Janet Napolitano says there’s nothing to see here, people.  Move along.  Don’t ask questions.  Just move along:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says there is no indication that the man who attempted to destroy an airliner in Detroit on Christmas Day is part of a larger terrorist plot.

Napolitano refused to say whether Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has a connection to al-Qaida, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

Of course he’s not part of any plot that’s on DHS’s radar; he’s not part of any of the groups that DHS is paying attention to.

Seriously – is Napolitano’s response just about the worst confidence-builder you could imagine?

Under tough questioning by CNN’s Candy Crowley, Napolitano insisted that the failure of the bomb to explode showed that “the system worked”.

Dear Secretary Napolitano:  Unless “the System” has involved getting them to train incompetent agents and give them dud loads of Semtex, this episode shows that the system is crap, and that Dutch filmmakers are doing your work for you.  

Great; I’ve probably gotten myself onto a n0-fly list by criticizing Secretary Napolitano.

Indeed, Secretary Napolitano, if the Obama Administration continues its current course – which is fundamentally reactive and defensive (even the few offensive actions, like the surge-let in Afghanistan, have expiration dates on them) – the enemy will be able to take back the initiative.  Being on defense means the enemy gets to pick the time, place and conditions for the attack.

Say what you will about Bush; his first instinct was to seize the initiative.  Wbatever he and his administration bobbled along the way, at least he had the terrorists reacting to us.

And to the extent that the failure of the Flight 253 attack was due to the alleged terrorist’s incompetence, that’s also at least in part due to the fact that our aggressive approach to terror over the past eight years meant it was hard for Al Quaeda to train people (whether they had more volunteers or not).

But hey, look at the bright side: it wasn’t a pro-life protester or returning veteran that did it!  Kudos, Secretary Napolitano, for protecting us from those dangerous groups!

…but I sincerely hope this piece of semi-human filth spends the next few weeks crapping out his own teeth:

A man suspected of planning to blow up a Delta Air Lines flight in Detroit could face charges as soon as Saturday according to an official familiar with the case.

The suspect is a Nigerian national who claims to have ties to al-Qaida.

It was unclear today why the man wanted to attack the flight arriving from Amsterdam.

Big lessons?  I see two:

One:  After all the “security theater” that the government subjects passengers to, the alleged terrorist still got some sort of suspicious device or powder onto the plane.  Think about that next time the TSA is making you take your shoes off.

Two:  It was regular Americans who dealt with the situation:

Syed Jafry of Holland, Ohio, who had flown from the United Arab Emirates, said after emerging from the airport that people ran out of their seats to tackle the man.

Jafry was sitting in the 16th row — three rows behind the passenger — when he heard “a pop and saw some smoke and fire.” Then, he said, “a young man behind me jumped on him.”

Jafry said there was a little bit of commotion for about 10 to 15 minutes. The incident occurred during the plane’s descent, he said.

He said the way passengers responded made him proud to be an American.

Me too, Mr. Jafry.

Now, to watch the “Investigation Theater” run its course.

Next stop in our tour around the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers – 270 Days in Afghanistan, a production by Captain Mark Martin, a Minnesotan whose subject matter should be pretty obvious from the title; it’s a story of a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

The blog started last June – and from the beginning, has been a fascinating look at the life of a typical soldier going off to a modern war; the bureaucracy, the lingo, the mission.

I thought packing my kids for a vacation was a job; Cpt. Martin describes the job of packing up his company for nine months back in the Stone Age:

For those of you who have never been in the United States Armed Forces, and the Army in particular, there are plenty of anachronisms, acronyms, lingo, and generally huge explanations for what can be the simplest of things. I once saw a sign that read, “Ft. Lee, Virginia! Home of USALMC-G4LOGPACCOM!” That was Army-ese for “United States Army Logistics Management College – General Staff 4 Logistics Packaging Command”. These guys are the dudes that come up with how supplies should be routed around the world. Pretty impressive….I’ll give them that. But does their acronym really have to be that convoluted. Seriously?

Anyhoo….fast forward to this particular installment of my fantastic voyage. The Pre-Combat Check/Pre Combat Inspection. You see….the Army doesn’t walk out the door, get into the vehicle, and drive off into the fray. No no no….the Army has Checklists and Inspections! Mostly this is to keep unimaginative people like me from packing irrelevant minutiae. Things such as the latest installment of Homes and Gardens magazine have no place in the Army rucksack! I mean c’mon! There are STANDARDS dude!

So the PCC/PCI has been around for as long as the United States Army has been in business. Way back in the colonial days, Samuel Smith might have shown up with his musket on time and in the right place, but the battlefield was minutes from his house, right? These days we pack truckloads of stuff halfway around the world. Small wonder that we need to check and re-check what we plan on bringing to the fight.

Today was a day for PCCs/PCIs. Loadplans, vehicle setup, rucksack configuration, packing lists, ammo loads, pyrotechnic storage. You get the idea. Anything and everything a soldier would need to close with and destroy the enemy on the friendly highways and byways of Afghanistan. Besides…I have always found that the best way to get soldiers who have never been in combat more comfortable with the idea is to inundate them with preparation. That way, when it come time to actually pull the trigger, it is yet another thing that they have practiced. Soldiering is a dangerous business.

It’s not hard to catch up on the entire history of the blog; Cpt. Martin’s had some other priorities than writing this past seven months, so a few posts go a long way.  But it’s well worth the read.

Stop by, say “hi”, and by all means tell the Captain the MOB thanks him for his service.

As, indeed, I am right now.

Minnesota’s Democrats in Washington are  M doing their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of opportunity:

Democratic Sen. Al Franken, who took office in part thanks to the same wave of support that swept Obama in, said last week that he wants to hear more about the rationale behind the plan before deciding whether to support a larger U.S. combat presence in Afghanistan.

In private meetings with top administration officials, he said, they have impressed on him that the surge may be the last chance to reverse the war’s momentum against the Taliban.

He is still unsure the Afghan government is “willing and able to step up to this,” later adding that he wants “to find out through the hearings how achievable all of this is.”

Perhaps he’s trying to bore the Taliban to death?  It could work.

In a reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat, said: “It’s not 2001. It’s 2009. We’ve been through a president asking Congress to support him in two wars. One of them never should have been fought, and the other one was fought about as poorly as it could have possibly been. So obviously you’ve got some highly skeptical people to deal with.”

We’ve also got some not very bright congresspeople to deal with.

Congressman Ellison – to paraphrase your own nonsense rhetoric, it’s 2009, not 2006.  We have a choice; let the Taliban set up another safe haven (and allow them to safely consolidate their safer haven in Pakistan), or deny it to them.

None of your baked wind matters.  Ever, indeed, but especially on this issue.

A-Klo:

“For me, the issue is, do we have good enough partners here?” Klobuchar said. “By asking the questions, you’re not just getting the answers, you’re actually pushing this government policy and the Afghan government to [be] better.”

Klobuchar, a Democrat, said she is “open to this military strategy” as long as there is a sufficient partnership with Afghan civilians.

Um, right.

And how do you propose to get “sufficient partnership” with people who know that if they support us, and we pack up and leave (as you and your party wish) with the job half-done, they will be getting their heads sawed off?

Afghan civilians have been through hell, this past thirty years.  For the entire time, they’ve had to either choose – Soviets/muj, then one militia/another militia, then more of the same, and now US and Centeral Government/Taliban – knowing that if they made the wrong call, they and their families would disappear, and be eventually, maybe found with their hands tied behind their backs, their heads blown or sawed off, if they picked the loser.

And what precisely is it that you are trying to make us, Senator Klobuchar?

Neither have I.

…and I’m married to one, and blog with one.

I’m feeling the love from Norwegians here at home but as my Lefse-loving colleague posted mere minutes ago, Obama is not feeling the love from Norwegians abroad.

Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

Okay, so you’re nonplussed. Let’s apply a modicum of analysis to the situation.

You gave the Peace Prize to a President via a nomination and selection process that began in late 2008 and was closed to candidate submissions in February 2009. The President at that time hadn’t even exhausted a roll of toilet paper in the Presidential Potty. At least that would have been an accomplishment.

As it were, at that point in time, and arguably at the current one as well, the President had not advanced the cause of peace, or frankly any cause for which he campaigned so vigorously.

Even the President himself said he didn’t deserve it. In this case I don’t think he was employing his signature brand of transparently false humility. I think he really meant it.

It would appear the Nobel committee has so depreciated the value of their vaunted prize that even the winners think it a joke.

The White House has canceled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

You might have considered the consequences of awarding your “prize” to an opportunistic fraud like Al Gore and America’s (heretofore) worst President, Jimmy Carter. Word has it  Kanye West is on the short list for 2010.

The visit will test Obama’s rhetorical skills as he seeks to reconcile acceptance of the Nobel peace prize with sending an extra 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan.

Of course, because troops have never brought peace to anyone anywhere, right? God only knows what form of “peace” Norway would have today without the Russian troop invasion of 1944, liberating Norway from the (then fleeing) Germans. Maybe Hitler would still be hiding out at the foot of the Galdhøpiggen.

White House officials said that Obama, who was planning to work on the final draft of his speech on his flight from Washington to Oslo, would directly address the issue of the irony of being awarded the peace prize while escalating the war.

Just his speed as he just finished one featuring the irony of spending our way out of the federal deficit. Wait’ll he tries to plug his teleprompter’s 120 volt American plug into those goofy European outlets.

Choke.

The Norsks will have the last laugh then.

Background:  I have been waiting roughly five years to say one thing.

Ahem.

At least our president won his war.

That is all.

Remember when the Obama administration was going to get the rest of the world to think the US was just dreamy?

No?

Either do the Brits:

In an interview with The Times, [British Defense minister] Bob Ainsworth said that the Government would not follow Washington’s promise to start pulling out in 2011. “You can’t put a time on it. You’ve got to look at conditions,” he said.

He accepted that the public would not tolerate the war “going on for ever”, but insisted there was no deadline for withdrawal. “Nobody is talking about a drawdown, we are talking about bringing more in there . . . but we are talking about transition.” He said that it would be wrong to set a date for the start of troop reductions.

His comments reflect dismay at the highest level in the British Armed Forces about Mr Obama’s suggestion this week that US troop withdrawals would start by mid-2011. Britain expects to have substantial forces on the ground in Afghanistan for at least five or six more years.

It’s depressing to see how adept Obama is at undercutting our allies’ governments – from his yanking the rugs out of under the Polish and Czech governments on missile defense, to leaving Georgia undefended by anything but a phalanx of furrowed brows, to now basically telling the Brits (and the many smaller allies, the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Lithuanians, Norwegians and others who’ve spent years fighting alongside the US) that all of this expense and sacrifice is intended to do no more than bring the whole exercise in for a “soft landing” in time for Obama’s next election bid.

In the book and miniseries Band of Brothers, “Easy ” Company (E Company/506th Airborne Infantry Regiment) is led through Normandy and Operation Market-Garden (the invasion of the Netherlands) by Dick Winters – the protagonist and real-life hero of the story.   After Market-Garden, Winters is promoted to battalion executive officer; he’s replaced by another excellent officer, who is shot and gravely wounded by a nervous sentry.  That officer, in turn, is replaced by a Lieutenant Dike.

In the book (and, as narrated in the movie by Dike’s first sergeant, Litman, in the miniseries), it’s revealed that “Lt. Dike’s biggest problem wasn’t that he made bad decisions.  It’s that he made no decisions at all”. 

During the Battle of the Bulge, at the defense of Bastogne, the competence of his platoon leaders and NCOs – the sergeants and corporals who do most of the moment-by-moment leadership – saved the company.

But after the Bulge, during the long series of counterattacks to drive the Germans back out of Belgium, Dike’s inadequacy as a combat leader led to a crisis.  In a counterattack to retake the town of Foy, Belgium, Dike’s led the company into an exposed positi0n, halfway between the shelter of the woods and the town full of Germans.  Raked by machine gun fire, pummeled by concealed artillery, and needled by snipers concealed in the town ahead who alone kill or wound six of the soldiers, the company was in a bad positi0n; to retreat would lead the company back across open ground and lead to needing to do the whole thing over again.  To advance would involve casualties and a very tough fight with some very skilled German defenders.  And to stay in place involved getting shot or blown up at the Germans’ leisure. 

Dike made one decision – an ineffective half-measure sending a platoon on a fruitless, pointless flanking maneuver that led to casualties and nothing much else – and then froze up.  Winters, watching from not far behind, ordered Lieutentant Speirs, the aggressive, Scottish-born platoon leader who would carry the company through the rest of the war, to take the company.  He made the tough but instant decision; attack.  Get into the town.  Root the Germans out and get the battle over.

It cost casualties – but fewer than the company lost as it floundered about in the field, waiting for a definitive decision.  It was a tough call, one that could have ended in disaster to be sure.  But it carried the day.

I have no idea whatsoever what prompted me to think of that.

The Associated Press h compares Iraq, before and after the war, with perhaps some surprising results:

U.S. TROOP LEVELS:

_October 2007: 170,000 at peak of troop buildup.

_Nov. 30, 2009: 115,000.

CASUALTIES:

_Confirmed U.S. military deaths as of Dec. 1, 2009: at least 4,366.

_Confirmed U.S. military wounded (hostile) as of Nov. 30, 2009: 31,572.

_Confirmed U.S. military wounded (non-hostile, using medical air transport) as of Oct. 31, 2009: 39,232.

I did expect that; it’s not unusual that many more troops are injured in accidents than in combat.

_U.S. military deaths for November 2009: 11, one of the lowest monthly death tolls since the war began.

_Deaths of civilian employees of U.S. government contractors as of Sept. 30, 2009: 1,442.

_Iraqi deaths in November 2009 from war-related violence: at least 93, the lowest full monthly figure since The Associated Press began tracking Iraqi deaths in May 2005

I’d snark that it’s more dangerous to be a civilian in Chicago than an American serviceman in Iraq – but that’s been true for almost two years.  What is shocking is that the death rate, per capita, isn’t a whole lot different than the per capita murder rate in Chicago .

_Assassinated Iraqi academics as of Nov. 23, 2009: 432.

_Journalists killed on assignment as of Dec. 1, 2009: 141.

What?  No count of lawyers and “reality TV superstars?”

COST:

_Over $705 billion, according to the National Priorities Project.

Cheaper than healthcare, and has the salutary effect of killing Al Quaeda terrorists.

OIL PRODUCTION:

_Prewar: 2.58 million barrels per day.

_Nov. 24, 2009: 2.34 million barrels per day.

Halliburton!  Halliburton!  Halliburton!

ELECTRICITY:

_Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 4-8.

_Nov. 4, 2009: Nationwide: 5,890 megawatts. Hours per day: N/A.

But…but…didn’t Michael Moore assure us that Iraq before the war was a paradise?

TELEPHONES:

_Prewar land lines: 833,000.

_Oct. 4, 2009: 1,250,000.

_Prewar cell phones: 80,000.

_Oct. 4, 2009: an estimated 19.5 million.

Which may be one reason we’re winning; the insurgents are too busy texting to aim.

WATER:

_Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water.

_Oct. 12, 2009: 21.2 million people have potable water.

SEWERAGE:

_Prewar: 6.2 million people served.

_Oct. 12, 2009: 11.5 million people served.

How long ago was it that the left assured us that things were worse, and would never get better?

The history of the Cold War teaches us that the left’s next steps will be denial, bargaining, anger and co-option.

It’s one of the paradoxes of military history; often the more aggressively one attacks one’s enemy initially, the less it costs in time and blood subdue your enemy.  Had we decided on an Obamaesque “small footprint” strategy, say, in Europe in 1942, World War II would still be dragging on (and yes, I know it’s an absurd comparison – a full-scale industrial war has as much in common with a counterinsurgency as football does with psychoanalysis).

Of course, counterinsurgency is a different cat to skin. 

Heritage discusses Obama’s long-delayed strategy:

1. If the President sends 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, does that count as a “surge?”

Simply put, no, because the use of that term implies an Iraq-like strategy of ramping up forces to the maximum of what the generals are requesting. It has been widely reported that General McChrystal’s assessment for additional troops to achieve maximum chance of success was between 60,000 and 80,000 troops.

Petraeus’ surge in Iraq had a clear goal; “flood the zone” as a show of decisive strength to erase doubt on the part of the “Iraqi street”, to push troops out into the field to safeguard Iraqi civilians from attack and separate the guerrilas from them while co-opting the tribal leaders to turn against the insurgents.  It was intended to win the war.

Obama’s strategy is…

…um…

…well, what is it, anyay?

We hope that the President’s far riskier strategy succeeds. If it does not, we must remember the options he had available to him before this decision. He had the chance to turn this war around; if he does not, the result will be his responsibility alone.

Not that the media would acknowledge it…

2. Is tonight’s announcement of a strategy the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process?

The delay in making a decision is inexcusable. Given that President Obama has been in office over 10 months; was privy to extensive briefings on the Afghan situation before that; the many months General McChrystal has been on the job; and the critical situation on the ground, the delay has put the mission and American soldiers in graver jeopardy. If McChrystal originally asked for 40,000 troops, as the White House would like you to believe, it is incomprehensible to believe that it took many months to simply lower that number by 5,000.

It’s comprehensible, all right – if you assume that the goal of the exercise was domestic and political rather than focused on winning the war.

I hope McChrystal pulls this off; way too many good men and women have died to make failure anything but abhorrent.

But Obama’s carrying out a half-measure.  Compromise works in budget negotiations – not war.

3. Even some Republicans are starting to question whether we should be in Afghanistan at all, if we’re not prepared to win by all means necessary. Is that the alternative choice?

No, this is a false choice. We must win. This is not an “optional” war in which a pull out will be cost free. A pull out will be exceedingly dangerous to the nation, possibly leading not only to another 9/11 but also to the destabilization and the possible fall of Pakistan. We should never forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Let’s not forget that, in counterinsurgency warfare, nothing succeeds like success; beyond that, nothing eggs your enemy on like failure (ask the Cambodians).

4. Isn’t any opposition to the President’s strategy simply partisan bickering, and more importantly, shouldn’t we rally around the Commander in Chief during this critical time?

We want President Obama and his strategy to succeed…There is absolutely no partisan element to the purely military calculation that success would be achieved with less risk if the President sent in the requested 60,000 to 80,000 new troops and fully committed to the strategy without engaging in a blueprint for defeat even if veiled as an “exit strategy.”

The notion of the “exit strategy” violates one of the key rules of fighting a war in a civilized society; if your “exit strategy” is anything but “win and go home”, then you run an unacceptable risk of sacrificing a lot of blood and treasure for no reason whatsoever.

5. How long does the President have before his strategy can be viewed as a success or failure?

It takes months to transfer the military personnel and resources to the theatre before any measurement of success can be taken. That’s what makes the President’s delayed decision-making all the more inexcusable. In the meantime, al-Qaeda and the Tailban will likely do everything in their power to match the U.S. buildup, drive up U.S. military casualties, attack civilian aid, kill innocents in Pakistan and attack the Pakistan government and military to create the impression that the war cannot be won. In particular, they will aim their actions to inflame the “anti-war” movement in the United States. We should remember this when any increase in violence in the months ahead prompts knee-jerk calls to withdraw.

There are times I wonder if Obama’s delay wasn’t intended to give the enemy time to build up for the battle.  Not the Taliban or Al Quaeda, mind you – the domestic anti-war movement.

6. President Obama has been criticized for focusing on an “exit strategy” win or lose, but isn’t an open ended commitment simply nation-building? Don’t we have to leave at some point, and won’t that be announced regardless?

Telegraphing our exit to al-Qaeda will only lead to further questioning US resolve. The strategy of building capacity for Afghans to govern themselves is not open-ended or “nation-building,” which implies some fruitless undertaking, but intended to help the Afghans to build the capacity to defend themselves (and to keep the Taliban and al-Qaeda from establishing safe havens) so that we can bring U.S. troops home. This is an achievable goal; after all, it was achieved in Iraq.

The difference between “Nation-building” and “defending American interests” got lost during the Clinton adminstration, where the administration sent the military around the world on many, many missions that, humanitarian value notwithstanding, had nothing to do with US interests.

7. General McChrystal is likely to say he can achieve some necessary goals with the President’s announcement; will President Obama’s strategy give him the resources to make this reality?

It remains to be seen whether the troop request will be sufficient. We hope it will be. In the meantime, the basic concept of McChrystal’s strategy is sound. The U.S. must reduce the space in Afghanistan for the Taliban to operate; and it must also build the capacity of the Afghan government to serve and secure the safety of the people.

I’m very, very unsure that Obama gets this.

8. Senior Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are saying that if we simply had captured Osama Bin Laden in 2001, this war could have been averted or successfully cut short – is this true?

Absolutely not, and the mere idea reflects a mindset that left us vulnerable to terrorism in the first place. Even if Osama Bin Laden had been captured or killed, there were thousands of al-Qaeda lieutenants willing to take his place.

The Democrats need to put down their VHS copies of Miami Vice. Bin Laden is not a “kingpin”.

9. Isn’t sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan a continuation of the “small footprint” strategy that many criticized President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld for employing?

Yes. The same people who now support limiting our troop commitment to Afghanistan, or focusing on drone strikes were criticizing the last administration for not being forceful enough at the outset of the war, even before the war with Iraq had begun. Simply put, the small footprint strategy has been proven not to work, and does not lessen the view of terrorists that we are “occupying” their land.

Remember when people complained that Bush and Rumsfeld tried to fight Iraq on the cheap, with not enough men?

No?

Either do the Democrats.

10. Is cost an issue? Haven’t we spent enough on these wars, when people are losing jobs, the domestic economy is suffering and our debt is so high?

Preventing another 9-11 should be, by anyone’s definition, a top strategic objective of the United States, and thus should also be a top budgetary priority. How does one put a price on the lives lost on that tragic day? Winning the war in Afghanistan is part of the strategy of preventing a similar disaster from occurring again…With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates the annual interest to exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. An additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in perspective, Afghanistan strategy sessions are not the meetings the OMB Director should be spending his time in.

For the benefit of the dim-witted left-wing hamsters who will try to deny it – I do hope this works.  But I have a bad feeling that McChrystal was right the first time around.

Chris Matthews:

West Point is “the enemy camp?

Wow.  Paranoid much, Mr. Tingly?

Michael Moore descends into madness in this open letter to the President re his Afganistan speech tonight:

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point [at 8PM this evening] and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.

In other words, “we elected you for the pork; forget about all that “defending the nation” BS, Mr. President.

Of course, Moore is being just as disingenuous and selective and context-challenged here as he’s been in every single one of his movies.  And who’s busted him on it?  That noted right-wing tool Crooks and Liars:

In an open letter to President Obama, Moore on Monday seems to have forgotten candidate Obama’s aggressive stance towards Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

But at almost every turn in the 2008 campaign (for example, starting at about the 17:30 mark in the video above), it was Barack Obama who pledged to “finish the fight in Afghanistan.”

In August 2007, as you’ll recall, Senator Obama received a hellstorm of criticism for his statements regarding attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. As part of a broad – and forceful – foreign policy speech on August 1, Obama rightly took the Bush administration to task for the failure of its “no safe havens” doctrine in Pakistan. Regarding the Al Qaeda sanctuary safely nestled along the Afghan border, Obama declared:

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

In other words, Obama has always – at least, in front of politically-mixed crowds – parroted the lefty conventional wisdom that while Iraq was wrong wrong wrong, Afghanistan, the “Real War”, was right right right.

But facts have always been stupid things to Michael Moore.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do.

Put another way, Moore would have Obama fire the guy who he hired to replace the first guy he fired. 

Which may be is the way the prima-donna Moore runs his production company, but it’s really not good leadership.

Of course, everything Moore doesn’t know about leadership is matched by his ignorance of history:

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea — “Let’s invade Afghanistan!” Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

It wasn’t “the Soviet generals’ idea”, and it wasn’t anywhere close to a dispositive nail in the USSR’s coffin; they absorbed 25 million dead in World War Two, and murdered at least 40 million of their own on top of that, and that led them to the peak, not nadir, of their power.  It wasn’t Afghanistan that led to the USSR’s fall; it was contemporaneous political changes the regime had to adopt to try, and eventually fail, to survive in the face of Reagan’s aggressive containment.

Afghanistan’s nickname is the “Graveyard of Empires.” If you don’t believe it, give the British a call. I’d have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number.

[MOORE’S LEGIONS OF FORMER EMPLOYEES:  “Then you must have his Yahoo IM Chat handle, you tyrannical jagoff”]

But the Soviet reference is fully appropriate – because although this fisking has gone on a bit already, it’s really just a tangent.  The real meat – or, given the subject matter, suet – of this post follows. 

Moore:

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you’re doing it so you can “end the war”) will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you’ve said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone — and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout “tea bag!”

“The haters”.

My high school history teacher, a Vietnam-era veteran, noted that one of the most important things he learned in basic and infantry training was that the enemy was not, in fact, human.  He was a “Gook”, a “Slope”, or whatever it took to believe that you weren’t really shooting, bayonetting, grenading or shelling a human, but a not-quite-human caricature embodying everything you were trying to fight.

In the thirties, when Stalin wanted to soften society up for a purge, his PR minions – sort of the 1930’s versions of “Media Matters” and the “Center for “Independent” Media” – would popularize a simple, 1-2 syllable, endlessly-repeatable terms to refer to those to be purged.  Not specifically, as a very general rule, although Stalin did purge plenty of specific people and groups. 

But during the purges of the ’30s, when Stalin’s paranoid imagination told him that his economic plans were being sabotaged, he sent his minions far and wide denouncing “wreckers” – people who were ostensibly sabotaging the Soviet economy in ways big and small.  The idea, of course, wasn’t to actually find people who were throwing monkey-wrenches into turbine assemblies or pouring sugar into diesel tanks.  The idea was to have an instant, memorable, chantable term to use as a cover for every abuse they were ready to inflict.  And so Stalin and his minions denounced as “wreckers” everyone who got in his way; it wasn’t that he needed help dehumanizing his opponents – but it certainly made it easier for the rest of society to go along with it.

Moore is onto the same thing, here (emphasis added):

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn’t be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can’t change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can’t be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

Leaving aside that the independents – who were the ones that elected him – will be re-hristened as “haters” for commiting the apostasy of forsaking “The One”, do you see what Moore is doing here?

One facile, hate-enabling, defamatory catch phrase after another.  Those of us who dissent from Obama aren’t people who disagree; we “hate” him. 

So overwrought with hatred for “haters” is Jabba The Mike that he forgets exactly who he, himself, is:

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights,

Really, Jabba?  You endured this?  Your “rights” were “suspended?”

As bad as things were for the GOP from 2004 through Obama’s election, I could always give thanks for one thing; Michael Moore was not on my side.

Today is the eightieth birthday of “Billy” Waugh.

“Who?”

Billy Waugh, born today in 1929 in Texas, tried to run away to enlist in the Marines in World War 2 at age 15.  He failed – but came back when he was of age (after going back to school and earning straight A’s to avoid confusion) in 1947.  He served as a paratrooper in Korea, and then became a Green Beret…

…which, in the sixties, took him to Vietnam, where he became a Special Forces legend.  He retired from the Army after a 25 year career as a Sergeant Major in 1972…

…to make time to go to work for the CIA’s “Special Activities Division”, the Agency’s “black ops” wing.  He spied on Libya, worked with anti-communist forces all over the world, worked on the plot to off Carlos The Jackal and other terrorists and narcotraficantes…

…and, in 2001, at age 71, was in the first team of CIA paramilitaries parachuted into Afghanistan.  Ahead of the Green Berets that quickly topped the Taliban.

Did we mention how old he was when he went – via parachute – to Afghanistan?

At the age of 71, Waugh participated in Operation Enduring Freedom as a member of the CIA team led by Gary Schroen that went into Afghanistan to work with the Northern Alliance [the guerrilla group, not the radio show – Ed.] to topple the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda at the Battle of Tora Bora. Waugh was in-country from October to December 2001. Waugh spent many years being both a “Blue Badger” (employee) and a “Green Badger” (contractor). He continues to work as a “Green Badger”. It is unknown how many missions Waugh was involved in during his career.

Somewhere, John Wayne is smiling.

Happy Birthday, Billy Waugh.

“Liberalism:  Where everything that isn’t mandatory is banned”
   — Unknown

One of liberalism’s most noxious traits is its tendency – indeed, its almost inevitable need – to support and enforce “liberal” (big and small “L”) policies with authoritarian means. 

This tendency is expressed through means both moderately civil and benign (the European mania for larding every step of the production and distribution process with Value Added Taxes, or VATs, which make enterpreneurship so very horribly difficult and so terribly inpinge the profit motive where they’re applied) to big and ugly (Nancy Pelosi’s plan to build concentration camps for people who don’t buy healthcare, Obama’s fistful of czars and his executive pay boards and the enforcement arm behind the “Stimulus”).

There is history for this, of course; it was during America’s most unfettteredly-“liberal” era, from the thirties through the early seventies, that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, and the CIA, carried out abuses against American civilians that would have made Bush-era liberals lose bladder control, if their masters told them to think about it they thought about it all that hard.  Under Roosevelt, Truman, the relatively liberal Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnsion, domestic surveillance was common; the FBI and CIA kept dossiers on American citizens. 

“War on communism?”  Sure. 

But even after the so-called “McCarthy” era – and remember, while the left to this day jumps up and down and invokes “Joe McCarthy” with the same thoughtful consideration of monkeys flinging poo (as if a Senator from Wisconsin controlled all the levers of the federal government), there was plenty of bipartisan, transpartisan and non-partisan support for the so-called “witchhunts” in the post-New-Deal executive branches of the day.

And after the “Red Scare?”  When Jimmy Carter’s version of “hope and change” was stymied by the “lynch and terrorize” counterpolicy of Ayatollah Khomeini, he not only launched a rescue mission that’d make Jack Bauer blanche at the unreality of it all; he also founded the “Joint Special Operations Command” (JSOC), the organization that controls the Army’s “Delta” and the Navy’s SEAL “DevGru”, which reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and the President as opposed to the regular military command, which undertakes all the serious “black bag” dirty work with only the highest level of oversight.  The left and media, naturally, only paid attention to it during the Bush Administration – and seems not to have any actual evidence of actual abuses during that time – but it was a creature of the Carter years.

And it should go without saying that after eight years of lefty whinging about nonexistent or overblown excesses in the Bush administration, it’s the Obama Administration and its allies that are actually seriously discussing censoring  and gutting freedom of speech.  Because Hope and Change must be unanimous!

At any rate, the main point is this:  behind the “carrot” of hopey-changey big-L Liberalism – the programs, the entitlements, the goodies under the government tree every morning – there is a big, ugly, authoritarian stick.  They go together like horse and carriage.

So after putting up with eight years of lefty whinging about the Bush Administration’s alleged, largely nonexistent abuses of the Constitution, and a year of watching the Obama administration undergird its “hope and change” with enemies lists, with official paranoia aimed at American citizens, I’ll make this prediction: 

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is sprung from his public show trial by fair means (unlikely) or foul (also unlikely, but then so is every jailbreak that has ever happened), it’ll be the Obama Administration that authorizes covert hit teams to prowl the globe killing people beyond the pale of any law, oversight or accountability.

On whether he finds it offensive that a terrorist is afforded all the legal rights of an American citizen…

Obama: I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

The Government has a good case! He will be convicted and executed.

Fer sher.

Trust me.

OJ Simpson was not available for comment.

I commented on this yesterday; the administraiton is listening to the bipartisan revulsion at the decision to hold show-trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company in Manhattan, and saying “na na na scaredypants”.

It’s catching on: Senator Patrick Leahy, the real leader of the DNC Markos Moulitsas and Attorney General Holder are all playing along.

Of course, it has nothing to do with fear – or at least not fear of the trial.  But there’s some utterly justifiable trepidation about the precedent this will set.

Sister Toldjah:

Hmmm. Let’s see. You’ve got one side desiring to protect sensitive intelligence information from the eyes of Islamofascist thugs who want to kill Americans abroad – including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – and both military officers and civilians here at home, a side hungry for justice to be carried out against admitted terrorist brutes like KSM, and you’ve got some on another side that is operating under the shameless pretense of “wanting justice” for 9-11 victims but who in realilty apparently have no problem with the possibility that sensitive national security information will be revealed in the process – and in fact wishes for such information to be revealed in order to put the evil Bush admin on trial, a side where not many are particularly interested in justice for the 9-11 victims but are apparently more interested in being pro-”justice” against their political opposition – a position that presents a clear danger to both Americans and their interests both at home and stateside. This isn’t about “justice” for the left – it’s about “revenge.” Interesting, when you think about it, because they’ve been telling us for years that the courtroom is not supposed to be about “revenge” but about “fairness and justice under the law.”

Um, just who are the “cowards” again?

Careful, there.  You’ll be called “Hateful”.

The Administration has decided to put a selection of “accused” terrorists on trial in civilian criminal court.  In Manhattan.  (We have to call them “accused” or “alleged”, now, they’re in ).  Which means that all that talk about the Geneva Convention we were treated to over the past eight years was, as I pretty much suspected, buncombe.

As the descendants of Lance Ito, Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochrane race for New York to get jobs on the defense team in their attempt to make a mockery of both American justice and the last eight years’ efforts against terror, purely for political points (the only reason for this is to dig out dirt on the Bush Administration), the Administration is trying to defend the decision convince the American people that that quacking green thing with webbed feet and a bill isn’t a duck.

And on what grounds does Holder defend the decision?  Some obscure legal precedent?  Some unacknowledged quick in counterterror doctrine?

Er, no (emphasis added):

Attorney General Eric Holder is defending his decision to put the professed Sept. 11 mastermind on trial in New York — and urging critics of the plan not to cower in the face of terrorists.

Ah.  We’re not irritated at the crass political opportunism, the huge bone being thrown to the Kossacks on the taxpayer time, or the very real risk that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 planners will be turned loose by a hung New York jury (didn’t Holder ever read Bonfire of the Vanities?).

Nope. It’s that we’re”afraid”.

I was going to wait at least until next year to decide – but the title of “worst president of my lifetime” is looking like a lock, here.

Last week, in my post “Our McClellan” – in which I compared Obama’s dithering in Afghanistan to that of George P. McClellan,  some of the feedback said “look, the President is thinking things over and not being rash, unlike the previous resident”.

That might be true – although Obama doesn’t have the eighteen months Bush had to spend on his deliberations before invading Iraq – but only if he comes out of it with the right decision, as opposed to more concerned inaction.

But when even the LAtimes gets it, you know the Administration is in trouble:

Obama was right to insist on a full review of whether U.S. interests are better served by expanding the American military footprint in Afghanistan or shrinking it.

But now, two months into his second “comprehensive policy review,” after eight Cabinet-level meetings and several slipped target dates, the president still hasn’t made up his mind.

At some point, “deliberation”, especially in the face of an ugly-and-deteriorating situation like Afghanistan, becomes “paralysis”.

In George W. Bush, we had a president who shot first and asked questions later. In Barack Obama, we have a president who asks the right questions but hesitates to pull the trigger.

And there the LATimes is conjecturing based on facts not in evidence.  We have no idea what questions he’s asking.  But we have no idea if he’s “hesitating to pull the trigger”, or if he can’t figure out how to get the pointy things into the gun.

Is he even qualified to make the decision?  Does he have beginner’s flop-sweats?

Three weeks ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney accused Obama of “dithering.” At the time, the charge sounded premature and partisan — but now some of Obama’s own supporters have begun to wonder whether Cheney was right.

Heh.

Last week, the president’s indecision became even more apparent after White House aides let it be known that he was asking the military for more “exit strategies” — what one official called “off-ramps” — in case things go badly.

Read one way, it sounds like he’s more interested in covering his butt than anything.

And that all of us who said he wasn’t ready for prime time were right.

In the early years of the US Civil War, after some initial disasters, Lincoln appointed George McClellan as the commander of the Army of the Potomac (which was to the main front of the Civil War as CENTCOM is to the main front of the War On Man-Made Disaster War On Terror today.

McClellan was a popular general with a long track record of military excellence, first as an engineer, then as a logistician – both of them vital jobs.  He also did something very few other Union Generals managed to do in the early years of the Civil War – won some victories.  His invasion of the Union-leaning parts of Virginia (which created what we call West Virginia today) was one of the very few successes the Union could point to in the early years of the war.

And so Lincoln appointed him commander first of the Army of the Potomac,and then of the entire Union Army.

He then spent his entire time in command “polishing the cannonball” – seeing to training and logistics (which were, to be fair, vitally important to the Union’s eventual success, in a long-term kind of way).  But his actual job – engaging and defeating Robert E. Lee – was another matter altogether. Terrified of the consquences of defeat, he spent months dithering, seemingly avoiding battle, overestimating Lee’s force to the point where it paralyzed him.

It came to a head at the Battle of Antietam, where Union forces stemmed Lee’s first attempt at invading the North.  Indeed, they perched at the verge of defeating him…

…but McClellan dithered again.  The situation called for aggressiveness, for taking the battle to Lee.  McClellan instead hesitated, afraid that Lee’s force was vastly larger than it really was.  And so Lee escaped – turning what could have been a crushing defeat into bloody tactical draw.

Antietam has kept armchair generals busy for over a century, now.   But the lesson was fairly clear; there is a time to think, and a time to act.  Exactly what that time is isn’t always clear to theman on the ground, but it exists.

President Obama’s decision not to decide yet on what to do in Afghanistan is such a situation, and some people know it:

The president’s long decision-making process has led to accusations of “dithering” by his Republican opponents. The White House says the decision is too important to hurry, but the wait is causing growing exasperation in London and other European capitals.

One British source said that the absence of a clear strategy from the US, the largest troop contributor in Afghanistan, is hampering the British Government’s attempts to maintain public support for an increasingly unpopular conflict.

“The truth is that until we have some clarity from Obama, it’s going to be hard for us to explain to people what we’re doing there,” the source said.

Britain is urging Hamid Karzai to send more Afghan forces to Helmand province to support British troops there.

Mr Karzai was returned for second term this week after an election widely agreed to have been flawed and corrupt.

“We need the Americans to have a clear message for Karzai about what he has to do, but that’s just not there at the moment,” said the British source.

The private frustrations of British ministers and commanders were echoed by General Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, who said the American deliberations had brought the Afghan mission to a pivotal moment.

“It’s a tipping point because of President Obama’s delayed decision on whether to send more troops,” Lord Guthrie said.

McClellan was terrified of defeat; Obama is terrified of the political ramifications of defeat (on his watch) or pursuing victory (among his base).

I’m no general.  I’ve never even served in the military.  But you don’t have to be George Patton to read George Patton; when your troops are in harm’s way, you either get them out of harm’s way, or you commit to win the war. You either do what it takes to make the sacrifice in blood and treasure worthwhile, or you get out of it.

Bush did the former in Iraq – while the Administration botched the Iraq War from 2004 through 2006, he risked the political capital it took to win the war afterwards (allowing that defining “victory” in a counterinsurgency is a bit of a moving target – something that the American left has always had trouble with).

Obama’s definition of “win” seems to be a different thing altogether.

The left is going to try to spin this…:

It’s easy for me to imagine the right calling Obama a coward over this, or an America-hater, or any one of the sundry attacks reserved for our President. But to me, this is Obama doing exactly what we hired him for — weighing all of the options with a critical eye, and demanding that his advisors give him some outside-the-box solutions.

…as a sign of “intelligence”, as if second-guessing McChrystal for purely political reasons is a sign of military genius, or – as Jeff Rosenberg did above – paint Obama as a victim.

But the real decision is fairly binary; win, or leave.

…that Keith Olberman wasn’t one of the people killed in the Fort Hood massacre.

Life would be so much better if the MSNBC gasbag had pled, unsuccessfully, for his life last week.

But can you imagine how funny it’d be to see his eyeballs fly off in different directions?  Bwahaha!

What? Not funny?

But the left’s co-arbiters of entertainment just said that wishing for the death of people you disagree with is a laff riot, didn’t they?  I believe they did.

I get so confused.

Gorbachev gives Obama advice on Afghanistan

“I think that what’s needed is not additional forces,” the former Soviet leader said through a translator, “this is something that we discussed, too, years ago but we decided not to do it. And I think our experience deserves attention.”

Maybe that’s why a month has lapsed while Barack Obama dithers over Afghanistan…he’s getting advice from anyone and everyone.

While you’re at it, Sir, why don’t you seek counsel from Jimmy Carter on hostage negotiation.

…Alec Baldwin on parenting.

…Britney Spears on driving a car.

…Oprah Winfrey on losing weight.

…Sean Penn on poise under pressure.

This is fun. You try it!

It’s hard for me to know what to say about atrocities like Fort Hood, other than the obvious; I pray for the people of Killeen, the troops in the First Cav and the Third Armored Cav and the 41st Artillery and the other units stationed there.  Getting shot at in a combat zone is something they train for and expect; getting shot at on home turf, allegedly by one of their purported own, is not.

Like I said, it’s hard for me – but it’s not for Victor Davis Hanson.

I think on the one hand we will see the familiar therapeutic exegesis, in which we hear of traumatic stress syndrome, justified and principled opposition to the Iraq and Afghan wars, generic mental illness, anger at being deployed overseas, or maltreatment from fellow soldiers due to his Muslim faith and various other efforts to “contextualize” the violence. (I am watching Major Hasan’s cousin on the news right now [I think], on spec, explain that the otherwise normal killer was a victim of bias and was ill at ease with firearms (after shooting over 40 victims and surviving the carnage). I cannot imagine the trauma of family members of the dead hearing such sentiments aired, or knowing that the killer apparently had voiced prior extremist sympathies.

There are times I think America’s fixation on the therapeutic culture is itself a disorder.

On the other hand, one could instead see Hasan in a long line of killers and would-be murderers of the last decade that in some loose way express an Islamic anger at either American culture or the United States government or both, as a way of elevating their own sense of failure into some sort of legitimate cosmic jihad.

“But wait – don’t be ripping Islam!  It’s an isolated incident!”

I’m not – and it irritates me to have to clarify this, since if I don’t someone will accuse me of anti-Moslem bias – bagging on Islam.  Many Moslems, including many of my neigbhors, are loyal Americans.  Many serve this country, and not a few have died in action.  

But it is, unfortunately, not all that isolated:

Prior to 2009, there have been at least 20 terrorist plots broken up after September 11, 2001—aimed at subways, malls, military bases, airports, bridges, and synagogues. Those foiled cabals are in addition to more common scattered murdering by freelancing angry killers, who in some very general way either evoked radical Islam, their own faith, the Palestinian cause, al-Qaedistic Islamism, or solidarity with worldwide Islam (from the Beltway sniper to the UNC and the San Francisco car murderers), and a number of lethal attacks on Jewish centers and temples resulting in numerous deaths (from the LAX attacks to the San Francisco and Seattle shootings)…In this year alone, aside from the recent mass murdering at Ft. Hood, there have been four more terrorist plots uncovered. Colorado resident Najibullah Zazi was recently indicted for conspiring to use explosives in the U.S., apparently as part of a plot to let off a bomb in New York on the anniversary of 9/11. In addition, North Carolina residents Daniel Patrick Boyd and Hysen Sherifi were arrested and charged with conspiring to murder U.S. military personnel at Quantico, Virginia. In Texas, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi—a 19-year-old Jordanian citizen who was in the U.S. illegally—was arrested and charged after he placed a would-be bomb near Fountain Place, a 60-story office tower in downtown Dallas.

Most recently in Boston, a Massachusetts man was arrested in connection with terrorist plots that included attacks on U.S. shopping malls and on two White House officials. Tarek Mehanna, 27, of Sudbury, Mass, was charged with plotting with other terrorists from 2001 to May 2008 to carry out overseas and domestic terrorist attacks— including killing shoppers and first responders at malls.

Read the entire piece.  And send whatever your worldview calls for – prayers, hopes, karmic imprecations or whatever – to the folks at Fort Hood.  And, while you’re at it, for the Moslems in this country who did come here for a better life, and found it, and are as loyal to this country and what it stands for as any of us, and who are going to put up with all manner of (I say this with clinical precision) raving bullsh*t today.

And of course, for the people out finding the real terrorists, of whatever worldview, at home and abroad.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama greeted Hamid Karzai’s election victory with as much admonishment as praise on Monday, pointedly advising America’s partner in war he must make more serious efforts to end corruption in Afghanistan’s government and prepare his nation to ultimately defend itself.

Shot In The Dark exclusively obtained the transcript from US President Barack Obama’s telephone call to Afghan President Hamid Karzai today:

[sound of technician pushing start button on teleprompter]

Obama: I want to emphasize that this has to be a point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter.

Karzai: Let me offer you assurances that a new chapter that we will begin at this point in time will be one like which you have emphasized.

Obama: The proof is not going to be in words. It’s going to be in deeds.

[sound of Karzai’s hand covering mouthpiece of reciever and muffled sounds of snickering and then laughing audibly; mockingly]

Obama: Karzai! What are you doing?!!

Karzai: [chuckles] I’m sorry…uh…Mr. Obama, did you…Barack Obama…say….[chuckles] words [chuckles]…not deeds?!

Obama: Yes, make no mistake. The proof –

Karzai: [chuckles] I’m sorry. Are you serious? “Click”

[sound of dial tone]

Obama: [pretends to still be in conversation for the benefit of adjacent staff members]

[sound of technician pushing stop button on teleprompter, snickering]

Bill Clinton: See? I toldja Barry. Let me call ‘m next time.

Hillary Clinton: Guys! I’m still on the speakerphone…I heard that!

[sound of former President Clinton hanging up on former first lady and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]

[sound of Vice President Joseph Biden awakening from catnap on Oval Office couch]

–end of transcript–

War is no time for half measures.

Military thinkers from Sun Tzu to George Patton to David Petraeus all echoed one of the key thoughts on the art of war; if you’re going to fight it, fight it to win, win big, and win now (or as soon as possible).  To do anything other than force your enemy to the negotiating table or into a shallow hole is to trifle with the lives of your soldiers.  If you are going to fight, then for God’s sake fight; close with the enemy and beat them.

Of course, counterinsurgency war is a different cat to skin entirely.  Rolling barrages of artillery fire that would work against a field full of enemy tanks or fortifications are counterproductive against an enemy that mingles among the civilians; the enemies that survive can crawl from the rubble and tell the civilians that survive “See?  You want to side with those guys, the ones that shelled your village back to the stone age?”  (Someone tell this guy).   The fight is more subtle; the template in the 2006 Surge in Iraq iterated the same pattern the US used in the Philippines in 1906-1911 and in Nicaragua in the ’30s and in Vietnam in the late ’50s (before Kennedy fouled it up by trying to make a conventional war of it), and El Salvador in the ’80s and ’90s, and the Philippines again in the 2000s, the same as the British used in Malaysia in the ’50s and ’60s, and in India from the 1500’s to the 1900s – co-opting the people against the enemy, protecting them from the enemy until they realized which way the wind is blowing, and making sure the rewards for joining the good guys, mainly security and the chance to live a normal, even prosperous life, are real and tangible.  It’s “low intensity” warfare, but it takes troops.  Especially infantry, and especially the infantry’s specialized cousins in Special Forces and Civil Affairs.

And as we saw in Iraq over the past three years, invoking this effort against a motivated insurgency that currently has the momentum against you takes manpower – not just to close with and kill the enemy, and to guard the locals against being closed with and killed by the enemy you miss, and to cut the insurgents off from the locals, but to do it decisively enough that you don’t overstay your welcome with the locals (as we did in Vietnam).  (I think I described the process on a dumb civilian level pretty capably, here and here).

Anyway.  A good chunk of Minnesota’s US House delegation spoke out on  Afghanistan this past week.  And to some extent, their reactions are predictable.  Former (and forever) Marine John Kline bleeds green, naturally:

Kline’s son is an Army helicopter pilot who is scheduled to go back to Afghanistan next year. Kline said the additional troops will not only stabilize Afghanistan but also target any potential unrest in neighboring Pakistan.

And Keith Ellison?  He’s from the “Please Forgive the US’ Sins” caucus”

DFL Congressman Keith Ellison disagrees and said sending more troops is a mistake.

“What is going to bring us a good resolution is helping build and strengthen institutions, training Afghans to provide security for these institutions and then getting out of their country.”

“This is not what is going to bring us a good resolution,” Ellison said. “What is going to bring us a good resolution is helping build and strengthen institutions, training Afghans to provide security for these institutions and then getting out of their country.

Which is a fine platitude – but until the country can be made safe for regular Afghans to openly side with the government, it’s all baked wind.

“History is trying to tell us that whether you’re the Brits or the Soviets or anybody else, this place is known as the graveyard of empires for a reason,” he said.

Right – but not the reason Rep. Ellison thinks.

But it’s “my” “representative”, Betty McCollum, that caught my attention.

DFL Congresswoman Betty McCollum said she doesn’t support sending 40,000 troops to the region but could support a smaller troop increase if certain conditions are met. For example, McCollum said she wants to see a stronger police force and a stabilized central government in Afghanistan.

While I try to avoid some of the more facile stereotypes the right throws out about public school teachers, I’m afraid this statement so utterly beggars reason that it makes teachers look dumb by association.

McCollum’s “philosophy” in a nutshell; give McChrystal a fraction of the troops he says he needs to do the job (in other words, ensure that he can’t do the job effectively), in exchange for two goals that are largely nebulous – but both of which require pacifying the countryside, which was the goal of General McChrystal’s original troop request in the first place!

If only we could give Rep. McCollum’s next re-election bid as effective a recipe for failure.

And for those of you who think McCollum’s position might give her some extra jolt of wisdom on this issue?  Please  – don’t.  Just don’t. This was what she had to say three years ago:

Article: Afghanistan, Iraq are like night and day, McCollum says; Rebuilding Afghanistan and pushing back the Taliban is “doable,” she said, unlike the no-win situation in Iraq.

Don’t blame me.  I voted for a competent candidate who knew some history.

Victor Davis Hanson takes down so much of what’s wrong. with the Obama Administration in this post.  You need to read the whole thing.

But it’s this part that stuck me; this was the bit that had me nervous even before the election.  Democrats – I was about to write “liberals”, because there used to be a distinction when it came to foreign policy, but I’m not so sure anymore – have a certain “style” about fighting wars.

And Obama might as well be Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy or Algore:

Here is our anti-terrorism policy.

1) Euphemism: hope that words can change reality—“overseas contingency operations” aimed at “man-caused disasters” (this will mean there is no more terrorism as our enemies are no longer demonized)

Remember when critics – mostly liberal, many of them correct – used to barber on about how crazy some military terminology sounded to civilian ears?  Now “Neutralized” sounded so much nicer than “Kill”?  How “Prep Fire” was so much more clinical than “hose the entire area down”?

“Man-Caused Disaster”?

As a language geek, I suppose I can say it’s accurate enough.

But if you’re a 20 year old kid being asked to go over seas at some considerable risk to fight for this country, how do you think the idea of losing an eye or a leg or a life in a “man-caused disaster” sounds?

Like your leaders are clueless?

2)   Apologies to Islam: boast that Muslims fueled the Renaissance, invented printing, pretty much gave the world our present civilization, while we offended them after 9/11 (this will mean no more plotting inside the US to kill us all, as they sense our newfound empathy)

Societies go through peaks and valleys.  Germany gave the world Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller, Nietzche, Wagner and the Hamburger (and, to be fair, Marx, Freud and Nietzche); then, there was the little matter of the Nuremberg Laws, World War II, the Warsaw Ghetto and Treblinka. German society had to see to a few touch-ups.

Islam has a great history, indeed.  In some places – most of India, Indonesia and the Balkans – it has a history of getting along just fine with its neighbors in pluralistic societies, just like Germans live next to Poles and French and Danes in Europe and, for that matter, in the US.

And as with that unfortunate stretch in the thirties and forties with the Germans, it only takes a few million bad apples to screw it up for the rest; as with the Germans, there’s the little matter of that sect that wants to kill the Jews, have a big piece of the world to rule for itself, and destroy its enemies.

3)   “Bush Did it”: a) blame Bush the Impaler for our unpopularity and shredding the Constitution to pacify the Middle East and Europe; while stealthily keeping in play most of his protocols like Predators (more attacks in last 9 months than Bush did in 3 years); tribunals, renditions, intercepts, wiretaps, and Guantanamo, etc.); (this will mean that we copy Bush, but blame him for our failures and claim success as our own).

Mr Hanson, I believe you’ve got it.

4)   Reach-out: Become socialist at home, and UNish abroad, to convince an Ahmadinejad, Assad, Chavez, Putin, and others that we are a declining, 1950s British-like socialist state, a threat to no one, exceptional in the manner that Greece is, and becoming, as Pravda boasts daily, more like them than they like us (this will mean, why hate us when we are one of you?)

And you’ll note how well that worked in keeping peace between Nazi Germany and the USSR, who were functionally pretty identical…

5)  Declare victory and leave: there is a reason why Afghanistan and now Iraq have flared up since Obama took office, and it may well have to do with the fact that radical Islam, defeated in Iraq, stalemated in Afghanistan, suddenly bets that with a little push here and there, Obama will declare victory and leave, with something like “We can’t win Bush’s wars.” If I were a terrorist, I might think, “One or two more big death days, and this American government will Mogadishu its way home”).

They’re already making those noises.

In a year or two, al Qaeda will begin to suspect we are the weaker horse. They hated us when we were strong, but they will hate us even more when we appear weak.

Not just Al Quaeda, mind you.