Panetta: "Reaching Limits of Patience" on Pakistan

Was critical of the appointment of Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense but that man has a spine of steel and may be one of the best choices for Defense Secretary in a long time.  He is very calculated in what he has to say but he leaves no doubt in anyone's minds that he is not the least bit happy with Pakistan and not afraid to say his patience is running out.  That is totally refreshing out of a Secretary of Defense.  Too often they sound like State Department people but Panetta in his short stint at the Department of Defense is putting his stamp on the agency.  Keep hearing that his word his golden so you know where you stand.

This is one more of example of our Secretary of Defense putting our soldiers and America first by going after the leadership in Pakistan for allowing the terrorists safe havens.  Reminds me of Dick Cheney when he was Sec Def who would also speak out.  SecDef Gates was a nice man by all accounts but he had a problem standing up and was not the best choice for the position IMHO.  My doubts about Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense have been washed away over his short tenure.  

The fact that Pakistan won't allow the NATO troops exiting Afghanistan to use their territory says all you need to know about Pakistan and why foreign aid to that Country needs sharply cut if they are not going to cooperate to end terrorism.  NATO was forced to find routes through three countries to the north which have signed agreements but are more expensive   Zero is a nice round number for foreign aid to Pakistan since we are  paying three countries for routes for NATO use.  Will be very happy to see our ground troops out of Afghanistan because with Pakistan as a safe haven for terrorists, they are sitting ducks.

Those drones needs to keep flying aimed at the terrorists in Pakistan and if the Pakistani Government doesn't like it then do something about rooting out the terrorists in the safe havens.  You have to wonder how much the terrorists are paying the Pakistani leadership for their safe havens in Pakistan.  

Panetta: ‘Reaching Limits of Patience’ 

The U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that the U.S. is “reaching limits of patience as far as Pakistan is concerned.” During a trip to Kabul for talks with military leaders, Panetta said it is “difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is a safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan.” Panetta’s words are some of the strongest yet in the diplomatic tug-of-war with Pakistan, a country whose cooperation is considered vital in stabilizing Afghanistan. Pakistan’s parliament has been drawing up recommendations on how to proceed with Washington, although the U.S. has strongly condemned the country for sentencing a doctor who helped the CIA in the deadly raid that killed Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison.

Excerpt from the Reuters article on Sec Def Panetta's visit to Pakistan and the region:

Panetta also urged Pakistan to go after the Haqqani militant network, one of the United States' most feared enemies in Afghanistan, and said Washington would exert diplomatic pressure and take any other steps needed to protect its forces. 

"It is an increasing concern that safe havens exist and those like the Haqqanis make use of that to attack our forces," he said. 

"We are reaching the limits of our patience for that reason. It is extremely important for Pakistan to take action to prevent (giving) the Haqqanis safe havens, and for terrorists to use their country as a safety net to conduct attacks on our forces." 

Panetta, who left Kabul shortly afterwards, blamed the group for an attack last week on a U.S. base in the east in which several insurgents, including some wearing suicide vests, attacked it with rocket propelled grenades. 

The attack was foiled, but it underlined the challenge facing Western and Afghan forces in the east where insurgents take advantage of the steep, often forested terrain and the Pakistani border to launch attacks and then slip across the border. 

"What happened the other day in Salerno is an indication that they are going to continue to come at us and let me be clear anybody who attacks US soldiers is our enemy and we are going to take them on. We have got to be able to defend ourselves," he told U.S. troops earlier at Kabul airport. 

The comments came as Washington appears to be looking to other allies in the region for help in the face of Pakistan's foot-dragging. Panetta arrived in Kabul after a visit to India, Pakistan's old enemy, where he urged New Delhi to take a more active role in Afghanistan. 

NATO has signed an agreement with three countries to the north of Afghanistan for land routes as the U.S.-led alliance begins a withdrawal of its forces from the country next year. 

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said earlier this week the "reverse transit" deal was signed with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. 

Pakistan closed the shorter and cheaper routes through its territory last year to protest a cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Discussions to reopen the Pakistan routes have stalled. 

Other irritants in U.S.-Pakistan ties include drone attacks in the lawless areas of Pakistan near the Afghan border where several militant groups operate but seen by many Pakistanis as a violation of sovereignty. 

Washington says the attacks are crucial to rooting out militancy and four days ago, a U.S. drone strike in northwest Pakistan killed al Qaeda's second-ranking leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi. It was the biggest blow to the militant group since the killing of bin Laden.   

(Writing by Michael Georgy and Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Ed Lane)

Senator John McCain Praises Obama For Afghanistan Trip

Senator John McCain is once again showing the class that every last Senator and Member of the House should show when the President travels overseas no matter the party of the President.  This is about America not Republican or Democrat or who can score points.

Republicans are now acting like none of our Presidents made any trips at all for political purposes which is about as hypocritical as you can get.  What is the most hypocritical is all the comments that Obama was using the Seal Team attack on Bin Laden's compound that end up in the death of Bin Laden when Romney who had absolutely zero to do with any of it goes to a New York fire station to celebrate the one year anniversary of Bin Laden's death.  Romney is a walking hypocrite as in 2007 he said:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail.

A little over four years ago Romney is saying he would not launch an attack into another Country to strike at al Qaeda but today he says all Presidents would have done that.  The lies just keep coming from Romney but the RNC expects conservatives to just fall in line when we know that Romney should have never run with his liberal baggage and statements.  His campaign and the establishment act like his previous comments meant nothing.  How can you be sure what he believes?

John McCain Praises Obama For Afghanistan Trip
Posted: 05/ 1/2012 5:21 pm Updated: 05/ 1/2012 5:21 pm 

John McCain is "pleased" to learn about President Obama's surprise visit to Afghanistan. Obama arrived in Kabul on Tuesday, the eve of the anniversary Osama bin Laden's death, to meet with President Hamid Karzai about the presence of U.S. troops in the country. He will deliver a televised address from Afghanistan at 7:30 p.m. ET. 

McCain released a statement praising Obama for his commitment to a "a secure and free Afghanistan":   

“I am pleased that the President has traveled to Afghanistan. This is a significant opportunity for him to hear directly from our military commanders and troops on the ground about the significant progress we are making in this fight. 

“It is also important because President Obama and President Karzai will announce the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, which will define the long-term political, economic, and military commitment between our countries. While I will carefully examine the details of this agreement, I am hopeful that it will send a signal to friends and enemies in the region that the United States is committed to a secure and free Afghanistan. 

“I hope the President's speech tonight will emphasize the degree of our commitment in Afghanistan, rather than the plans for withdrawal. I would urge the President to return from this visit and spend more time speaking directly with the American people about the vital national security interests at stake in Afghanistan and the need for the United States to remain strongly engaged there in the years ahead.” 

Source:  Huffington Post        

West to Newsmax: If There's No Will to Win, Leave Afghanistan Now Read more on Newsmax.com: West to Newsmax: If There's No Will to Win, Leave Afghanistan Now Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

This is a very powerful interview from Congressman Allen West (R-FL) about the facts on Afghanistan and  our military.  We couldn't agree more that this Administration, Obama and Panetta, are overreacting first to the Korans which were carrying messages and then to this soldier who shot some Afghanistan people after some say was a head injury but he was still sent back to combat.  Panetta called for the death penalty for killing the Afghan people but the soldier who threw the grenade into the tent killing Americans did not get the death penalty and the shooter at Fort Hood is still awaiting trial while this whole time Obama will not admit it was a terrorist attack by a Jihadist who just happened to be in the US Army.

Looks like a double standard from this Administration -- one for killing in Afghanistan and a separate one if you kill Americans.  Shameful out of this President to keep apologizing especially on the Koran's which were not being used for religious purposes but to smuggle messages.

We agree with Cong West 100% that if there is no will to win, leave Afghanistan NOW!!!  We owe that to our troops that are on the ground or those about to deploy.  Why didn't West run for President?  Makes more sense then all of those combined who are running on both sides.




West to Newsmax: If There's No Will to Win, Leave Afghanistan Now
Wednesday, 14 Mar 2012 06:31 PM

By Martin Gould and Ashley Martella

President Barack Obama must stop apologizing for every misstep in the Afghanistan war — it makes the United States look weak in the eyes of the enemy, Republican Rep. Allen West told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

And if there is no political will to deal with Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, the U.S. might as well remove all troops from the country, he added.

“If you are not going to contend with the sanctuaries that are across the border in Pakistan, then you should depart from Afghanistan because you are not going to have a secure situation until you deal with what the ISI in Pakistan is allowing to happen,” he said referring to that country’s intelligence service.

“We need to go back to the table and look at our operational goals and objectives in Afghanistan,” said the Florida congressman, who served in Kuwait and Iraq during his 22 years in the Army.

West was speaking three days after an unidentified army staff sergeant allegedly went on a rampage in Kandahar Province, killing 16 locals. That incident and last month’s inadvertent burning of Qurans by soldiers have heightened tensions in the country.

On Wednesday, the Afghan driver of a stolen pickup truck burst into flames near the runway of a British base in Afghanistan at about the time U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s plane arrived today. An investigation is still under way to determine if the incident may have been a failed attack on Panetta. West declined to comment on that matter until more facts are known.
West, who served as a civilian adviser in Afghanistan, said the Taliban has seized the two issues and is using them as “an opportunity to ramp up the rhetoric.”

“What happened with this staff sergeant in Afghanistan is a horrible event. It cannot be condoned,” said West, who left the army with the rank of lieutenant colonel. “You have to condemn it in each and every way, but this should not overshadow the 10-plus years that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been there and the impeccable sacrifices and service that they have given to the Afghan people.

“We need to put this in perspective and not allow President Karzai and the Taliban to get any type of high ground,” he added.

When asked how the U.S. can best prevent Taliban threats to behead soldiers in retaliation, the congressman was succinct. “We kill them first,” he said.
West attacked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for suggesting the soldier, who was flown out of Afghanistan on Wednesday, might face the death penalty at his court martial.

“I will tell Leon Panetta…stop overreacting and stop appeasing these radicals, offering up our own service men and women,” West said, pointing out that neither Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of killing two officers when he threw a hand grenade into a tent in Kuwait in 2003, nor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who faces charges of killing 13 servicemen during a rampage at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009, have been executed.

“Let’s make sure we are playing this straight,” he said.

West said reports that the staff sergeant in the Kandahar case had suffered a traumatic brain injury during an earlier tour of duty in Iraq pointed to the need to take better care of our wounded military. He called such injuries “the hidden sickness” of war.

“What we must understand is that here is a gentleman who has served this country bravely for three, now going on four combat tours. We can’t just cast him aside and treat him like some sort of refuse.

“He was a hero to his children and we need to make sure as best as we possibly can that we can protect the way that his children see him.” But he said the sergeant has to pay for the killings if he is found guilty by the court martial.

West pointed out that the Qurans that were burned had been defaced by captured Taliban fighters who had allegedly used them to pass messages.

“If you understood Islamic culture, as soon as those Jihadists and terrorists wrote in the Qurans, by their own cultural standards, they should have been killed,” he said. “It was not about burning Qurans. We were disposing of contraband.”

Excerpt: Read more on Newsmax.com

Gergen: Why didn't Obama listen to Petraeus?

First of all this is a good question but facts don't match the rhetoric in part of the article.  We will have more troops in Afghanistan when Obama's term is up then we had when it started.  Gergen has combined the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan which gave him the end result he desired.  We were already drawing down Iraq when Obama took office but he approved a surge in Afghanistan.  This is a lesson to anyone reading articles not to take everything at face value no matter who is reporting.

We find out from the article that Secretary of Defense Gates, and Secretary of State Clinton were on the side of the Petraeus plan to draw down while Vice President Biden and White House staff (Valerie Jarrett?) were on the opposition side.  So Obama chooses the side of Biden instead of the advisers who have been part of the Afghanistan War.  Doesn't say much for Obama.  We don't mean to nitpick by why didn't Gergen just say General Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Secretary of State Clinton instead of:

Set against the recommendations of his top military commander and his defense and diplomatic secretaries were those coming from Vice President Joe Biden and others to speed up the withdrawal 

In the move from a ground troops counterinsurgency strategy  to a counter terrorism strategy which relies heavily on drone attacks and special forces are we going to be seeing more reports of civilians killed without hurting the ability of the terrorists to strike?  We have had a lot of problems with the ground troops being able to operate in some areas but how is going to a counter terrorism  strategy going to work?  The draw down is going to leave our special forces vulnerable which could lead to more deaths.

Since Obama took office, the amount of casualties in Afghanistan has increased. 

The average monthly casualty rate for U.S. military forces serving in Afghanistan has increased 5-fold since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.   

1,540 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Oct. 7, 2001, when U.S. forces began fighting in that country to oust the Taliban regime that had been harboring al Qaeda and to track down and capture or kill al Qaeda terrorists.

During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties—a rate of 6.5 deaths per month. 

During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have suffered 970 casualties—a rate of 33.3 deaths per month.

Until I did the research, had no idea that the casualties under Obama were so high compared to the years of President Bush.  One question is WHY was this not mentioned in the article or in the mainstream media when they attacked President Bush relentlessly on casualties?  The rate of 6.5 deaths a month versus 33.3 deaths per month is huge, but we hear crickets from the mainstream media.

Why didn't Obama listen to Petraeus?
By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst
June 23, 2011 9:25 a.m. EDT 

(CNN) -- There was something deeply unsettling about President Obama's speech on Afghanistan and much of the commentary that surrounded it -- or at least there was to me, as someone who clings to some old-fashioned traditions about U.S. foreign policy.
It should be said up front that the speech itself was well crafted. More importantly, President Obama deserves credit on two fronts. 

First, he has kept his promises as a candidate and then in the Oval Office that he would wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in ways that he considered responsible. When he came into office, the U.S. had approximately 190,000 troops deployed in the two war zones; the wind-downs that are under way will mean that by the end of this year, we will have less than 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Promise kept. 

Second, the president deserves credit for having the guts to order up a surge in Afghanistan in 2009 -- against the wishes of many in his party -- and for overseeing many successes from the surge, including devastating blows against al Qaeda. Promise kept. 

But the issue before him in his East Room speech was where to go from here in Afghanistan. Everyone in his administration agrees that it is time to begin winding down the Afghanistan surge, as he promised in his West Point speech in 2009. The central question was how to do that. 

Going forward, Gen. David Petraeus -- who runs the military operations in Afghanistan -- was widely reported to favor a slow, moderate reduction in U.S. forces, ensuring that the U.S. would continue to keep strong troop strength not only in 2011 but through the fighting season in Afghanistan in 2012. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared that view, according to reports. (In a wonderful bit of commentary, Joe Klein of Time has posited that the fighting season in Afghanistan starts in the spring when the opium crop has been harvested and ends in November or so when the harvest season opens for marijuana.) 

Set against the recommendations of his top military commander and his defense and diplomatic secretaries were those coming from Vice President Joe Biden and others to speed up the withdrawal and shift quickly from a counterinsurgency strategy (which requires more troops) to a counterterrorism strategy (which requires fewer troops, depending more on pinpoint attacks by drones, special forces and the like). 

As someone who has seen a lot of military decisions made in the White House, I am accustomed to presidents paying great heed to the views of their commanders on the ground. 

In this case, Petraeus was not just the commander on the ground -- he is one of the very best American generals in modern history, a man who has turned around the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. One might think that given his extraordinary success and the great respect in which he is held on Capitol Hill and around the country, Obama would give Petraeus the benefit of the doubt and go with his preferred option. 

But that is exactly what the president decided not to do. Instead of a 3,000-5,000 troop withdrawal this year, as Petraeus is understood to have recommended, Obama went for 10,000. And instead of protecting two full seasons of strong American troop presence in Afghanistan, Obama set forth a plan that almost certainly will compromise next season's fighting. 

As a top general at the Pentagon told me, there is great fear that once troops know they are definitely coming home next summer, they will be focused on getting out of there safely -- not on serious engagement with the Taliban.
Petraeus will loyally support the president in public, as he should. So will Gates and Clinton, even though both accepted the president's decision reluctantly, according to The New York Times. 

Excerpt:  Read More at CNN  

Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @david_gergen

Who was happy with Obama's speech if the Democrats were largely disappointed?  Looks like once again he struck out with a prime time speech.  

Obama ran for office in July 2007 saying "It is time to bring our troops home"  but that did not happen and to make it worse for Democrats opposing the war and the surge.  Almost four years later we have this comment summing up the frustration with the candidate who made promises he didn't keep:

"[W]e'll have twice as many combat troops in Afghanistan at the end of his term than we did at the beginning. We should instead have a path to bring those troops home," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

Since taking office in January 2009, Obama has nearly tripled the number of American troops fighting in the decade-old war. When he entered the White House, there were 34,000 troops in the country. Now there are nearly 100,000.  Looks like the Democrat candidate that the media were touting as the 'man who could walk on water' have a problem on their hands.  How do they spin there are going to be more troops at the end of his time in office then when he took office?

This has the potential of Afghanistan being a total disaster but then under Obama, the Middle East has blown up so nothing would shock us.  Guess he thought after they got Bin Laden everyone would lay down their arms and sing "kumbyya" which hasn't happened.

This is what happens when you elect a person with little to no experience -- serving as a community organizer, in the IL Senate, and US Senate does not give anyone the experience to be President and it has been a bad experiment.  Being a member of Congress does not prepare someone to be President.

Democrats Largely Disappointed With Obama's Afghanistan Announcement

First Posted: 06/22/11 09:37 PM ET Updated: 06/22/11 10:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers who have been pressing for a sizable and significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan almost universally expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's speech on Wednesday night.

The president told the nation in a prime time address that 10,000 U.S. troops will be leaving the war by the end of 2011, with another 23,000 coming out by autumn of 2012. The drawdown will fully remove the troops that went in as part of the "surge" that Obama announced in his 2009 speech at West Point. Approximately 68,000 troops will still be fighting in the war.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters on Tuesday that the president needed to put forward, at a minimum, an initial withdrawal of 15,000 troops -- a number that Obama fell short of -- to meet his promise of a "significant" drawdown. 

"The president's decision represents a positive development, although in my view the conditions on the ground justify an even larger drawdown of U.S. troops this year than the president announced tonight," he said in a statement after the speech. "I will continue to advocate for an accelerated drawdown in the months ahead, and for enhanced training and partnering with Afghan forces, because only they can provide durable security for their nation." 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has been a vocal supporter of a robust withdrawal, also said president's announcement was not what she had been hoping for. "It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the President laid out -- and we will continue to press for a better outcome," she said. 

"[W]e'll have twice as many combat troops in Afghanistan at the end of his term than we did at the beginning. We should instead have a path to bring those troops home," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Merkley, along with Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), was one of the authors of a letter calling for a "sizable and sustained reduction" of military forces in Afghanistan, which garnered the support of 27 senators. Merkley said he would consider an initial reduction of 15,000 to 20,000 troops to be sizable.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is one of the co-sponsors of the Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act, legislation that would require Obama to submit a plan to Congress by July 31 for the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces, including a completion day.

Excerpt: Read More at Huffington Post AOL News

How long will the public tolerate the Afghan war?

Our answer is not very long. The Russians killed all the Afghans and had to finally admit they couldn't win and withdrew. Afghanistan then became the headquarters for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both organizations who want to destroy the West and our way of life. Pulling out will embolden the Taliban, but staying under the current Rules of Engagement where are soldiers are fighting with one hand behind their back is not worth risking the lives of any more soldiers. This is the same mentality that failed in Vietnam and needlessly cost the lives of our soldiers.

Put aside the fact that American leaders in Afghanistan are unironically using the phrase "hearts and minds" -- the very words used to describe the folly of U.S. policy in the Vietnam era. Does the American public want to continue a war in which Americans die because they're not allowed to fight back when attacked, all for the purpose of increasing school attendance, child immunization, and cell phone use?

If General Petraeus doesn't change the Rules of Engagement, then start the pull out now and declare "we lost." Obama and his Rules of Engagement that favor the Taliban were the wrong strategy from day one.

Cannot believe this Country is going down the same path once again this time led by an inexperienced, inept President who would rather reach out to so-called 'moderates' of terrorists organizations of Islam than do what is necessary to start winning the battles and stabilizing the Country. Why should the Taliban stop fighting when they know the timetable for pulling out win or lose? Our vote is to start the pull out if the Rules of Engagement don't change.

Byron York is right in his assessment of the Afghanistan situation.

Byron York - How long will the public tolerate Afghan war?

Petraeus said that as the fighting increases, and American casualties rise, the public should remember that "progress is possible" in Afghanistan. Petraeus knows that's true, he explained, because he has seen it.

"For example, nearly seven million Afghan children are now in school as opposed to less than one million a decade ago under Taliban control," Petraeus said. "Immunization rates for children have gone up substantially and are now in the 70 to 90 percent range nationwide. Cell phones are ubiquitous in a country that had virtually none during the Taliban days."

It was an extraordinary moment. Americans overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks. In eight and a half years of war there, 1,149 American servicemembers have died. And after all that sacrifice, the top American commander is measuring the war's progress by school attendance, child immunization and cell phone use.

That sort of nation building, especially in a place as primitive as Afghanistan, has never been popular with American voters. It's especially unpopular when combined with highly restrictive rules of engagement that have tied the hands of the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, exposing them to danger from an enemy they're not allowed to strike.

We have dozens of examples of the effects of those rules, most recently in the Rolling Stone article that led to the firing of Petraeus' predecessor, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The article told how U.S. commanders wanted to destroy an abandoned house used by the Taliban to launch attacks, but were denied permission. Then a 23-year-old Army corporal was killed there.

"Does that make any f--king sense?" a fellow soldier asked. "You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Everyone Must Go, If We Want to Win In Afghanistan

This retired Air Force General has it right -- Everyone Must Go! The odds of the United States and the NATO allies winning with the Obama/McChrystal Rules of Engagement (ROE) being carried out by General McChrystal before he was fired (submitted resignation) are slim to none. If General Petreaus doesn't immediately change those Rules, it is time to admit defeat and bring our soldiers home to protect us here from the terrorist who will follow after a defeat in Afghanistan.

This is the most inept group of people ever to head our National Security starting with Obama who is opposed to even saying the words "War on Terror" which speaks volumes about him and his loyalty which is not fully to the United States as exhibited by his words and actions. His fist major speech was to the Arab World as he tried to act like it is a Tea Party not a War on Terrorism. These Islamic Jihadists want to kill us not have 'tea' at the White House. The 'kumbyya" approach doesn't work with terrorist. Obama's outreach to the Islamic States while trashing our closest allies, Britain and Israel, has left many of us wondering how much worse it can get with Obama and his Administration.

General McInerney has given excellent reasons why the Afghanistan Obama Team must go. We would like to take it one step further and say the National Security Team should be fired. Some of these people like Clinton at Secretary of State should never have been appointed.


Hillary Clinton kisses Soho Arafat after Soha's Terrorist Speech
This is an example of Hillary Clinton playing up to our enemies and now she is Secretary of State who wanted to be President. We are not sure she would have been any different than Obama except the taxpayer would have had to foot the bill for flying ash trays and lamps if she had won. She is the boss of Ambassadors Eikenberry and Holbrooke who have done more harm to the Afghanistan War than help yet she has done nothing to make the situation better. Since the buck stops at the desk as the person in charge -- she needs to go for failure to act when confronted with numerous complaints about Eikenberry and Holbrooke.

The anti War on Terror group has taken over running our National Security team with the exception of Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen who we are not ready to lump in with the others just yet but they are getting there rapidly for failing to stand up to Obama and for our troops.

Your Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have accepted these ridiculous new definitions of the threat.

We were bothered when Gates and Mullen accepted new defintions and new Rules of Engagement without much of a fight. The number of casualties since the new Rules of Engagement went into force have increased dramatically. Expecting our soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their back with little air power is asking them to go on suicide missions.

General Petreaus we hope has the opportunity to change the Rules of Engagement to favor our soldiers not the enemy. We question whether Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen decides to allow General Petreaus to run the war and not micro manage him from the Defense Department. Imagine our shock when looking for what General Mullen said about changing the Rules of Engagement and discovering what Mullen had to say to Karzi.

America's top military officer assured President Hamid Karzai that newly chosen NATO commander Gen. David Petraeus would pursue the policies of his ousted predecessor, whom the Afghan leader warmly praised for reducing civilian casualties. (snip)

Karzai's emphasis on preventing civilian deaths and injuries could make it difficult for NATO to relax rules of fighting that some U.S. troops say give the battlefield advantage to the Taliban. For now, however, no changes have been proposed, said a spokesman for visiting Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

That does not sound good if true -- looks like business as usual in Afghanistan where the Taliban can hide out in villages and be safe while they pick off our soldiers one by one.

General McInerney is right -- Everyone Must Go including Gates and Mullens for not standing up for their troops. They look to be nothing more than lapdogs now for Obama and his National Security advisors.

Where is a General Myers, a Stormin' Norman or a Tommy Franks when you need them? Our military knew that those three Generals put them first. Shame on Gates and General Mullen for caving into the Obama and his agenda.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney

- FOXNews.com

- June 29, 2010

Everyone Must Go, If We Want to Win In Afghanistan

President Obama has latched on to Gen. Petraeus as a lifeline to save his Afghanistan war strategy. But he must be bold and change course, right now.

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and numerous other Democratic political leaders chastised General David Petraeus during his Iraq surge testimony in September 2007. A full-page placed by MoveOn.org in The New York Times labeled General Petraeus "General Betray Us" and was not condemned by any of them.

Now President Obama has latched on to Gen. Petraeus as a lifeline to save his Afghanistan war strategy. What a paradox. A better name for Obama's new view of Gen. Petraeus might be "General Save Us." Will Gen. Petraeus be able to pull off this challenge with the current Counterinsurgency (COIN) Strategy and the dangerous Rules of Engagement (ROE) that General McCrystal had instituted in his year in his role as ISAF and U.S. Forces Afghanistan commander? Unfortunately, I don't think so. That is, unless both the strategy is changed and the rules of engagement are dramatically altered and new leadership is provided to both the Defense and State departments.

First to the State Department: Ambassadors Eikenberry and Holbrooke have long outlived their effectiveness. They are a drag on success in this difficult war. They must go.

Next, to the Department of Defense: This a war is not an "Overseas Contigency Operation (OCO)" as President Obama’s administration calls it. We have lost 89 ISAF soldiers and 53 US soldiers this month with 2 days left to go.

Mr. President, we are in a violent war against radical Islam and your denial of this fact will ensure our defeat.

You and your administration cannot even define the ideology we are fighting against. John Brennan, your National Security adviser for counterterrorism, thinks "jihad" means "holy struggle" not a war against infidels.

Your Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have accepted these ridiculous new definitions of the threat.

This means you, and your national security leadership team are clueless about how to defeat this violent threat against America.

They must all go and you must change your senseless strategy.

How can we expect General Petraeus to defeat the Taliban when he does not have a leadership team supporting him the way the Bush administration's team did during the surge in Iraq?

Read More at Fox News and
USA Today

Obama ousts General McChrystal over Remarks - General Petreaus rumored to be his replacement

UPDATE, 12:48 p.m.: General Petreaus rumored to be his replacement according to a Fox News Report plus other news outlets are reporting the same thing. Troops will be happier in Afghanistan.

****

This is not surprising as McChrystal left little choice with the interview in Rolling Stone. The fact that McChrystal allowed the reporter to get so close in less than 48 hours time when no one knew him was a warning flag and it went downhill from there. We understand McChrystal's frustration in how the war is progressing but the Rules of Engagement are pretty plain that they favor the civilian population and our military has one hand tied behind their back. That is what McChrystal should have taken a stand over in our opinion. Instead he chose to allow a reporter from Rolling Stone inside his circle. Bad judgement.

Los Angeles Times June 23, 2010 10:28 a.m.

Obama ousts Gen. McChrystal over remarks

President Obama ousted his top commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday after officials determined that comments he and his staff made in a Rolling Stone magazine article amounted to insubordination.

The decision to remove Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal puts the war effort in Afghanistan in a precarious position. The Pentagon now must find a new leader to execute a complicated strategy with only a few months in which show results to adhere to Obama's timetable.

But officials concluded that keeping McChrystal in his job was not viable after he and his staff were quoted making comments that denigrated U.S. civilian leaders who oversee the war effort.

More at http://link.latimes.com/r/R58V3G/X4V92/CXREQC/DK1O9/B5K9T5/YT/h

General McChrystal Issues Apology Over Rolling Stone Article has been asked to meet with Obama

UPDATE: Breaking: General Stanley McChrystal tenders his resignation

By Toby Harnden World Last updated: June 22nd, 2010


A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate.

The source said that among the names being touted as possible successors are General James Mattis, the outgoing head of the US Joint Forces Command and due to retire after being passed over as US Marine Corps commander, and Lieutenant General William Caldwell, commander of Nato’s Training Mission in Afghanistan.

Of course, offering to resign is not the same as actually resigning and it remains to be seen whether Mr Obama will accept the resignation. Donald Rumsfeld offered to resign as Pentagon chief on more than one occasion but President George W. Bush requested that he continue in post before eventually firing him in November 2006.

Source: London Telegraph

*********

UPDATE: Article, the Runaway General is now posted at Rolling Stone and is as bad we heard. We are stunned that a General who is heading the Afghanistan campaign would talk like this about civilian leadership except for Hillary Clinton who McChyrstal likes.

Read the article for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

*******

Why would General McChrystal grant Rolling Stone magazine access to him and his aides in the war zone of Afghanistan is the first question we would ask. Why did they comment openly in front of a reporter would be the follow-up.

No matter how much I agree with what they said, Generals who are heading active campaigns like Afghanistan don't grant interviews to Rolling Stone. It is almost like he was ordered to grant Rolling Stone access, and this was his way of getting back at Obama and the 'clowns' in his Administration.

This reminds us of the Air Force General who was fired after Clinton took office for talking about Clinton's affairs in a speech. We agree with him as well.

Unlike others, we are not going to buy Rolling Stone magazine on Friday but we have to wonder how much built up anger General McChrystal had after he was summoned by Obama earlier when Obama was in Copenhagen trying to get the Olympics which like everything else failed. You could tell that it was not a pleasant experience as McChrystal had to sit there and be lectured by someone who doesn't have a clue, is totally inexperienced, and actually hates the military.

Time will tell what happens to General McChrystal, but it is obvious that he and his aides have zero respect for Obama which matches a lot of the rest of the Country.

McChrystal issued an apology Tuesday for the article profile, and he reportedly fired a press aide over it.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

Washington Post --Top allied commander apologizes for magazine profile

What is Gen. Stanley McChrystal doing granting extensive access to Rolling Stone for a piece on the Afghan war? Was he trying to burnish his image? Did the White House authorize the interviews in hopes that they could placate the increasingly critical publication?

What a disaster.

Writer Ernesto Londono got an advance copy of the piece “Runaway General” that will be out Friday. In it, McChrystal and his aides batter his rivals inside the Obama team.

It comes at a terrible time.

The American death toll continues to rise, achievements are amorphous at best and there is obvious dissention within Obama’s defense cabinet about whether the August 2011 end date for the Obama surge is firm or just a suggestion. The question for the White House today: what did you know and when did you know it about the Rolling Stone article? The answer will tell us a lot about whether McChrystal can survive this epic failure in judgment.

“McChrystal and some of his senior advisors are quoted criticizing top administration officials, at times in starkly derisive terms. An anonymous McChrystal aide is quoted calling national security adviser James Jones a ‘clown.’
Referring to Richard Holbrooke, Obama's senior envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, one McChrystal aide is quoted saying: ‘The Boss says he's like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.’

On one occasion, McChrystal appears to react with exasperation when he receives an e-mail from Holbrooke, saying, ‘Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don't even want to read it.’”

Read More at Washington Examiner

Who In the MSM Will Stand Up For Michael Yon?

It is more evident by the day that if you criticize anything about Obama's agenda you pay the price. McChystal is so much in Obama's hip pocket now that he sends the best war correspondent in Afghanistan to Thailand as he bans him as an enbed reporter in Afghanistan. Why? Looks like Obama didn't like the facts that Michael Yon was reporting so he banished him from Afghanistan.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the puppet behind McChystal is Obama -- must have been quite a dressing down McChystal took earlier from Obama when Obama summoned McChystal to Copenhagen while Obama was at the Chicago Olympic fiasco. So now when Obama says "jump," McChrystal says "how high?" There are times in a mililtary career, a general officer with honesty and integrity will stand up, but looks like McChystal is not one of those generals with his banning Yon as an embed reporter. Afghanistan has been going downhill since McChystal took over Command and it looks to be getting worse. Now we have lost the voice of honesty in Michael Yon.

This paragraph from Ron Futrell stands out and sent chills up the spine:

"If there is any time that the American public needs someone in country to give us an honest assessment of what is happening there it’s right now — and that man is Michael Yon. Are honest assessments something that makes this administration uncomfortable?"

There are no reporters left in Afghanistan who will speak the facts unless they decide now is the time to get some journalistic integrity and start reporting the truth instead of the Obama/McChrystal white wash. Our soldiers deserve no less than honest reporting.

It is looking more and more like Afghanistan has turned into political war with Obama and his advisors calling the shots -- shades of LBJ and Vietnam. We have zero confidence that Secretary of Defense Gates will stand up to Obama.

Obama/Gates/McChrystal and the National Security advisors with this action shout that they don't want the American people to learn the truth of what is happening in Afghanistan. The new Obama Rules of Engagement that Obama instituted is having our military fight with one hand behind their back while Obama has given the edge to the Taliban who are becoming stronger once again. Our soldiers are being killed in ambushes, sniper attacks, roadside bombs and any other way the Taliban can cause harm to our military. What happens? McChyrstal bans their one voice who was getting out the truth.

The mainstream media is slowly waking up to the fact they know little about the background of this man who is the President as he continues to freeze out the media but will they stand up for Michael Yon? We doubt they will go that far.

God be with our Soldiers in Afghanistan as they have now lost the one embed reporter who was not afraid to tell the truth about what happening which means Obama/Gates/McChystal couldn't keep covering up.

Who In the MSM Will Stand Up For Michael Yon?
Ron Futrell May 25th 2010 at 3:52 pm

The best war journalist of our time has been kicked out of Afghanistan and the media could not care less.

Let the administration boot Helen Thomas out of her seat in the front of a White House press conference and there would be outrage. Remove Jonathan Karl from the Capitol and media would revolt. Kick Andrea Kremer off Sunday Night Football and there would be pandemonium.

And yet nobody in the media seems to have much of a problem with Michael Yon being removed from the front lines by Obama/General McChrystal. Yon has openly stated the problems in Afghanistan right now and how we could lose this war, unless changes are made. He has been critical of the current rules of engagement that have put our troops in danger and could actually make this war like the Vietnam that the leftist media claimed it was early and often when Bush was president (it’s strange you don’t hear those comparisons from them anymore).

Yon’s reward? He’s lost his embed status, banished to Bangkok. Yon could return but his access might be limited and you can’t just pop in and out of that theater like it’s the neighborhood movie palace. Mess with Yon enough and his resources wear thin, but his patience will not. You will not stop this soldier. He is the ultimate warrior for those who fight and die for this country. His reports are honest, chilling, gripping and are as reflective of the battles they represent as anything I have ever read. But this administration is making it as difficult for him to do his job. You can’t believe this is by accident. The most critical battle in Afghanistan is about to take place, the battle for Kandahar, and the voice of the American soldier is not allowed in.

(snip)

Stand up in a show of force and find out exactly why Yon is not where he wants to be and where he should be right now. Yon has always offered his spot-on reporting and remarkable photographs free of charge to other media. They have taken advantage of that, rightly so. He survives on donations and is a truly independent voice in the war zone.

As we near this Memorial Day and we think of the ultimate sacrifice that has been given by those who serve, my challenge to the media who can’t wait to get to the Indy 500, the picnics at the parks, and the parades, is to man up and demand to know of this administration why the voice of the soldiers has been silenced in Afghanistan.

Excerpt: Read More at Big Journalism

The Palestine Peace Distraction

Why is Obama so intent on demanding what Israel needs to do to make peace with the Palestinians? The suicide bombers who are going into Israel to kill Jewish people come from the radical terrorists groups of the Palestinians. Yet, Obama wants the Israeli's to make all the concessions? Obama has zero right to tell the Israeli's where they can and cannot build. Israel is not a protectorate of the United States but an independent country.

How can Obama possibly think he can demand peace between Israel and the Palestinians and it is going to happen? It is naive to think a peace settlement dictated by Obama would last. We also have yet to figure out why Obama thinks a settlement to the Israel and Palestine impasse would have a broad reaching affect in the Middle East so all the Middle Eastern countries would have no more problems.

Richard Haas, who is an expert on the Middle East, has a timely editorial this morning in the Wall Street Journal that looks into how a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine might not bring the peace dividend to the Middle East that Obama touts.

APRIL 26, 2010
The Palestine Peace Distraction
Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.

By RICHARD N. HAASS

President Obama recently said it was a "vital national security interest of the United States" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests." He went on to say that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world."

To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.
Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran's push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel's nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran's nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran's nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region's embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Excerpt: Read More at Wall Street Journal

Members of Obama's own party are beginning to question openly his attacks on Israel in speeches. The liberal Senator from New York, Chuck Shumer, didn't mince words in going after Obama yesterday on his verbal attacks on Israel.

Sen. Chuck Schumer takes new shot at President Obama's tactics on Israel
BY Simone Weichselbaum
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, April 26th 2010, 4:00 AM

Sen. Chuck Schumer threw another punch Sunday in his verbal bout with the White House over Israeli expansion into Palestinian East Jerusalem.
The staunch supporter of Israel says President Obama shouldn't have scolded Israel for approving 1,600 new Jewish housing units in the Arab half of the divided city.

"What we disagree on is tactics," said Schumer about President Obama.

"When the United States sets out conditions on Israel, the Palestinians then say we don't want to come to the table, [thinking] the United States is doing our negotiation for us."

The building project has stalled "indirect" talks with the Israelis and the Palestinians led by U.S. special envoy George Mitchell.

Palestinian officials have said they would join the negotiations only if Israel halts all settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Schumer first voiced his anger at the Obama administration for siding with the Palestinians during a radio show on Jewish affairs on Thursday.

"You have to show Israel that it's not going to be forced to do things it doesn't want to do and can't do," Schumer told host Nachum Segal.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs shot back a statement at the senator the next day.

"We don't agree with what Sen. Schumer said in those remarks," Gibbs said.

Read more: New York Daily News

Is the real answer that Obama deep down wants Israel destroyed in favor of the Muslim countries that surround the State of Israel? That is the way it is beginning to look. Recently Obama had Prime Minister Netanyayu come to the White House for a short time and then Obama leaves to go to the family quarters. No honors to the head of a foreign state, no pictures, nothing except being scolded by Obama. Yet, Obama bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. What does that say about Obama? Think everyone by now has pretty much put 2+2 together after witnessing Obama's words and actions against Israel versus his actions and words for the Arab world have come to the conclusion that Obama is NO friend of Israel.

Over 400 members of Congress (78 Senators and 333 House Members) signed a letter to Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, protesting the words and actions against Israel by the Obama Administration.

It doesn't seem to matter to Obama what members of Congress think as he carries on his mission which looks to be to destroy Israel and be hailed by his Middle Eastern 'brothers' throughout the Arab world. He is sadly mistaken if he thinks destroying Israel is going to bring peace to that region. There was no peace before Israel was established in 1947.

If this is an example of Hope and Change touted by Obama, then it seems to be Obama is siding with the Arab countries against Israel which is a reversal of long time ties the United States has had with Israel since 1947 when State of Israel was founded. The vast majority of American people stand with one of our closest allies Israel against any and all attempts by Obama to destroy Israel as a strong country including Obama not selling more military weapons systems to Israel to protect themselves.

Frank Gaffney: Who Lost Iraq?

We remember when the Iraqi people went to vote the first time and were so proud to show everyone their purple fingers. Now candidates that ran in the last election are being faced with violence from the anti-democracy forces still in Iraq despite what Obama/Biden are saying that the War is over and We Won! We haven't won anything and looks like the Iraqi people who wanted democracy could end up the big losers. There was no reason to pull our troops out so rapidly and send them to Afghanistan except Obama didn't want the United States in Iraq. Who pushed him to get our troops out of Iraq which in part has set off a series of attacks? Why has he been against the Iraq War from Day One or standing up to Iran except with a few words?

Sadly, all other things being equal, that popular ambition seems unlikely to be realized. There is an unmistakable vacuum of power being created by President Obama's determination to withdraw U.S. "combat" forces no matter what, starting with the cities a few months ago and in short order from the rest of the country.

We never understood during the Bush 43 years why Cristopher Hill was involved in our foreign policy since he was an appeaser. Didn't make sense then and doesn't now why Pres GW Bush chose him to deal with the North Korean Leader. We needed a tough as nails type person who would negotiate not an appeaser who seemed to be afraid he might make the North Koren leader unhappy. You negotiate from strength not weakness which Hill never seemed to understand and now is the Obama Ambassador to Iraq.

The signal of American abandonment was made the more palpable by Team Obama's decision to dispatch Christopher Hill as its ambassador to Iraq. Hill is the diplomat best known for his determination during the Bush 43 years to appease, rather than thwart, the despot most closely enabling the realization of Iran's nuclear ambitions: North Korea's Kim Jong Il. The unreliability of the United States as an ally - a hallmark of the Obama presidency more generally - is reinforcing the sense that it is every man for himself in Iraq.

This last paragraph of the article posted below is truly frightening when you realize what is at stake with losing Iraq. Add to that Obama's appeasement of the Palestinians, verbal attacks on Israel, and tepid repines to a nuclear Iran and you have an area of the world ready to blow up while Obama twiddles his thumbs and bows to Muslims like the Saudi King. During the attempted overthrow of Iran by its people, Obama and Hillary were mostly silent. They seem to only find a voice when it is Freedom and Democracy at stake and then it is on the side of those against Freedom and Democracy.

There should be no doubt, however: The repercussions of the Obama administration losing Iraq will cost us dearly in the future as adherents to Shariah around the world are reinforced in their conviction of that our defeat and submission is preordained. Even if, at the moment, we cannot fully comprehend the implications of such a perception, we will know from here on out whose "great achievement" precipitated the resulting horror for America and the rest of what was once the Free World.

How Biden and Obama have the nerve to take credit for anything in Iraq is beyond us as they always opposed the United States being in Iraq. Not only a dark day for American when Obama was elected as more and more Americans are discovering but it was a dark day for Iraq as well as Israel.

Who lost Iraq?
Center for Security Policy Apr 05, 2010
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Back in February, Vice President Joseph Biden declared: "I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration." Even for a politician much given to strategic ineptitude compounded by foot-in-mouth disease, that was a doozy.

As has been pointed out innumerable times since, if Iraq turns out to be a truly "great achievement" in any ordinary sense of the word, Mr. Biden and Barack Obama - two of the most insistent opponents of George W. Bush's efforts to consolidate Iraq's liberation - are among the last people in Washington who should take such credit.

Worse yet, unfortunately for the Iraqi people and others who love freedom, it looks increasingly as though the Obama administration will have the loss of Iraq as one of its most signal accomplishments.

Three murderous suicide bombings in Baghdad over the weekend are but the latest indication of the renewed reality there: Those determined to use violence to destabilize the country, foment sectarian strife and shape Iraq's destiny can do so with impunity.

The fact that the Iranian embassy was one of the targets suggests Sunni extremist groups - perhaps including the once-defeated al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) - are responsible for this round of attacks. Elsewhere in the country though, Shiite death squads that may or may not have ties to the pro-Iranian factions currently running the country are ruthlessly liquidating prominent tribal leaders and others associated with the movement in Anbar Province known as The Awakening. The latter were instrumental to the success of the U.S. surge and to the opportunity thus created for an Iraqi future vastly superior to its despotic and chaotic past.

Among the objects of the growing violence are individuals who stood for office in the recent parliamentary elections. This amounts to post facto disenfranchisement of the Iraqi voters whose turnout of over 60 percent - in the face of threats by anti-democratic forces that voting would be deemed a capital offense - powerfully testified to their desire to exercise the right enjoyed by no others in the Mideast except Israelis: to have a real say in their government and future.

(snip)

Increasingly, that vacuum is being filled by Iran and its proxies on the one hand and, on the other, insurgent Sunni forces, both those aligned with al Qaeda and those that have, at least until recently, been suppressing the AQI. On what might be called the third hand, Iraqi Kurds are experiencing their own internal problems as well as an increasingly ill-concealed inclination to assert their independence from the rest of the country.

(snip)

The prospects of any "great achievement" in Iraq are being further diminished by the direction to the Pentagon to shift personnel and equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan. The President himself reinforced that commitment during his speech to U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base last week. The detailed planning and ponderous logistics associated with such a transfer increasingly foreclose options to change course. Our commanders will soon be hard pressed to preserve today's deployments of American forces in Iraq, let alone to have them take up once again the sorts of positions in the urban areas that they held to such therapeutic effect during the surge.

Excerpt: Read More at Center for Security Policy

With Dutch troops set to depart Afghanistan, the alliance forged in the Cold War is fraying

Over the last year, many have wondered just how long our NATO allies were going to continue with troops in Afghanistan when the current President Obama does nothing but diss our allies. He is foregoing a Euopean Summit this spring which the American Presidents attend. The reason: Mr. Obama is scaling back from his record-setting foreign travel last year.

European Leaders must be thinking he had time to make a pitch for the Olympics but has no time to attend a Euopean Summit? Think they are realizing rapidly that Obama is not their best friend. It has been obvious for months that Obama puts our enemies ahead of our allies.

What is he going to do in Afghanistan as more countries pull out their troops? Time will tell how frayed Obama has made our NATO Alliance.

The Dutch retreat

With Dutch troops set to depart Afghanistan, the alliance forged in the Cold War is fraying

Ian Buruma
Amsterdam — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Mar. 08, 2010 6:33PM EST Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 3:28AM EST

The Dutch army has been operating as part of NATO in a remote and unruly part of Afghanistan since 2006. Fighting against the Taliban has been heavy at times. Twenty-one Dutch lives have been lost, out of about 1,800 men and women.

The Dutch were supposed to have been relieved by troops from a NATO partner in 2008. No one volunteered. So their mission was extended for another two years. But now the Social Democrats in the Dutch coalition government have declared that enough is enough. The Dutch troops will have to come home. Since the Christian Democrats do not agree, the government has fallen.

This is highly inconvenient for U.S. President Barack Obama, who needs all the help he can get in Afghanistan, even from small allies, if only for political reasons.

To many Americans, especially of the neoconservative persuasion, Dutch behaviour might confirm all their suspicions about perfidious Europeans, addicted to material comforts, while remaining childishly dependent on U.S. military protection. When the going gets tough, they argue, the Europeans bow out.

It is true that two horrendous world wars have taken the glamour out of war for most Europeans (Britain is a slightly different story). The Germans, in particular, have no stomach for military aggression, hence their reluctance in Afghanistan to take on anything but simple police tasks. Mindful of Ypres, Warsaw, or Stalingrad, not to mention Auschwitz and Treblinka, many regard this as a good thing. Still, there are times when pacifism, even in Germany, is an inadequate response to a serious menace.

Excerpt: Read More at The Globe and Mail

Some troops say strict rules of engagement slow their advance on Taliban stronghold

If Afghanistan turning into another political war where the Rules of Engagement (ROE) are determined by politicians not the military? Or have our generals become too politically connected so politics comes first when making decision?

We are not sure which is happening but whatever the reason our troops are being put in harm's way with one hand tied behind their backs in a lot of instances. Where there is a war, there are going to be civilian casualities. Impossible to protect the civilian population 100% during an effort to weed out the terrorists who hied in the villages and use civilians as shields.

Is it making the job tougher and with more risk to our military? We believe it is and past time that our troops be given 100% of what they need and common sense return to the ROE in lieu of political correctness. No way to fight a war when you start out at a disadvantage with the enemy knowing you cannot do certain things. Whatever happened to keeping the enemy off guard on what you might do next?

Our troops deserve better then this!

Some troops say strict rules of engagement slow their advance on Taliban stronghold
MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

"I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

"This is difficult," Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. "We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don't have guns."

NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.

They acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.

But troops complain that strict rules of engagement — imposed to spare civilian casualties — are slowing their advance into the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the focal point of the operation involving 15,000 troops.

"The problem is isolating where the enemy is," said Capt. Joshua Winfrey, a Marine company commander from Stillwater, Oklahoma. "We are not going to drop ordnance out in the open."

That's a marked change from the battle of Fallujah, Iraq in November 2004. When Marines there encountered snipers holed up in a building, they routinely called in airstrikes. In Marjah, fighter jets are flying at low altitude in a show of force, but are not firing missiles.

Politically, it's not the best time to campaign for relaxing the rules in Afghanistan. On Sunday, two U.S. rockets struck a house and killed 12 Afghan civilians during the offensive in Marjah, NATO said. On Monday, a NATO airstrike accidentally killed five civilians and wounded two in neighboring Kandahar province.

Read more at Chicago Tribune

Gates Signals Afghanistan Withdrawal Date Could Move

President Obama never ceases to shock us. Obama is now disputing Secretary of Defense Gates on the timetable and basically saying it it etched in stone when we withdraw. Talk about telegraphing your plans -- Obama just gave a perfect example.

UPDATE: McChrystal: The 2011 timetable isn’t set in stone; Obama: Actually, it is Hot Air
December 2, 2009
Allahpundit

"The 18-month timeline … is not absolute. It’s not an 18 months: everybody leaves. The president has expressed on numerous occasions a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan, and that includes all manners of assistance,” McChrystal said…

Just as I’m writing this, CBS is reporting that The One responded tonight to Gates’s ambivalence at this morning’s Senate hearing by declaring that 2011 is “locked in” as the starting date for withdrawal. Er, does McChrystal know that?

Looks to us like Obama should have vetted his Afghanistan speech he gave at the Military Academy before giving it to the cadets. Senator McCain nailed this Administration with his question of which is more important -- timeline or withdrawal.

This is beginning to look more and more like Vietnam where the LBJ White House controlled what happened on the ground, and we all know how that ended. Huge mistake to elect anyone with no experience and then to get someone like Obama who surrounds himself with the same type people. Even Bill Clinton put a finger in the wind to see which way it was blowing before making a decision which is a step up from Obama.

Gates Signals Afghanistan Withdrawal Date Could Move
FoxNews
December 02, 2009

The Pentagon will "evaluate" next year whether the military can meet its goal of starting to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by July 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday under tough questioning, signaling that the withdrawal date could move back if violence spirals out of control.

President Obama said in announcing the timeline Tuesday night that the withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground. But Sen. John McCain pressed Gates on Capitol Hill, calling the scenario "logically incoherent" and saying the national security team needs to choose which is more important: sticking to the timeline or providing security.

Gates said U.S. forces should be able to move out of "uncontested areas" by the summer of 2011 but that the United States would not transfer security responsibility to the Afghans in any province until they can stand up on their own. He said the security team would review the situation at the end of 2010 to see whether the military "can meet that objective" with regard to the timeline.

"If it appears that the strategy's not working and that we are...

Excerpt: Read more at foxnews.com

Rumsfield Responds (Obama Speech LIES)

Once again we see Obama and this Administration having a hard time with the truth when it comes to the Bush Administration. One thing that Obama didn't have trouble with last night with that speech to West Point was leaving out "God Bless our Troops" from the speech that was released in advance to the media. Why leave that out?

Quotes about his speech continue to resonate around the Net:

Obama Hard and Soft, Right and Left [Fred Thompson]

I was wondering how he was going to pull off the famous Obama split tonight.
He did it chronologically, and in two ways.

First, in the speech itself:
In the first part of his speech he sounded like Winston Churchill.
In the second part of his speech, he sounded like Lady Churchill.

Secondly, with regard to his course of action:
Commit troops for the Right, and then
Announce their withdrawal prematurely, in time for the 2012 election — for the Left.

It was clear for the world to see that we are without the most important ingredient for a chance of success: a determined president whose heart is in the effort.

Corner at National Review

"As I commented on the live thread, I wonder what was going through the cadets' heads when they heard their commander-in-chief speak in a foreign accent when he named the places they will be fighting when they graduate. I'd rather my president speak with an American accent and not a Koranic accent." (Source: Kristinn)

"West Point has a tradition, codified in regulation. “A Cadet will not lie, steal, or tolerate anyone who does.”When a liar can not be sentenced in any other way, the Corps of Cadets commits “Silence”. They only speak or interact with someone when it is their duty.When I saw the way they reacted, it looked to me as if they “Silenced” him." (Source: donmeaker

The above statement sent a cold chill up my spine after having spent years around the military in various locations. Cannot fathom what was going through the cadet's minds during the speech which was all over the place. Why are Obama's speeches continuing to get worse?

Once again we ask the question, Who is Obama? Can anyone in the media answer that question? We don't know for sure where he was born, who was his father, anything about most of his educational years including college. At Columbia no one can remember him, and we are still waiting to discover if went to Columbia on a foreign scholarship.

We know about the Harvard Law Review which makes one wonder how he got that position when he cannot write or speak that well. Uses a teleprompter to make the simplist speeches. His first book was ghost written by Bill Ayers -- still waiting to find out who ghose wrote the 2nd book. "Dreams of my Father" contained stories that pertained to Ayers in some instances not Obama. Some bio!

Just who is Barack Hussein Obama who attended Rev Wright's anti-white/anti-American Church for 20 years? The American people deserve answers but crickets continue to chirp.

We believe that anyone running for President should be an open book including their passport records which we do not understand why they have ever been sealed. Anyone asking the American people to vote for them as the President and Leader of the Free World has a right to know every detail but in Obama's case we know so little about him and only then what the Obama people want us to know. How can one man know so many radicals including Communist? Question after question goes unanswered and many members of the media continue to cover for Obama including last night.

Maybe he realized that Chris Matthews was right, he was in enemy territory at West Point after all and decided to deny them His blessing.

There is one thing about former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that has always stood out and that is the fact he is not afraid to speak his mind. Everyone needs to read what he has to say and ask themselves why Obama and his Administration always blame someone else. Obama tooks months to deliver this bomb of a speech which brings into question who is advising him but another question that will go unanswered. Someone needs to tell Obama that swiveling his head all the time to read his teleprompters is very annoying and the sign of someone with no core feelings as he needs to read what to say not speak from the heart.

The good news is that he is sending 30,000 troops (we think) and the bad news is that he telegraphed withdrawal so the Taliban/al Qaeda hide out and do sneak attacks knowing in three years they can take over the whole country as Obama cuts and runs.

Obama is making Carter look good which we didn't think possible.

Rumsfeld Responds
December 2, 2009

The statement from Rumsfeld:

“In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.”

“I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, ‘repeated’ or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.”

“In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

This is true as far as I know and conforms with what Steve Hayes reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in October:

Perhaps more infuriating for Bush veterans was the suggestion by [Robert] Gibbs that the Bush administration ignored requests for more troops. It's nonsense, they say. McKiernan wanted more troops--he asked for three additional brigades in the summer of 2008--but he understood that he could have them only when they became available. "McKiernan was making requests down the line," says a Pentagon official, "and late in 2008 we did have the ability to commit more forces. So we did." Indeed, Bush sent nearly 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before he left office, including one brigade that had been repurposed from Iraq.

One Bush veteran asks, "If it's true that the Bush administration sat on these troop requests for eight months, is the White House suggesting that the Pentagon was incompetent or negligent or both? That would be a good question to put to the defense secretary--and President Obama is in a position to make him talk."
I couldn't reach Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but I did talk to a senior defense official who serves with him. This person stressed that Gates has gone to great lengths to avoid being dragged into political fights between administrations. Nonetheless, he offered a strong rebuke to the present White House political team.
"There was no request on anyone's desk for eight months," said the defense official. "There was not a request that went to the White House because we didn't have forces to commit. So on the facts, they're wrong."

Source: Weekly Standard

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, DITHERING IS STRENGTH

If the war in Afghanistan was not so serious, this would be laughable at the length this Administration and the media covering for Obama have gone to try and protect Obama. Shame on all of them -- Obama had narrowed it to four options and then said he wanted new ideas so they were sent to the trash heap of plans for Afghanistan as Obama continues to vote 'present' and 'dithers' as our troops in Afghanistan wait for reinforcements.

More important for Obama to go visit China then make a decision. Wonder how many of his family went this time on our tax dollars?

November 12, 2009

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, DITHERING IS STRENGTH.
Related item here.
UPDATE: Afghanistan: The Failure to Plan Is “The Plan.” “Veterans of dysfunctional corporations will recognize the Obama style as the one in which upper management is fond of giving middle management ‘All the responsibility, none of the authority, and zero resources.’ It’s a time-tested recipe for failure and demoralization while maintaining an aloof, ‘concerned,’ and above the fray posture on the part of the CEO.”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Dick Blocksma writes: “Kind of sounds like how GM was run, no?”
MORE: Tom Maguire bursts a bubble.

SOURCE: Pajamasmedia.com

Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options

Why are we not surprised? After all VP Biden knows more then all of the Generals on how we should fight the War in Afghanistan. (sarcasm) Looks like the President dither-in-chief still cannot make a decision. Maybe he is using the same strategy he used on the Islamic Jihadist Major Husan -- don't jump to conclusions. Someone needs to tell him that the President doesn't have the option of voting 'present'

Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options
Fox News
11/12/09

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy -- most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter 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, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.

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.

Excerpt: Read more at foxnews.com