Friday, April 03, 2009

Earlier this week I wrote a blog suggesting that we withdraw now from Afghanistan. I have located a man, whom I usually do not agree with much of what he suggests that we do, but the latest blog he wrote is making more sense to me each day.
In Ex-Mayor Ed Koch's blog he notes as we all know, that OUR country is slipping into a deeper recession even though the stock market is having a Bear market rally this week.
Some of the drain, really lot of the drain on our economy is caused by the military expenditures to defend Iraq's who do not want us in their country, and to defeat a Taliban that was victorious over 6 divisions of Russian troops in the not too distant past.

What benefit is there to keep a military force in Iraq when we have already accomplished our stated goals of toppling the tyrant Saddam and restoring the Iraq military to a point where they can defend themselves.


There was a time when the Iraqis had one of the most feared armies in the Middle East. Having fought an eight-year war with Iran, the Iraqi army was battle-hardened. After disbanding the Iraqi army in 2003, we decided to put it back together. Now, six years later, it has hundreds of thousands of soldiers, trained by US personnel with US weapons, and it apparently still can't prevent the several thousands of al-Qaeda and Sunni terrorists from engaging in terrorist bombings.

What will make the Iraqis more capable of peacefully running their own country within the next 18 months? I believe the tribal killings there among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds based on historic animosities will continue after we leave - unless a repressive dictator akin to Saddam Hussein takes over. Rationally, Iraq should be divided into three separate countries - Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shi'iastan - either totally independent from one another or, if acceptable to all, loosely confederated.

During the John Kennedy administration, his brother Bobby said a cogent sentence at least once. "We are not the policeman of the World"!
Since all the NATO "allies", except for Great Britian that has commited 2,000 additional troops to add to their 8,000 that are already there, have refused to send any more troops to the "killing fields" of Afghanistan. I believe it is wrong to ask our BRAVE troops to sacrifice their life and limb for a cause that even the neighbor Arab countries do not want to be involved in.We are looking for a GHOST, who may not even be in Afghanistan! Let Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates - provide the Afghans with military assistance. Why does it have to be primarily us?

Maybe it is time to withdraw our troops from all European Countries. EU states whose people really do not want us to be there in their countries in the first place. The expense of maintaining a military presence in Germany is prohibitive! We have saved Europe twice and the attitude toward the USA is mostly negative because we are still a free country that is hanging on to the free enterprise system. Not embracing Socialism like they have as yet!

The following in quotes is an excerpt from the Blog posted by Mayor Koch at NATIONAL REVIEW on line'


"We should not be spending billions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the governments of those countries cannot prevent the Taliban and al-Qaeda from taking over, our response to attacks upon the US emanating from there should be answered with bombs, not troops on the ground.I do not believe a country that accepted Taliban rule and defeated the undoubtedly brutal efforts of the Soviets to conquer it will ever accept the mores and political systems of the West.

We have a president with new ideas bent on changing the ways we provide for medical care, energy and education, while at the same time dealing with a financial crisis which is being compared with the Great Depression, and with budget deficits of more than a trillion dollars annually. Some of our leaders believe we can change the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan and make them democratic. That is a fantasy.

While President Obama does not believe we should be engaged in so-called "nation building," his statement on Face The Nation on March 29 with respect to our roles in both Afghanistan and Pakistan belies that. He said, "Our plan does not change the recognition of Pakistan as a sovereign government. We need to work with them and through them to deal with AL-Qaeda. But we have to hold them much more accountable. And we have to recognize that part of our task in working with Pakistan is not just military. It's also our capacity to build their capacity through civilian interventions, through development, through aid assistance. And that's part of what you're seeing - both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think it is fully resourcing a comprehensive strategy that doesn't just rely on bullets or bombs, but also relies on agricultural specialists, on doctors, on engineers, to help create an environment in which people recognize that they have much more at stake in partnering with us and the international community...."

I believe there is a limit to what even the US can do, particularly when Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq have political cultures that are totally foreign to us and offend our sense of fairness and justice. Wake up, America.

We haven't won the war in Iraq, and we won't win in Afghanistan or Pakistan in traditional terms. Al-Qaeda cells, according to the US government, are present in 62 countries. The battle will go on for decades to come. Wherever possible, our response should be to use aircraft, manned and drone. Neighboring countries should put their boots on the ground, as those countries have the most to lose. We should use our special forces to attack and kill the terrorist leadership and not expose our regular army to daily attack".

Think about it! This man makes sense. Our threat is the North Koreans and we are technically still at war after 60 years, We have a cease fire that could be broken at any moment with the launching of a ballistic missile!
An do not for one minute think that our southern border is not porous enough to allow terrorists from any nation that hates us to infiltrate the USA to detonate a dirty bomb!

Monday, December 22, 2008

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Iranian authorities on Sunday closed the office of the country's main human rights organization, headed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi. Dozens of plainclothes detectives and local police officers entered the Center for the Defense of Human Rights in Tehran and shut it down hours before a ceremony was to take place commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to members of the organization, which has been active since 2000, the police had been informed of the meeting, at which political activists were scheduled to speak. "The general human rights activities of this nongovernmental organization are the reason for this illegal reaction," the center's leadership said in a statement. THE MULLAHS THAT CONTROL IRAN'S THEOCRACY POLICE STATE BROACH NO DISSENT!

Center officials speculated that the closure was in part a response to a United Nations resolution issued Thursday that expressed "deep concern" about the human rights situation in Iran. SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST

In contrast to the oppressive actions of the Iranian police state authorities. The city of Baghdad in war torn Iraq has the first-ever public Christmas celebration in Baghdad!

It was held Saturday and sponsored by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Once thought to be infiltrated by death squads, the Ministry now is trying to root out sectarian violence -- as well as improve its PR image. The event took place in a public park in eastern Baghdad, ringed with security checkpoints.

Interior Ministry forces deployed on surrounding rooftops looked down at the scene: a Christmas tree decorated with ornaments and tinsel; a red-costumed Santa Claus waving to the crowd, an Iraqi flag draped over his shoulders; a red-and-black-uniformed military band playing stirring martial music, not Christmas carols.

On a large stage, children dressed in costumes representing Iraq's many ethnic and religious groups -- Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis, Christians, Arab Muslims not defined as Sunni or Shiite held their hands high and sang "We are building Iraq!" Two young boys, a mini-policeman and a mini-soldier sporting painted-on mustaches, march stiffly and salute.

"All Iraqis are Christian today!" said Interior Ministry spokesman Major General Abdul Karin Khalef. Khalaf said sectarian and ethnic violence killed thousands of Iraqis. "Now that we have crossed that hurdle and destroyed the incubators of terrorism."
He then said, "and the security situation is good, we have to go back and strengthen community ties." Even though the spokesman is surrounded by heavy security.
This celebration shows that the security situation in Baghdad is improving. Many of the people attending the Christmas celebration appear to be Muslims, with women wearing head scarves. Suad Mahmoud, holding her 16-month-old daughter, Sara, tells me she is indeed Muslim, but she's very happy to be here. "My mother's birthday also is this month, so we celebrate all occasions," she says, "especially in this lovely month of Christmas and New Year." SOURCE: CNN

And yet there are those who believe our invasion and occupation of Iraq was only going to make Muslims hate us more! This illustrates the fallacy of that argument and clearly shows the difference that freedom has on events that affect the populace.

A wise man once said, "War is preferable;e to subjugation"!

Jul. 20th, 2008 | 10:12 am

Sunday | July 20, 2008
OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA SUPPORTERS
To those of you who think Obama is an anti-war zealot like you. I would like to submit a wake up call!
In Afghanistan today, Obama had this to say about bringing our troops home as you have demonstrated and insisted since the beginning of the primary campaign.

"Obama is a good person," said Abdul Basir, 40, a former army officer. "During his campaign I heard he was saying that if I become president I will withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq and bring them to Afghanistan and I will attack on the terror center on other side of border (in Pakistan). It is very important and I appreciated that."

Surprise, the empty suit either betrayed you now that he has your primary vote, to capture the average American who believes we should finish the job before we leave Iraq, I remind you we are still in South Korea after over 50 years to honor a commitment!

In the presidential campaign against Republican rival John McCain, Obama has argued that the war in Afghanistan deserves more attention as well as troops. McCain has criticized Obama for his lack of time in the region. Obama is expected to stop in Iraq at some point during his tour.He then said this:
"I look forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is," Obama told a pair of reporters who accompanied him to his departure from Andrews Air Force Base on Thursday. "I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what the most, their biggest concerns are, and I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they've been doing."

You would think that he would apologize to the troops for his lack of support until now when he needs to change his image for the "normal" American who doesn't live on either Coast or is a left wing zealot!

Tell me how you can equate obama with a "peacenik" when he says this kind of gobbly-gook! Obama advocates ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq by withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two combat brigades a month. But he supports increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been resurgent and Osama bin laden is believed to be hiding."This is a war that we have to win," he said. "I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions — with fewer restrictions — from NATO allies.

"I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions."


It would appear his purpose in the previous statement was to deprecate President Bush and his opponent John McCain, but at the same time he reveals his duplicitous nature on the WAR issue.His opposition to the war in Iraq,and his call for an end to the U.S. combat role, helped him overcome his rivals in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now he is singing a different tune!

Tags: changes, iraq. troop wiyhdrawal, obama, opinions

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

The Contradiction of Attitudes Toward Kosovo and Iraq

HE FORGOT HIS OATHS

I never took the oath that a Naval Academy Plebe takes when he enters the Academy at Annapolis as Admiral Fallon did, but we both took the Oath of Office when we became officers in the U.S. Navy.

I will never forget the pride I had being sworn in as a US Navy(not USNR) Ensign!

The Plebe says this Oath of Office:
“Having been appointed a Midshipman in the United States Navy,do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;that you take this obligation freely,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter,so help you God?" (italics are mine for emphasis)

When commissioned as an officer, the oath is repeated with slight deletions:

''I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Apparently Admiral Fallon didn't feel that "true faith and allegince" applied to obeying without dissent the orders of your Commander in Chief and superior officer.

A man with a long and brilliant career apparently felt his opinions and point of view about the Iraq war differed too much from his superiors to remain quiet and do his duty.Tom serve and obey!

Fallon felt so strongly that his superior officers and the Presidnt were waging the war in Iraq wrongly, that he violated his oath of office and went public while still in uniform to express his displeasure.

Wikapedia describes his action thus:"As combatant commander of Central Command, Fallon was David Petraeus's superior officer. Petraeus is the commander of the current Iraq force, Multinational Force Iraq.
As CENTCOM commander, Fallon has often criticized Iran, while also encouraging negotiations. On May 28, 2007, he noted that the United States would continue to have a military presence in the Middle East, despite Iran wishing otherwise. However, he also said, "We have to figure out a way to come to an arrangement with them [Iran]" In an Al-Jazeera broadcast on September 30, 2007, he criticized those publicly urging war, stating "This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful. [...] I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for." He also stated that Iran was not as strong as it claimed, "Not militarily, economically or politically."

Apparently he forgot who his Commander in Chief was--George Bush, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If an O3 went on Al-Jazeera and did as Fallon, he surely would have been court marshaled! Admiral Fallon was allowed to resign with all his pension and benefits intact.

Had he been a high ranking officer in Iraq or Iran he would have been executed for his insubordination, but here in the USA he will become just one more darling "mouth piece" for the Left wing Liberals.

So Much for Loyalty!

 

Time to Obliterate Mosul?

Revisiting Our Troops In Foreign Countries

The Democrats and left leaning RINO's have a mantra that keeps my mind in a constant state of anxiety. "Bring the troops home from Iraq Now".

Not unlike the protesters during the Vietnam war, the cry is to save the lives of our service men and women by withdrawal. Never mind that withdrawal leaves those left behind vulnerable to massacre.

Seldom do you hear the argument made for the withdrawal of troops from Korea, Germany or Japan.

U.S. troops in Europe and Asia dwarfs the small numbers of troops stationed in the other three regions: Africa, the Middle East, and the Amer­icas (excluding the United States).

During the second half of the 20th century, 52 percent of deployed troops were in Europe and 41 per­cent in Asia. More than one-third of troop deployments during 1950–2000 were to Ger­many alone, which hosted over 10,000,000 U.S. military personnel. source: US government archives

United States has troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries. The average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.

Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi to a high of 74,796 in Germany. At the time the most recent "Personnel Strengths" was released by the government (September 30, 2003), there were 183,002 troops deployed to Iraq, an unspecified number of which came from U.S. forces in Germany and Italy. The total number of troops deployed abroad as of that date was 252,764, not including U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States. Total military personnel on September 30, 2003, was 1,434,377.

On average, 2.3 million U.S. troops were on duty per year from 1950–2000. Of this average, 535,000 troops (23 percent of all military personnel) were deployed on foreign soil. The pattern of deployment varies over time, as deployment loca­tions and levels respond to changing threats as well as for­eign wars.

President Bush's proposed redeployment of 70,000 troops from foreign countries to domestic bases has been greeted as a major movement, but it needs to be kept in perspective. An average of 311,870 troops were stationed in Europe per year during 1986–1990. That force was slashed by two-thirds after the Berlin Wall fell, to an average of 109,452 troops per year during 1996–2000. This is a very small number when you consider hat the Great Bear of Russia is once again raising their military might under Putin's directive.

No other military in world history has been so widely deployed as that of the United States. Troop deployments are overwhelmingly supportive of host countries, and warm relations between sol­diers and local populations are generally the norm. How­ever, the first priority in deployment strategy is not a particular foreign government’s desire to keep a certain number of American troops in its country, but the American need to align its forces against contemporary and future threats. source:Tim Kane/Heritage Foundation

In my not so humble opinion, the cry for withdrawal is more of a hope and ploy to have the USA lose another war, than a sincere desire to save our troops from more casualties. The troops in every foreign Country are at risk, especially those in Korea, where there has been a "cease fire" with the Communists from the North and their co-conspirator China. But nobody has called for their withdrawal for the 50 years they have been deployed!

Let us not forget that if Iran is successful in developing nuclear weapons, they will pose a threat to the whole Middle East and in the not to distant future to USA. Wouldn't we be better off keeping a strong force in the Middle East rather than have to make a mass movement of troops and equipment to the field of battle when needed? And don't be deluded by Leftists like Barrack Hussein Obama who say we can talk our enemies to resolve their differences with us!

THE FIFTH COLUMN IN THE US