About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

WINNING IS THE ONLY OPTION

Monday, December 07, 2009

One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!…Winston Churchill

Before and after US President Barack Obama’s speech on Tuesday, NATO allies — and Germany, in particular — were expecting to get the call to commit more troops to the fight in Afghanistan. But instead the US government says it will not pressure Germany to send more combat troops, and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the German business daily Handelsblatt on Thursday that the US wanted “political commitments, rather than numbers” from its NATO allies. (Since when do politicians defeat the enemy)
Holbrooke added: “Britain has already announced an additional 500 troops; other countries are preparing their own contributions. What’s crucial is that there is cooperation within NATO.” Source:Der Spiegel

There are currently roughly 4,300 German soldiers in Afghanistan, and Berlin says it won’t consider increasing that figure until after an international conference in January. Holbrooke, in turn, has insisted that the US is not disappointed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In contrast to that report in the German paper, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday that alliance members would send at least 5,000 troops to back the newly announced US increase of approximately 30,000 soldiers. Washington has asked Germany to provide 2,000 more troops, France and Italy 1,500 each, and Britain 1,000, according to French officials.It woul appear the right hand does not know what the left is doing! A bad thing in war!

On Thursday, Italian Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa confirmed that Rome would send around 1,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, raising its presence to roughly 3,700. La Russa told the Corriere della Sera newspaper that the previously reported figure of 1,500 extra soldiers was “a maximum quota which we would never reach.”

NATO officials say several other nations have announced plans to send more troops, including Georgia (900), Poland (600) and Slovakia (250). Portugal is keeping the pledge it made earlier this year to send 150 troops from its “rapid deployment” force to join 100 military trainers already in Afghanistan, according to Defense Minister Augusto Santos Silva.

Similarly, following the Obama speech, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Berlin was prepared to increase the number of police trainers it sends to Afghanistan, and France has also stressed its commitment to building up local police forces. Turkey also says it is looking at whether it should boost its training role in Afghanistan. However, Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul has made it clear that Turkish soldiers will not be part of any combat operations.
It appears to me that we will continue to fight the Taliban by ourselves! Since the European governments appear to be more interested in Nation building than in fighting the Taliban!

Obama’s talk of a timeline for withdrawal was a misjudgment in my opinion. From USA’s experience in Bosnia, I remember how the Dayton Agreement that supposedly ended the Bosnian war committed Nato to just a one-year mandate. The people were not impressed. As many of Bosnians asked in December 1995: “Why should we support you, if in 12 months’ time you will have gone?” So we must not fall into the same trap this time in Afghanistan.
And, unfortunately, we still have troops in Bosnia to this day!

For our Armed Forces, the immediate task is to complete our mission in Afghanistan. o kill the Taliban and al Qaeda! Just in the last few days, the International community has sort of renewed its determination to succeed . And succeed we must, because defeat is not an option for the USA! Any other outcome would give a huge boost to al Qaeda and the radical Muslims who seek to change our values and our way of life, through terrorist tactics..

Talk now of a withdrawal or troop reductions in Afghanistan is premature. We must show first that we are succeeding. In particular, the World media must believe we are succeeding, and report comprehensive progress as it develops. Maybe our Mass Media will be different than they were in the Vietnam era, but I will not hold my breath until they do!
The current fixation on casualties runs the risk – if over-reported – of eroding our national will to continue. This would be a tragedy. Wars kill people on both sides. If we are not committed to killing the enemy we should bring the troops home now!

Patience is difficult for a liberal (left leaning) Democracy, but impatience, with an eye on the domestic ballot box, is what the enemy always counts on. We must not fall into that trap. For the people of Afghanistan, and the people of this country, the stakes are too high.

Obama and the NATO people say we need to win the hearts and minds of the people. But perhaps more critically, we also need to win the hearts and minds of the people of this country, too. The biggest threat to our success in Afghanistan is not the Taliban, but a loss of will by the people at home to see this vital task through. We must maintain the will to win, and break the will of the Taliban to continue.
Talk of withdrawal only emboldens the enemy!!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PROCRASTINATION IS THE WAY TO DEFEAT

Saturday, October 31, 2009

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pointed out the dangers of failure on the part of the Western military alliance in Afghanistan. The war effort is already underfunded to the tune of several hundred million euros. Nevertheless, the costs of defeat will be much higher than the costs of the mission, Rasmussen said at the NATO summit in Bratislava, Slovakia last week.


UNFORTUNATEY, his warnings have  fallen on deaf ears, with only Great Britain agreeing to a slight increase in troop strength. All other NATO defense ministers, including, of course, the German defense minister, remained politely aloof when it came time to make commitments.

For once, this hesitation cannot be attributed to widespread war fatigue in Europe. The mission in Afghanistan is seen as a toxic issue in all Western nations,( it is difficult to fund a war and run an alredy failing socialist government) and every government that has provided troops has come under sharp criticism at home. What the US's NATO allies now find far more irritating is US President Barack Obama's silence on the issue!

The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US's most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the "AfPak" region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate.

According to Carl von Clausewitz, a country has only won a war when it has imposed its will on the enemy. But even without studying the writings of the Prussian military historian, which are required curriculum at military academies like the US Military Academy at West Point, the American generals know full well just how far they are from that goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

White House officials have previously told the Associated Press Obama is considering sending a large number of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than Gen. Stanley McChrystal prefers. The president appears willing to send at least 10,000 to 15,000 troops of the 40,000 forces requested by McChrystal.

The Washington Post reported that Obama is seeking a strategy that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers.(what they do not say is he is trying to appease his anti-war supporters and still act like a CIC of the armed forces)
Obama's long awaited review of how to right a deteriorating war effort is hopefully nearing its end but appears  weeks away from being wrapped up. Once made, he is expected to explain his decision to the American public( a telepromptered aided speech written by his speech writers) and the international community in a prominent way, such as a major address. The details are not yet set.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff includes a high ranking admiral and generals from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The group's main mission is to ensure that the armed forces are trained, ready, healthy and large enough to carry out the missions of the military. In that sense, the body would play a vital role in a normal presidents decision, but I do not think in Obama's war planning they have as much input as his Czars and people like George Sorros. Or the decision would have been made long before this. No commander leaves his field general who has requested more troops and support, hanging in doubt this long!


Morale and unfortunately deaths and injury resut from indecision. Not VICTORY!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TIME TO FISH OR CUT BATE!

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!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IT IS HARD TO TALK TO SOMEONE WHO WILL NOT LISTEN!

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

DIPLOMACY FAILS AGAIN





Although I do not advocate military action against Russia for it's obvious violation of International law with it's aggression against the sovereign state of Georgia.
I do think diplomatic talk, talk is an exercise in futility, as illustrated by this article quoting Russian President Medvedev response to NATO's overtures to talk to Russia about their WAR with Georgia.

"Signing the decrees, Russian president Dimitry Medvedev said Tuesday, Aug. 26, that the two breakaway Georgian regions have the right to determine their own future after Georgia’s attacks. Recognition was unanimously urged Monday by the Russian upper house. Washington says this is a violation of international law.
Moscow sources report that the Kremlin is planning further sanctions against Georgia and its US-NATO backers, possibly in Eastern Europe.
The US state department has said recognition of the two provinces' independence would be "a violation of Georgian territorial integrity" and "inconsistent with international law".
Russia has cancelled a visit by NATO's secretary general, after Medvedev said he was weighing halting cooperation with the military alliance, “until relations were clarified.” Its NATO ambassador said a "new understanding" needed to be reached between Russia and the alliance

The bold letters are mine for emphasis. I believe that this is a perfect example of the Putin/Medvedev attitude toward any outside interference with their quest to regain the power and influence that the Soviet Union once had.
Any co-operating country would welcome talks with NATO representatives, EU or UN delegates. But Medvedev made it clear that he wants no conversation with any group that opposes their plans for hegemony! It sounds like "It is our way or the highway"!

If as I believe, the next move that Russia makes in it's quest for control of the states they lost with the fall of the USSR, is the Ukraine or Azerbaijan.

It is is the largest and most populous country in the South Caucasus region of Eurasia. Located at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, it is bounded by the Caspian Sea to the east, Russia to the north, Georgia to the west and northwest, Armenia to the southwest, and Iran to the south. Because of it's strategic location, I believe that Russia covets this State and it's location on the Caspian Sea.

What will WE and NATO do, you can forget about help from the Communist dominated UN, if and when Putin's quest for power leads them to find an excuse to invade either the Ukraine or Azerbaijan? Will we continue to talk or will we use economic sanctions and embargo's against their aggression?

If the duo of Obama and Biden win in Novemeber you can count on no action at all!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »