US-led mission.

Obama has refused to quickly approve a request from his commanders for a major troop build-up in Afghanistan, insisting first on a full vetting of the current strategy.

But while a war council takes place behind closed doors at the White House, top military officers have made no secret of their view that without a vast ground force, the Afghan mission could end in failure.

"They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong," Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense, told AFP.

As a result, if Obama chooses to change course in Afghanistan or decline a request for large numbers of troops, he will be rejecting the advice of the US military, raising the political stakes.

And while Obama continued to push off making a decision, insurgents stormed remote outposts in eastern Afghanistan killing eight Americans in the deadliest battle in more than a year near the border with Pakistan.
Obama Furious At General McChrystal
According to sources close to the administration, Gen. Stanley McChrystal shocked and angered White House 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 Obama had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.

Gen. James Jones, the national security adviser, yesterday did little to allay the impression the meeting had been awkward.

Asked if Obama had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: "I wasn't there so I can't answer that question.  But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better.  I am sure they exchanged direct views."

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart.  To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favored 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.

Continue reading here . . .
Tensions Rise Over War Strategy
Defense Secretary Gates said Monday that Obama's advisors should keep their guidance private, in effect admonishing the top commander in Afghanistan for publicly advocating an approach requiring more troops even as the White House reassesses its strategy.

The comment by Gates came a day after Obama's national security advisor, James L. Jones, said that military commanders should convey their advice through the chain of command -- a reaction to Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's public statements in support of his troop-intensive strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan.

The exchanges suggested some disarray in the Obama administration's attempts to forge a new policy on Afghanistan and underscored wide differences among top officials over the correct approach.

In May, Obama tapped McChrystal, a special forces commander, to take charge of the Afghanistan effort and institute a sweeping counterinsurgency strategy.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Leaves Key Questions Unanswered
Obama met with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders at the White House to define the course of action in Afghanistan and Pakistan as casualties mount and public opinion sours -- but Obama leaves the key questions unanswered in Afghan War Strategy Summit.

Obama's meeting Tuesday with congressional leaders over his Afghan war strategy bought him some time but still left questioned unanswered about how he will proceed with the war, particularly regarding troop levels.

Leaders from both parties emerged from the meeting to say they were eager to see Obama's next move, as Republicans stressed that the strategies proposed by top U.S. commanders should be given "additional weight."

Obama ruled out shrinking the war into a counter-terror campaign.  Yet he did not signal whether he is prepared to send more troops to the war zone, either the 40,000 his top commander wants or a smaller buildup, according to several officials.

After the summit with 31 Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, the White House issued a statement saying Obama had "underscored the importance of the decision."

"Given the importance of the policy to our security -- and to our troops -- the president said that he will be rigorous and deliberate, while moving forward with a sense of urgency," the White House said.

Continue reading here . . .
Gates Gives Obama Afghan Troop Request
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has forwarded a request for more troops in Afghanistan to Barack Obama, the Pentagon said Wednesday, as divisions within the administration and Congress continued despite Obama's high-profile meeting with congressional leaders the day before.

Mr. Gates -- who made no recommendation of his own about the troop request, defense officials said -- had planned to hold back the document until the administration finished a broad re-evaluation of its Afghan war strategy.  That decision came amid increasing public and congressional skepticism over the war, and amid internal questions over the strategy backed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

But in the end, the defense chief feared that the document -- already widely reported on -- would leak to the press before Obama had a chance to read it, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.  The request outlines several options ranging up to 40,000 troops added to the 68,000 now stationed or headed there.

Congressional Democrats remained split over their views; lack of their strong support has left Obama relying on Republicans at least as much as his own party to back his commander's request.

Continue reading here . . .
Taliban Not Really An Enemy
Hot Air is reporting on the new White House spin -- the Taliban aren't really the enemy. They actually have a role in Afghanistan’s future -- according to the geniuses occupying the White House.

Rather than eating crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists, and rather than invest another 40,000 troops, Obama’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on "the real enemy."

Much like how he was focused during the campaign on "the good war" in Afghanistan rather than "the bad war" in Iraq.  I wonder how long it’ll be before he decides that not everyone who’s in Al Qaeda is an enemy either -- or, better yet, that Al Qaeda's been "substantially defeated" or something, which has been the unstated thrust of all those White House-leaked pieces in the press lately about how weak Bin Laden’s gang has become.  Why, I’ll bet in a year or so we’ll be told that they’re so weak that we can start pulling out of Afghanistan altogether.  Things sure have improved over there since Bush was president, huh?

How this squares with what Bob Gates said just days ago about the colossal danger of giving the Taliban a propaganda victory, I have no idea.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Ready To Pay Afghan Fighters To Ditch The Taliban
The military geniuses from the Obama administration are considering outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms as it struggles to find a new approach to a war that is fast losing public and congressional support.

Despite five war councils in two weeks, Obama has so far failed to come up with a strategy for the conflict that may define his presidency.  Fierce infighting continues between his own generals and advisers.

Obama has been handed three options by General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan.  These range from 20,000 to 60,000 more troops, which would almost double the US military presence.  McChrystal is said to favor an increase of 40,000 men, without which he warns the mission will fail.

The White House is uneasy about sending so many on top of an extra 21,000 already dispatched this year, fearing this could escalate the war which has already claimed the lives of 241 American soldiers this year.

This is insane -- growing number of those KIAs are as a result of Obama's indecision and inability to act - - and more because of Obama's insane Rules of Engagement (ROE).

And now he wants to pay baksheesh to the Taliban -- to leave the Taliban???

Excuse me -- did I read that right? -- "...outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers (hello! they're Taliban too!) to lay down arms..."

Didn't it ever occur to any of the geniuses inhabiting Obama's inner circle that they'll take the money and then say they had their fingers crossed, or the Islamofascist equivalent -- you can't negotiate with Islamic fanatics.

I guess those geniuses also missed this little piece from the Associated Press (AP) -- 4,000 Foreigners Join Taliban -- minister says "The enemy has changed -- thousands of foreign fighters have poured into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban insurgency."

But after weeks of rejecting the war-fighters' plans, Obama has a Plan B -- buy them off -- that's the Chicago way -- a bribe -- hell, it's not his money.

Will someone tell stupid that you can't buy off a true believer.
Obama Accused Of Stalling -- 76 Days
In Afghanistan they would call it a shura, the traditional tribal way of listening to elders’ views before reaching a consensus.  In Washington, where Obama has now held five war councils, they are starting to call it dithering.

With another council on the Afghan war scheduled for this week, US officials admit it could be November before a decision is finally taken on whether to agree to General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops.  One participant revealed that the protagonists have not yet discussed troop numbers.

Latest polls show a majority of Americans now disapprove of Obama’s handling of a war which may come to define him.  Many senior members of his own party are in open revolt.

Continue reading here . . .
National Guard Drill For Possible H1N1 Riot
Leslie H. Dixon says that Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School will be the site of a National Guard riot control drill Thursday morning to prepare in the event of a panic over distribution of serum to treat the swine flu.

The school on Route 26 at the Paris-Norway town line has been designated by state officials as a distribution site for the H1N1 flu vaccine.  The drill is to prepare for a worst-case scenario should the serum have to be transported from Augusta and people rush to get it.

On Thursday morning, four or five National Guard Humvees will travel from Augusta to Paris with vials of fake serum.  The National Guardsmen will take on the roles of panicked citizens and military police and practice what they would do, such as using tear gas, in the case of a riot.

"This is just a component of moving the stuff from point A to B," said Oxford County Emergency Management Agency Director Scott Parker.  The plan will be put into place only if needed, he said.

Plans were developed in April to have vials of serum sent from the federal government to Augusta, Parker said. From Augusta, the supplies will be transported to designated distribution centers.

During the April conference, concerns were raised about a possible out-of-control rush on the serum, Parker said.  Because of that concern, Gov. John Baldacci and Gen. John Libby, adjutant general of the Maine National Guard, agreed that a plan should be devised to quell such a disturbance.

Local police chiefs have also been involved in the planning, Parker said.  In a real event, local police would be in charge of security once the serum arrives in Paris.  "We own it.  We're in charge of providing security," he said.

As of Aug. 5, the Maine Center for Disease Control said there had been 323 confirmed cases of H1N1 in Maine, of which 176 are Maine residents and the rest out-of-staters diagnosed in Maine.  A total of 19 people required hospitalization.  Sixty percent of the victims were under the age of 25.

On Tuesday, health authorities reported Maine's first death from the H1N1 virus.  Dr. Dora Anne Mills, director of the Maine Center for Disease Control, said a York County man in his 50s was hospitalized for three weeks and died last week of underlying conditions complicated by H1N1.

The drill will take place behind the school and will not affect the day-to-day activities within the school.  Access to the school building will be available through the main entrance, Parker said.
Obama's "Consequence Management Response Force"
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission -- with a twist -- they are now deployed right here in the good ol' US of A.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command (NORCOM), as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

This new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NORCOM, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After the 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.  "Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission," said Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NORCOM future operations. "Now, the plan is to assign a force every year."

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control... -- watch out Tea Partiers!

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.1

"It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it."

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

[1]  There is a suspicious correction at the end of this article:  A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated.

Uh-huh!  Obama would never use this option against his fellow citizens.  He respects the Constitution too much -- sarcasm off!

And, why didn't the BCT learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package" during their 35 months in a war zone?  Why now?  The answer is, the Army needs lethal in a war zone.  It needs non-lethal at home. 

Read what the colonel said:  "...this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded...because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it."

The colonel's "mission" is in the United States -- does Obama now consider the homeland a "war zone?"
Obama Concludes U.S. Can't Beat Taliban
Kristinn at FreeRepublic.com has begun a thread based on a Washington Post report that says Barack Obama and top administration officials have concluded the Taliban cannot be beaten and that they are looking for ways to cede parts of Afghanistan to the Taliban without those regions becoming safe havens for al Qaeda.

The article also reports that Obama may wait until after he returns from a 10 day visit to Asia that begins November 11 to decide his policy for Afghanistan.

The Post article is largely about Obama's request made this week, two months after he received Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for tens of thousands more troops to fulfill Obama's counter-insurgency strategy announced in March, for a province-by-province review of Afghanistan.  Apparently this has not been done before in the administration's laborious review process.

Obama officials say they will not allow the Taliban "to threaten the Kabul government or provide sanctuary for al-Qaeda."

The Post describes Obama's defeatist attitude about the invincibility of the Taliban:
  

In reviewing McChrystal's bracing assessment of the war, the president and his senior advisers have concluded that the Taliban cannot be eliminated as a military and political force, regardless of how many more troops are deployed.

   
Reading between the lines -- Obama surrenders to Taliban -- with this move, Obama is signaling his weakness to every enemy on the planet.

Nothing good will come from this cowardice.
Photo Op
  

  (02:57)

If Obama really gave a damn for our guys he would revoke his insane Rules of Engagement (ROE), and already have McChrystal's 45,000 troops in Afghanistan.  I guess this cynical display will just have to do instead -- he wants you to know -- he cares, he really cares.

And who's that right next to him -- Holder, the guy that wants to put our CIA agents in the slammer for keeping America safe.

One puts them in the ground -- the other puts them in prison -- a Progressive's wet dream.

 Update:  kristinn, at FreeRepublic.com reports that Barack Obama was nearly denied the photo-op he traveled to Dover Air Force Base for early this morning as all but one of the military and civilian families of the fallen refused permission for the media to report on the return of their loved ones.

The sole family to allow media coverage was the family of Sgt. Dale R. Griffin.

According to media reports, Griffin's casket was the last to be brought off the C-17 cargo plane that carried the bodies of 15 soldiers and 3 DEA agents killed this week in Afghanistan.

 Update:  I've received several emails from readers that are upset that I didn't give the Obamamessiah the benefit of the doubt.  This is for them:

Barack Obama brought twenty-four reporters, photographers and videographers from fourteen media outlets to Dover Air Force Base to cover his surprise visit there early Thursday morning.

Bush always went behind the scenes to hospitals, to see families, to meet with those coming home, WITHOUT the media.
20 Hours

Kristinn, at FreeRepublic.com reports that at Friday's White House briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbels said Barack Obama has spent "close to 20 direct hours" in meetings on Afghanistan since Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for tens of thousands of reinforcements was submitted over two months ago with a warning the war would be lost in twelve months without more troops.

 

Gibbels says Obama also spends "quite a bit of time" thinking about the war in Afghanistan.

 

Gibbels was asked about a statement by the mother of one of the fallen soldiers, Sgt. Dale Griffin, killed in Afghanistan this week whom Obama met with at Dover early Thursday morning.  The mother, Dona Griffin, said she told Obama, Don't leave our troops hanging," when he asked the families if there was anything he could do for them.  Gibbels was asked if Obama feels like he is leaving the troops hanging.

 

He responded that Obama is trying to "understand the full cost of the war."

 

MR. GIBBS: Again, we haven't gotten into broad specifics on that yet.

 

On the first part, Jeff, you know, look, I think -- I don't -- I used to have it calculated, I should just go back and do it, the number of hours that he has spent in these meetings is probably now -- well, at the end of today will probably be getting close to 20 direct hours of his time.  The group -- the principals that meet with the President additionally take time to get the material ready, and are prepared to answer questions for the President, probably at least twice as much of that of the President's time the principals have spent.

 

So obviously we -- the President and his team have spent a pretty big chunk of time evaluating very, very closely each of these individual countries, their relationship together and their impact on the region.

 

At the conclusion of these meetings, he generally is off to the next thing.  I think he has spent quite a bit of time after the meetings back in the office -- back in his office, probably primarily in the Residence at night, going back and reading through his notes, as well as -- notes that he's taken on the meetings, and oftentimes will come out with questions that the team will prepare the answers for, for the next meeting.

     

    

SNIPQ -- Early yesterday morning when he was in Dover and met with the families, the families said that he asked, is there anything we can do for the families. And the mother of -- Dona Griffin, a mother of the last of the dignified transfers, said that she told Obama, "Don't leave our troops hanging."  When he walks into the Situation Room right about now, does he have any sense that the time he's taking to make these decisions is leaving those troops hanging?

 

MR. GIBBS: Again, to go back through what's happened, the President believed that additional forces were needed in March and he added them to get us to a point where we could evaluate the outcome of the election.  That obviously has been delayed a little bit, but he believes this is a point in which it's necessary to fully assess where we are.  I don't believe the President thinks -- I know he doesn't believe that this assessment is in any way doing that.  I think he understands and I think, as you heard him say yesterday in the Oval Office, I think his commitment, particularly after going to a place like Dover, is to understand the full cost of the war.

 

"Close to 20 direct hours" -- twenty whole hours in nine months -- that's less than 30 minutes a week.  Obama's spent more time on the golf links, choosing a dog, and flying the bride to NY for her birthday.

 FReeper Windflier makes the observation that Obama's booked solid with World Apology Tours, bowing and kowtowing engagements with Saudi kings, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speeches, traveling around the world pimping Chicago to the Olympics Committee, fighting a war with Fox News, throwing his closest associates under the bus when their radical agendas are exposed, hiding his birth certificate, taking over private enterprises, bailing out Wall Street and the banks, putting generations into debt with his Stimulus bill, and working overtime to take control of the health care sector of our economy.

Obama has easily spent more time this month fundraising and campaigning for the Democratic party and Democratic candidates than he has on Afghanistan.

This is what you get when you elect a community organizer for CIC.
The Price Of Those Seminars
Jennifer Rubin draws our attention to this sobering report from the Washington Post:
   

More than 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle over the past three months in Afghanistan, accounting for one-fourth of all those injured in combat since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.  The dramatic increase has filled military hospitals with more amputees and other seriously injured service members and comes as October marks the deadliest month for American troops in Afghanistan.

   
How many were killed or lost a limb, I wonder, while Obama dithered and delayed implementing the recommendations of his hand-picked general?  It is not an inconsequential question.  Obama acts as though there were no downside to the lethargic pace of his decision-making.  He would have us believe that there is no price to be paid as he micromanages, province-by-province, the number of troops he’ll dispense.  He seems content to entertain the recommendations of Gens. Joe Biden and John Kerry -- drawing on their years of experience (in assessing nearly every national-security challenge incorrectly) while discarding that of the real experts.

What’s a few more weeks?  Or months?  Well, we know there is indeed a price to allowing our current approach to languish.  There is a very real cost to delaying implementation of the new plan that is the best available to achieve victory as quickly as possible.  The enemy is emboldened.  More civilians die.  The political and security situation in Pakistan worsens.  And more brave Americans are asked to sacrifice themselves while Obama considers and reconsiders whether there isn’t any way to shave some money off the tab and reduce the number of troops his commanders say are needed.  After all, health care is going to cost an awful lot.

The horrid reality of war is that parents send their children to die or to return in a condition they could not possibly have envisioned.  But to sacrifice even a single American who was engaged in a fruitless exercise or an understaffed operation so Obama can conduct a seminar and postpone a confrontation with his own party (that no longer can stomach the "good war") is reprehensible.
Commander In Least
Noah Steele Kline says that as a Marine, Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, and Honorably Discharged Sergeant, he knows a thing or two about mission accomplishment versus troop welfare.  As a matter of fact, any Marine can tell you the clearly stated objective of the Marine Corps is mission accomplishment.  Troop welfare comes secondary.

Commanders and military leaders learned long ago that success on any battlefront depends chiefly upon mission accomplishment.  Troop welfare, while important, does not trump mission accomplishment.  For the enlisted Marine on the ground, this is sometimes a hard pill to swallow, but we understand.  And actually, this is one of the reasons why the Marine Corps is one of the finest and most effective fighting forces in the world.

Our current Commander in Chief (who never served in the military) has not demonstrated that he comprehends the concept of mission accomplishment before troop welfare.  Disappointingly, Obama has not demonstrated that he comprehends the concept of mission accomplishment at all.  We have no clear mission in Afghanistan.  We have no concise finalization strategy for Iraq.  Obama has yet to establish just what we are supposed to be doing in either of these theaters.

Furthermore, Obama seems to be thwarting any forward momentum with regard to mission accomplishment by manifesting an attitude that troop welfare is paramount.  He has also hastily portrayed an apologetic attitude for American strength.  This destructive attitude breeds not only optimism in our enemies, but despair in those in uniform who are genuinely proud to serve the country they love.

Not only that, Obama is arguing with the very commander he appointed to do what needs to be done.  Consequently, his indecisiveness, or "dithering" as Cheney put it, is costing American lives and wasting precious time needed to gain momentum toward mission accomplishment -- for whatever the mission may be.

For someone who neither served in the military nor had any executive leadership, Obama has yet to do anything to assuage the collective apprehensions from those of us who feel he is too green for the job of Commander in Chief.  The presidency is not the place for on-the-job training, especially in a time of war.  Although Obama has probably learned a lot in his first nine months in office, he has not asserted to Americans or our enemies that the new administration has any idea how to handle a war, let alone two.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama's New Afghan Strategy -- Surrender!

Kristinn, at FreeRepublic.com, says Obama is considering an almost complete surrender in Afghanistan, if the report this weekend by the BBC's Katty Kay is accurate.

 

Speaking as a panelist on the Chris Matthews Show, a weekend public affairs broadcast, Kay reported on the internal debate at the White House -- "There are real questions being asked, I think, about whether even with a big injection of troops this is a real country, a real war that you can win.

 

"And there's a new phrase which is floating around the White House which is 'minimum security'.  That we're not actually aiming for a country which is stable that we are in control of, but we are aiming for a minimum amount of security and perhaps even a negotiated settlement with the Taliban."

 

This would tie in with reports that Obama has concluded the U.S. cannot beat the Taliban and that he has requested two new studies.  The first study is to determine which provinces may be ceded to the Taliban.  The second, is to determine troop levels other than those requested by Gen. McChrystal over two months ago.

 

Kay's remarks start at the 19:10 minute in the backward clock on the video.  She describes the three different views on the situation in Afghanistan that have been presented to Obama:  the military needs a large injection of troops to execute the McChrystal's strategy;  even with more troops, Afghanistan will never be winnable;  and "'we have no choice but to win this war' and that is what Obama said back in March."

 

Obama has delayed making his decision.  It will not be announced until the end of November.  That's three months into the twelve month window left to win the war.

 

Troop casualties in Afghanistan have skyrocketed in the past three months, with over 1000 being wounded.  58 service members have been killed in the last month, making it the deadliest month of the eight-year long war.

 

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs bragged that Obama has spent almost twenty hours in meetings on Afghanistan since August.
More Dithering
CNSNews.com is reporting that Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him.

Obama's stance comes as his own ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, is voicing strong dissent about a U.S. troop increase, according to a second administration official.

Eikenberry's misgivings center on a concern that bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan could make the country more reliant on the U.S., not less.  He expressed them in forcefully worded cables to Washington just ahead of Obama's latest war meeting Wednesday.

Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort.

He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy -- troops are just one component -- and probably will do so shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends Nov. 19.

Yet in Wednesday's pivotal war council meeting, Obama wasn't satisfied with any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, one official said.

Obama pushed for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.  In turn, that could change the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official.

Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops.  The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

Obama is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over.  The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that McChrystal prefers, according to military and other officials.

God help us.  Obama is personally running the war.

Continue reading here . . .
Romney Accuses Obama Of Not Protecting Troops
CNN is reporting that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney delivered a scathing criticism of Obama's Afghanistan strategy Friday night, accusing him of delivering rhetoric and not action in the war-torn country.

Quoting from a speech Obama delivered in March, Romney agreed with him "that 'we are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies."'  Romney continued on seconding Obama: "I believe 'that to succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.'"

But Romney went on to criticize Obama for not holding enough meetings with top generals, and inadequately preparing for the elections in Afghanistan.

"The President has held his job for 10 months but does not yet have a strategy," Romney said during his speech before the Young America's Foundation in Santa Barbara, California.  "What has he been doing that is more important than protecting the lives of the troops of which he is Commander-in-Chief?  He has been campaigning -- rallying at phony town meetings and making over 30 campaign stops for fellow Democrats.  This President's inattention and dereliction remind me of those Northwest Airlines pilots who were so distracted from their jobs that they lost their way.  But in this case, the consequences are far more severe."

Romney has been a constant critic of the Obama administration.  In March, Romney accused Obama of neglecting the country's needs, while posing for magazine covers, and making appearances on late night television during an interview with CNN's Larry King.

"This is a president who is learning on the fly," Romney said.  "He's never turned anything around before.  He hasn't had the experience of leading a nation or a business or a state in trouble.
Half A Loaf
McClatchy is reporting that Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan.  Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on December 1st.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House.

They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.

As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.

In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan -- to which the U.S. has long been committed -- and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.

The Monday evening meeting was the ninth that Obama has held on the crisis in Afghanistan, where the worsening war entered its ninth year last month.  This year has seen violence reach unprecedented levels as the Taliban and allied groups have gained strength and expanded their reach.

Continue reading here . . .
Setting Up Our Military To Fail
Col. Ralph Peters asks, if Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but, "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011," then why send them?

If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante?  For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?  Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?

After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?

"Target the insurgency"?  Does that mean our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them?  Nope.  Those troops are going to "secure population centers."  We'll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike.

When fighting insurgents and terrorists, if you're not slamming them up against the wall and breaking their bones, you're losing.  Obama isn't sending more troops -- he's sending more targets.
    
     
Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."  If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?

Obama is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted.  Failure will be their fault.  He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers.  His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam.  Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?

Does the 2012 election ring a bell?

This isn't just stupid, it's immoral.  No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

On the other hand, the stage lighting and the camera angles at West Point were terrific, Obama's delivery was superb -- but what he was delivering was a funeral oration.

Read Col. Peters complete observations here . . .

Spiegel Online lamented:  Never before has a speech by Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan.  It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership.  The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before he took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech.  But it didn't help.  The soldiers' reception was cool.

It was the least truthful address that he has ever given.

Simon Jenkins, writing in the Guardian (UK), believes Obama has no stomach for this fight, and his "strategy" is a frantic bid to rescue what promises to be a stumbling re-election campaign that must start in 2011.  It oozes with his desperation not to be in Afghanistan.

I'll go further.  Obama's "strategy" is nuts!  His goals are to "deny al Qaeda a safe haven," and to bribe the Taliban to lay down their arms.

The only way to deny al Qaeda a safe haven is to invade Pakistan -- and he's not going to do that -- and you can't bribe a "true believer."

Obama used the word "I" 45 times in his pompous, political, and pathetic speech, but he never once uttered the words "win" or "victory."

In a related event,  Chris Matthews, commenting on the speech, referred to the United States Military Academy, at West Point, as "the enemy camp," providing more evidence that MSNBC is, in fact, "the enemy camp."
Another "Photo Op"
The Cable blog reports that when Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hanger, but according to multiple sources, Obama's aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow Obama to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed that the F-22 was parked in the hanger and then was replaced by an F-15 at the Obama's behest.

The airmen there took offense to Obama's demand, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day.  They also expressed bewilderment that Obama's staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hanger with Obama.

Air Force personnel thought it odd that Obama wanted to display the older plane rather than the more advanced plane that, in the eyes of its supporters, represents the latest and greatest in American aviation, but Obama fought hard and successfully to cut off production of the F-22 at 187 planes --  less than the originally planned 381 planes that the Air Force leadership lobbied hard for in the years preceding Obama's inauguration.

"It's one thing to be against further production; quite another to slight the folks who are flying them in the operational world," one source said, adding that "the F-15 pictured was put into service roughly around the same period when Obama graduated from college.  It's vintage."
Obama's Fog Of War
Tina Brown says, as Hillary and Gates fan out to explain what Obama really meant the other night, it's becoming clear that the "Great Communicator's" skills are breaking down.

It’s a strange paradox for a great wordsmith, but whenever Obama makes an important policy speech these days he leaves everyone totally confused.  His first health-care press conference back in July triggered a season of raucous political Rorschach and left his hopeful followers utterly baffled about what they were being asked to support.  Now White House envoys are being dispatched all over the globe to explain what Obama really meant about the date when troops will or won’t be pulled out of Afghanistan.  Hillary, you go to the Hill!  Take Gates and Adm. Mullen with you.  Holbrooke, off to Brussels!  And you, Gen. Petraeus, you go on 360 and hit Anderson Cooper with jargony dog whistle caveats like "the pace of the drawdown is conditions-based."

Brown has come to the conclusion that the real reason this gifted communicator has become so bad at communicating is that he doesn’t really believe a word that he is saying.

Continue reading here . . .

I'll go further -- Obama doesn't understand a word that he's saying -- especially when it comes to economic and military issues -- he just reads the words fed to him by his ever-present crutch, that damn TOTUS.
Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To Prepare For Civil War
The European Union Times reports that Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to "begin immediately" increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.

According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks "numerous" meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nations banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a "last ditch gambit" whose success is "far from certain".

And to Obama’s "last ditch gambit," these reports continue, he is to announce in a nationwide address to his people this coming week that he is going to expand the level of US Military Forces in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of troops, while at the same time using the deployment of these soldiers as a "cover" for returning to the United States over 200,000 additional American soldiers from the over 800 bases in over 39 countries they have stationed around the Globe bringing the level of these forces in America to over 1 million, a number the US Military believes will be able to contain the "explosion of violence" expected to roil these peoples when they learn their economy has been bankrupted.

Continue reading here . . .

The Times ends their article with this:

What remains to be seen, and these reports do not speculate upon, is if the citizen-soldiers of the United States will fire upon and kill their fellow countrymen during the coming conflict, but if history is to be our guide clearly shows this will be the case as the once great American Nation continues its headlong plunge into the abyss of history.  May God have mercy upon all of them.
Obama's Incompetence In Developing Afghan Plan
Paul Mirengoff comments on The Washington Post's detailed version of the lengthy process that finally resulted in Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.  The early paragraphs track the White House's self-congratulatory line that Obama's close attention to detail resulted in the speeding up of troop deployment, thus creating a true "surge."

This is consistent with Obama's attempt, in his speech at West Point, to excuse the three months it took him to make a decision.  He claimed that the process didn't really delay anything because the plan Gen. McChrystal presented to him would not have deployed troops rapidly enough.  In other words, any delay in decision-making was offset by the quality of the decision.  The problem with this argument is that, if the McChrystal plan truly was defective on this count, that defect could have been cured without a three month review process.  Thus, Obama's dithering cannot be excused on this ground.

Deeper into the Post's article, we learn the real reason for the dithering:  It turns out that, Gen. McChrystal's proposal was based on instructions from the White House that Obama probably never believed in and certainly did not believe in when McChrystal presented his plan.  If true, this reflects gross incompetence on the part of the administration.

According to the Post, the review process began in the second week of September.  But McCrystal was not looped into the discussion until October 8.  At that time, he made it clear that his mission was to "defeat the Taliban and secure the population."  This mission statement was challenged immediately by the administration on the grounds that it is impossible to defeat the Taliban.  McChrystal noted, however, that this was precisely the mission he had been given, as enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan signed off on by the administration in March.  Indeed, President Obama had said at that time that the U.S. would "defeat the the terrorists who oppose us."

According to the Post, Obama and his team conceded at an October 9th meeting that McChrystal's plan reflected what he had been told was his mission.  He concluded, though, that the mission should be redefined.  Naturally, this meant significant adjustment to McChrystal's plan.

In short, the three-month delay occurred mostly because the White House had given McChrystal one mission and then decided to pursue a different one.  In addition, nearly a month of delay is attributable to the time it took Obama and crew to figure out that it no longer agreed with the mission it had given McChrystal -- the one on which his plan was based.  This, in turn, was due to the delay in actually hearing from McChrystal.

If the Bush administration had been this incompetent, we can be sure the Post would have led with that story.  The headline probably would have read:  "Confusion over Afghan mission led to months of delay" or something to that effect.  But because this is the Obama administration, the headline reads:  "Obama pressed for faster surge."  The Post, in short, would rather downplay a scoop than damage Obama.

Finally, the Post's story suggests that Obama wanted a fast surge at least in large part because he wants a fast withdrawal.  From his perspective this makes sense -- you can't remotely justify beginning a pullout in July 2011 unless you complete the surge by mid 2010.  The Post characterizes Obama's objection to the McCrystal plan this way:  "it took too long to get and too long to get out."  And, revealingly, when Obama told the military to go back to the drawing board and find a way to get more troops in more quickly, his comment (according to the Post) was "I don't want to be going to Walter Reed [Hospital] for another eight years."

It is not surprising that Obama would find it difficult to support a surge except as a means of speeding up a withdrawal.  Whether this thought process has produced an optimal strategy for succeeding in Afghanistan -- whatever success means now that Obama has defined it down -- is another matter.

The July 2011 date is all about the 2012 election.  It's a political calculation -- not a military one.  Obama wants to be able to claim that he has achieved victory -- whether he has, or not -- and is withdrawing troops.  If he doesn't do this, he will lose millions of his supporters on the Political Left.
Obama's Rules Of Engagement
Joseph Farah reports that the new military rules of engagement (ROE), implemented to ostensibly protect Afghan civilians, are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, as the Taliban learns to game plan based the rules' imposed limits.

The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights -- remember, the Taliban ARE "civilians" and they travel and fight with their families.

The impact of new restrictions has created increasing frustration and concern among U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops who now are compelled to follow these rules despite the danger of letting the Taliban live to fight again another day.  Critics see the new ROEs being more oriented toward defensive rather than offensive operations, as evidenced by recent charges of murder against two U.S. Army snipers because they had targeted a Taliban commander who reportedly wasn't holding a weapon.

The actual ROEs are classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier accounts, those restrictions include the following:
    

No night or surprise searches

Villagers are to be warned prior to searches

Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches

U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first

U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present

Only women can search women

    
Often, rules of engagement require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken.  In one case, villagers had tipped off U.S. forces of the presence of a Taliban commander who was threatening village elders.  To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces' approval to the plan.  The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day.  By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip.  Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act.

In other cases, the use of force against insurgents may be blocked if they lower their guns, only to have those insurgents return later to attack.

Also, ISAF troops cannot engage insurgents if they are leaving an area where an IED has been planted.  In one case, insurgents planting an IED had detected the presence of U.S. forces and immediately began leaving the area, tossing evidence of their preparations along the way.  U.S. forces could not fire on them.

The ROEs in some cases have gone beyond limiting ISAF troops in their operations.  In one case, ROE restrictions were in effect when four U.S. Marines twice pleaded by radio for artillery support in combat action in Kunar Province in Afghanistan -- and twice they were refused -- before they were killed.
Obama To Scale Back Drone Strikes
NewsMax.com is reporting that Barack Obama intends to block the growth of the CIA’s largely successful clandestine program of using missiles fired by Predator drones to kill key al-Qaida leaders in Pakistan.  A debate over expanding the program has reportedly been ongoing among Obama and his advisers for the past year.

Obama and his advisers worry the spy agency’s desire to expand the strikes into populated areas such as Quetta -- reported home to key Taliban leaders such as Mullah Omar -- would increase the risk of unwanted civilian casualties and increase diplomatic problems with the Pakistani government.

The administration reportedly has been encouraged by Pakistani army attacks against al-Qaida and Taliban positions inside Pakistan, and is wary of straining relations.

The attacks have killed over a dozen al-Qaida leaders in the past two years.  The body count includes Abu Khabab al-Masri, al-Qaida’s alleged top specialist in the area of weapons of mass destruction, and Baitullah Mehsud, the  mastermind of Benazir Bhutto’s murder.

In spite of the publicity the Predator strikes have garnered, the U.S. government still refuses to acknowledge its existence.  However, an unnamed national security official tells Newsweek the attacks have not only been successful in killing key terrorists, but it has kept them on the run and disrupted their ability to plan new attacks.

Another official said expanding the drone missile strikes could be kept on the table as a way to gain diplomatic leverage with the Pakistani government to keep up its present offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

"...the attacks have not only been successful in killing key terrorists, but it has kept them on the run and disrupted their ability to plan new attacks" -- well, we can't have that now, can we.
Obama To Dump Secret Documents
NewsMax.com reports that Barack Obama plans to deal with a Dec. 31 deadline that automatically would declassify secrets in more than 400 million pages of Cold War-era documents by ordering government-wide changes that could sharply curb the number of new and old government records hidden from the public.

In an executive order that he is likely to sign before year's end, Obama will create a National Declassification Center to clear up the backlog of Cold War documents.  But the order also will give everyone more time to process the 400 million pages rather than flinging them open at year's end without a second glance.

The order aimed at eliminating unnecessary secrecy also is expected to direct all agencies to revise their classification guides -- the more than 2,000 separate and unique manuals used by federal agencies to determine what information should be classified and what no longer needs that protection.  The manuals form the foundation of the government's classification system.

Two of every three such guides haven't been updated in the past five years, according to the 2008 annual report of the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government's security classification.

The anticipated timing of Obama's order was disclosed by a government official familiar with the planning who requested anonymity in order to discuss the order before its release.  A draft of the order was leaked last summer.

The still-classified Cold War records would provide a wealth of data on U.S.-Soviet relations, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall, diplomacy and espionage.  A Soviet spy ring in the Navy led by John Walker headlined 1985, which became known as "The Year of the Spy."

Continue reading here . . .
What A Mess
Paul at Powerline blog says that earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that the administration's delay in formulating a new strategy for Afghanistan was caused in part by confusion over the mission.  Obama had given Gen. McChrystal one concept of the mission in March, and McChrystal had developed a new strategy based on that mission over the summer, but the White House opted in September for a new, somewhat different concept of the mission.  Thus, the administration had to return to the drawing board, and its plan was not unveiled until December.

Now, after Obama has announced the new strategy and it is being implemented, the Post reports that there is still serious disagreement about just what the strategy is.  According to the Post, the military sees its mission as mounting a comprehensive counterinsurgency operation, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale than originally envisaged.

But apparently many within the White House don't see the strategy that way.  For example, Joe Biden has said that "the strategy has fundamentally changed" and that "this is not a COIN [counterinsurgency] strategy."  It is not clear, at least from the Post's report, exactly what the new strategy is if not a somewhat scaled-back version of the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal originally proposed.  What is clear is that even after nearly a year of back and forth, the folks who count still are not on the same page when it comes to fighting this war.

The Post suggests that part of the gap between the military's view of its mission and that of the White House stems from the military's commitment to counterinsurgency.  In this account, the military is straining to bend the mission back in the direction of what McChrystal wanted all along, a direction the White House has not really embraced.

But the real problem appears to be what the Post calls "ambiguity over the meaning of the July 2011 deadline" for beginning the withdrawal.  And the fault for this clearly lies with the administration.  At times, administration spokesmen have indicated that a serious drawdown will begin in July 2011.  At other times, they have made it sound, instead, as if the drawdown will be less drastic and more contingent on conditions on the ground.  Thus, one senior military officer in Afghanistan is quoted by the Post as saying that he and his fellow soldiers "don't know if this is all over in 18 months or whether this is just a progress report that leads to minor changes."

Under these circumstances, it is understandable that the military is resolving the White House's ambiguity in favor of trying to win the war they have been tasked with fighting.  Indeed, Secretary of Defense Gates has stated that, "we are in this thing to win" and that "from a moral perspective, when you ask soldiers and families to sacrifice, we do that to win."

Yet, Obama did not use either the word "win" or the word "victory" in his speech at West Point in which he announced the new strategy.  And he has said he is uncomfortable using the term "victory" in the context of the fight against "non-state actors."

The real problem, then, seems to be this: from the military's perspective, fighting a war for any reason other than to win makes no sense, but from Obama's perspective it makes no sense to fight this war to win.  The administration, though, isn't quite prepared to tell the military (or the nation as a whole) that we should not to fight to win.  So it sends mixed signals and hopes for the best.

This is a recipe for disaster.
Another Obama-CIA Rift

While the painstaking process of unearthing the "systematic failures" of intelligence on the Crotch Bomber continues, Obama again performs on script.  Just as he’s done with virtually every past crises -- and always while armed with only the bare essentials of information -- the now infamous POTUS finger of blame moves away from anyone remotely connected with Obama, his decisions or performance of his appointees, and falls once again on his favorite scapegoat, the CIA.

 

And the CIA spy chiefs are none to happy about the accusations.  It seemed especially harsh when, in an apparent moment of political expedience, Obama was hailing the seven CIA agents slain by a suicide bomber at a US base in the eastern province of Khost 24 hours later.

      

"One day Obama is pointing the finger and blaming the intelligence services, saying there is a systemic failure," said one agency official.  "Now we are heroes.  The fact is that we are doing everything humanly possible to stay on top of the security situation.  The deaths of our operatives shows just how involved we are on the ground."

 

But CIA bosses claim they were unfairly blamed at a time the covert government agency has been stretched further than ever before in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

They point to the murder of seven operatives at a remote mountain base in Afghanistan’s Khost Province as an example of how agents are putting their lives on the line at the vanguard of America’s far-flung wars.

    

Continue reading here . . .
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved