Tuesday, December 01, 2009

A HALF HEARTED RESPONSE TO McCHRSTAL'S REQUEST FOR 40,000 TROOPS

What would have happened had General Eisenhower delayed the invasion of Europe for THREE months after the World Press announced that the Invasion was being delayed while Roosevelt decided how many troops to send into the beaches in Normandy France?
The German’s would have slaughtered more than they did, because they would have moved all their defensive forces and firepower to the Normandy beach cliffs. It would a massacre of disastrous proportions.

The first troops to be deployed to Afghanistan are going to be Marines,( when in doubt ,send in the Marines!)” General James Conway, the Marines’ top officer, told troops in Afghanistan at the weekend. “We have been leaning forward in anticipation of a decision. And we have got some pretty stiff fighting coming.”

The Marines are expected to be followed quickly by about 1,000 US Army trainers. They will land in Afghanistan early next year to hasten the growth of the Afghan Army and police force, another critical component of Mr Obama’s new strategy. ( you remember the commander in the field, General McChrystal had asked for 40,000 troops now!)

And the additional 30,000 US troops will deploy to Afghanistan over the next 12 to 18 months.( talk about a calculated delay to satisfy his political base that is violently against sending any more troops!)

The first priority will be to dislodge the Taleban from the Helmand town of Marjeh. Despite months of often intense fighting, the 9,000 Marines already there have failed to retake the city, which is a hub of the country’s opium trade. It is also a Taleban stronghold where many of the roadside bombs, the biggest killer of foreign troops, are made. ( Why don’t the soldiers burn or defoliant the poppy fields and dry up the supply of opium. This si the source of much of the financial support given to the Taliban)

Another focus will be to build a security cordon around the southern city of Kandahar, another Taleban hotbed. The aim will be to protect the civilian population from Taleban attacks, part of the classic counter-insurgency strategy that General Stanley McChrystal, the ground commander, has already begun pursuing.

( It seems we are more concerned with what we used to call collateral damage to the population during a battle to DEFEAT an enemy than they are to support and protect our brave men and women in uniform!)

Mr Obama is also expected to lay out in a prime-time speech tonight an aggressive goal for greatly increasing the size of the Afghan Army and police force. It will call for increasing the size of the Army to 134,000 troops by next October, four years earlier than the initial goal of 2014. ( This appears to be another tip of the hat to the anti-war zealots that Obama needs to get re-elected in three years)

The accelerated training of Afghan forces is central to Mr Obama’s hopes of handing over responsibility for the country’s security to the Afghans themselves as quickly as possible. (a numbers game, never mind if they can defend themselves against the Taliban, Obama just wants to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq!)

Analysts also believe that another crucial element of the new strategy will be to use the additional troops to secure the main highway between Kandahar in the south and the capital Kabul. This central road is currently not controlled by Nato forces.(As usual we have to the heavy lifting for the NATO skimpy force!)

Mr Obama told America’s senior military leadership about his long-awaited decision on troop numbers and strategy at a 5pm Oval Office meeting on Sunday, said the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Mr Obama conveyed his decision, which has been more than three months in the making, to Robert Gates, his Defence Secretary, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, and General David Petraeus, chief of US Central Command.

The meeting was immediately followed by a secure video conference with General McChrystal and Karl Eikenberry, the US Ambassador in Kabul, when they were also formally instructed about the new strategy.
(I would assume McChrystal was very disappointed that he would not get the 40K troops immediately as he requested)

Mr Obama held a series of calls yesterday with foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown, to brief them about his decision. He also called President Sarkozy of France, President Medvedev of Russia, and personally briefed Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, who is in Washington on an official visit. (I am sure he apologized for sending the troops. Since that is all he has done since assuming the Presidency, apologize and bow to foreign leaders for America’s actions)

In tonight’s speech Mr Obama will attempt to convince a sceptical American public that the surge of troops, which will bring the number of American forces in Afghanistan to 100,000, is the right option. ( he has to convince the anti-war base that he had to send troops or risk another Viet Nam massacre )

I was already convinced that he would not grant the Commander in the fields request for 40,000 troops immediately to mount a surge. You will remember Obama said he doesn’t like the word VICTORY!!
This obvious from the leaked reports of the speech he will give at West Point tonight.
In his address,to be delivered from the US Military Academy at West Point, Mr Obama will focus heavily on the importance of an exit strategy, and will make clear that there is no open-ended commitment in Afghanistan.

He is planning to set lay out a “time frame” for scaling back the US involvement there, US officials said.

Withdrawal not VICTORY is on the Commander in Chiefs mind! What a disgrace this man is to the office he holds!!

:

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!

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

If the United States waited until Germany and Italy had stable governments before we invaded Europe in 1944. The British and most of Europe would be speaking German, possibly Russian by now.

We went to war to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.Not to establish a stable government!
MacArthur set up the government in Japan and Eisenhower set up the government in Germany AFTER we defeated the enemy!

Today we dither around at the peril of the brave men and women who are trying to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the General sent by Obama has asked for 40,000 more troops to complete the job that Obama sent him to Afghanistan to do.

The absurdity of the dialogue about sending more troops is centered around the establishment of a stable government. We do not even have a stable government in the USA in my opinion. How can you equate what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do with health care and cap-and-trade with the Constitution and Bill of Rights! You cannot!!

But todays news highlites the statement by the spokes person in NATO that they would not consider sending troops to fight in Afghanistan until a stable government has been established.
“Bratislava, Slovakia (AP) – Two NATO members said Friday they will not send more troops to Afghanistan unless its Nov. 7 presidential runoff creates a legitimate government and until President Barack Obama decides on a new strategy there.
Dutch Defense Minister Eimert Van Middelkoop said his country, with 2,160 troops in Afghanistan, is awaiting the final election results “because the legitimacy of the Afghan government is key,” as well as a decision by the Obama administration.

“I think most countries are waiting for the American decisions,” van Middelkoop said at a meeting in Bratislava of the defense ministers of the 28 NATO countries.
I believe they will have to wait until Obama gets his Health Care Bill and the CAP and Trade(aka Tax) are passed, and then he will say that the economy will not support the sending of 40,000 troops as an excuse to do what he intended to do two months ago. Deny McChrystal’s request for 40,000 troops!

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was briefing NATO ministers — including U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates — on his view of the war in Afghanistan at the meeting.
Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade said allies won’t increase troop levels until they’re assured the new government in Kabul is committed to the NATO goals.
“I think whoever is going to send more troops to Afghanistan will put up some conditions,” said Gade, whose country has 690 soldiers in Afghanistan. (who cares what a country steeped in socialism that only has 690 troops committed cares?)

“They need to see the new Afghan president and say: ‘If we send more troops to your country, you have to deal with this, this and this.’ We have to make sure the new government in Afghanistan are committed to their job before we send any more troops to Afghanistan.”
Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung of Germany said he also doesn’t expect his country to increase its troop numbers in Afghanistan when the soldiers’ mandate from the German parliament comes up for renewal in December. The existing mandate allows the deployment of a maximum 4,500 soldiers, and Germany currently has just over 4,200 troops in Afghanistan.

The” Hill” is reporting today that: In a speech to nearly 3,000 servicemen at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla., Obama said those who died gave “the last full measure of devotion.”9But will he send the troops to watch their backs as McChrystal has requested?)
In the same speech, he pushed back against critics who say he hasn’t acted swiftly enough.( he has not!!)
“While I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this — and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan — I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way,” Obama said. “I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt.”( I guess he forgot his votes against anything that Congress was doing to support the troops in the Iraq war!)
Monday’s loss of U.S. troops in Afghanistan followed Sunday’s car bombs in Iraq that killed more than 150 people, many of them children.

The president met with some of his national security advisers Monday in the White House Situation Room, the sixth meeting of its kind, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. But fewer advisers were included, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in the region who reportedly has asked for nearly 40,000 additional troops, did not participate! (It sounds like the failure of McNamara and president Lyndon Johnson to listen to the generals in Viet Nam while they were listening to the anti-war chants in the streets and reading the negative articles in the Washington Post and New York Times)

Will Americans allow this smooth talking president to be Commander in Chief over the modern day Viet Nam! And do not believe the Left when they say we are invoved in a civil war that has been going on for 35 years. What we are fighting for is to destroy alQaeda before they attack us again. We would rather defeat them in their hideouts than in the streets of the USA!

Monday, October 05, 2009

 

Cognitive dissonance is described by webster: "as refusing to process facts that conflict with deeply held beliefs". And this aptly describes the way Obama has been acting the past few months, and came to a culmunation when he chaired the UN Securuty Council meeting with 19 other leaders of Countries sitting at the table.

His position was and still is, that we can talk the madmen in control of Iran not to build nuclear bombs. While he spoke to the Security Council he had in his mind, and for all I know, in his pocket news that Iran has buit a new facility for enriching uranium securely within a mountain. But even though he had these facts he talked of his dream of a nuclear free world and the abilty of talking Iran out of developing nuclear weapons.
This feckless naivete brought shock and disbelief to the president of France and any person who acknowledges that North Korea is also in the process of getting nuclear weapon cabapability.

In March of this year Obama said this:"“Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” That was President Obama, speaking in Prague. What or whom changed his mind? source:CSN NEWS.com

In December 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate announced, “We assess with moderate confidence [that] Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” Well, Tehran just admitted it has a second uranium enrichment facility. Fuel produced there could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

When Obama addressed the General Assembly,he actually said, "No one nation can dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." Has he discounted Borth Korea also?

Now while he dithers over General McCrhrystal's request for more troops, Obama has decided to abrogate the pact with Poland and the Czech Republic to set up a defensive missile base and radar station to detect icoming missiles. It appears that this was decided when Obama visited with Russia's KGB man, Putin, because Putin stongley objected! What did we get in return? Nothing fro m Russia and Communist China, who keep sending gasoline and strategigic materials and weapons to Iran!
The reason given was that Iran is developing short range missiles more than they are long range missiles that could reach Europe and our Middle East bases.
Strangly, the administration claims that we don’t need the sites in eastern Europe since “U.S. missile-defense capabilities and technologies have advanced in recent years.” That ought to be an argument to deploy them even more widely, not to scrap one site because the defenses elsewhere (say in Alaska or California) are working.And since Naval ship based missiles are subject to the new anti-ship missiles that we know Iran has recieved from China, now makes them vulnerable to destruction if they come into firing range. They offer little to our Iranian nuclear missile defense, if and when they are needed.


By canceling the missile defense plans for Europe we are affectively telling  the world that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” By abandoning promises to our allies and failing to share the benefits of our missile defenses. Abandoning the planned anti-missile sites results in producing a self-inflicted wound we cannot afford at this critical time of our Republic!


And to further make my point that Obama ignores facts. Try this on for size! Obama publicly sends McCrystal to Afghanistan as the new commander and asks for his assessment of the situation. McCrystal does not tell Obama what he wants to hear (in private) so he decides to do something other than what his commander on the ground tells him he needs to do, and then has the gaul to say it publicly at a military conference in England.
Apparently this angered Obma. So he summond the general to ameeting in Copenhagen in his 747. Apparently to remind the general who is Commander in Chief, even though he does not act like it I believe!
As he has done much of the time, when issues are divisive to the voters. He sends out his sycophants, as he did yesterday when General Jones appeared on two networks to dicredit the man POTUS sent to Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. The Securitry adviser is a retired Army General who is acting as hatchet man for Obama to discredit the Commander in the field by stating that there are many other isues that must be decided before POTUS decides to send 40,000 more troops as were requested!  Like how to placate the anti war movement that voted for Obama who when in the Senate ,opposed the Iraq war!!

Apparently Obama reacted like Truman did to General McArthur when he spoke out to the public about bombing China to win in Korea. Obama I believe was very mad and demanded a meeting with McCrhrystal in Copenhagen to tell him who was in charge! The meeting lasted only 25  minutes. Just long enough for a one way conversation by Obama!

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

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".
When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."
He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week! Jones said thre more meetings were scheduled!!

Friday, October 02, 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


On March 27, following a "careful policy review," Mr. Obama proclaimed Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in the war on terror," announced a "comprehensive new strategy" for the region and ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan -- increasing the number of Americans there to 68,000 by the end of this year. A month and a half later, he made Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- an advocate of pursuing a counterinsurgency campaign -- the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. On Aug. 17, the president declared: "This is not a war of choice; it is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida could plot to kill more Americans."Source:PatriotPost.com

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT OBAMA HAS A VERY SHORT MEMORY, OR PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT IS TOO HORRIBLE TO CONTEMPLATE, THE ANTI-WAR 50 CONGRESSMEN LED BY "RED" PELOSI HAS CHANGED OBAMA'S MIND!

It was just six months ago in Prague that Obama said:  “Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven..”
But last month he canceled the plans to build a missile base in Poland and a radar station to track incoming
enemy missiles in the Czech Republic. This after both countries, that were over run by the Communist USSR during World war II, had defied Russian objections to the bases! This now puts hundreds of thousands of people in both countries at the wrath of Putin and his KGB buddies!

Historian  Bernard Lewis has warned, the U.S. can’t afford to tell the world that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” Yet we’re doing exactly that by abandoning promises to our allies and failing to share the benefits of our missile defenses. Canceling the planned sites is a self-inflicted wound we cannot afford. Source: E. Feulner


If this were not enough to enbolden our enemies and strike terror in the hearts of those who count on our military might to protect them. Then the dithering about the request for more troops from the commander in Afghanistan should convince them that they have a leader of the USA that is naive and indicesive that makes him no match for their determination to destroy US and Israel!

Could you imagine FDR having three meetings with his miliatry advisors that took over thirty days after Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese? No FDR declared war the next day and began plans for Doolittle's bombing raid on Tokyo!
But we have a president who recieved a request from the field commander for more troops over 30 days ago, and all he has done since then is have a teleconference meeting with three more scheduled before he makes his decision! And then left to travel to Denmark to help persuade the Olympic Committee to grant Chicago the 2016 Olympics!
And to make the situation more dangerous. Fifty(50) Congressmen sent a letter demanding that Obama not send more troops to Afghanistan before a complete exit strategy is formed. This is insanity and in my opinion tantamont to defeatism, and that is what the anti-victory people want1

But any right thinking person realizes that if we let the Taliban drive us out of Afghanistan it will become the 21sr Century version of VietNam and will destroy the military might and MORALE  that this Country once had.

Is it possible that is part of the master plan that POTUS has for the CHANGE he wants to accomplish?

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!

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The invasion of Iraq made sense to me because the tyrant Saddam was killing his own people and was trying, maybe succeeding, in making weapons of mass destruction. The gassing of thousands of Kurds proved he had poison gas.
But Afghanistan is a different matter!

The Russians sent 300,000n troops and Hind helicopters into the mountains of Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and lost!This was because our CIA and Defense Department supplied stinger ground to air missiles that neutralized the helicopters and developed the IED explosive device that took a heavy toll on the ground troops.
And there are the mountains! In Iraq most of thee fighting was done in the dessert and cities. But in Iraq the Taliban is hiding in the mountains and gain refuge by escaping across the border into Pakistan.

In World War II the Italian campaign proved the difficulty in fighting in mountainous terrain. In the 19 months of fighting the Germans we lost 19,475 killed in action, 60% of them were in the 5th Army that fought for 20 months before defeating the Germans.

We have less than 33,000 troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban that now has weapons to kill and demoralize the men fighting there.It is a no win situation that Obama wants to get the USA into.

He was and is a strong enemy of the military and do not let his mantra that the Taliban is our main enemy. The Al Qaeda international organization is our enemy. Besides the fact that Afghanistan will become a "killing field" for our military. Obama has already said essentially that victory is not his objective. He has said he would talk to the leaders of "moderate" Taliban leaders about a negotiated peace!

Before he gets us into another debacle like Vietnam, we should bring the troops home and station them along the border between Mexico and the USA.
Thee retired Assistant of the U.S.Dea, Michael Braun, has stated that both the Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have made deals with the Mexican drug lords to smuggle weapons and personal into the USA using the same routes that they have used to smuggle drugs and illegals by the millions over our borders. This is a real treat that must be addressed

Friday, May 16, 2008

Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan. With the Congressional Democrats playing politics with funds to support their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, they need your prayers.



The "Deamoncrats" attached the proposed $162.5 billion for the wars to a veto-provoking 18-month pullout timetable, domestic programs and a tax increase.


Democrats overwhelmingly backed separate votes for pullout plans and at least $21.2 billion of domestic spending and a surtax on millionaires to pay for an expansion of GI education benefits, estimated to cost $51.6 billion over 10 years.


During the floor vote Democrats voted against troop funding by 147-85, while Republicans voted for it by 56-2, meaning the measure failed on a 149-141 vote, with 132 "present" votes, all Republican. Thus, the "mish-mash" Democrat bill combining funds for the troops and a date specific for withdrawal from Iraq tacked onto the tax increase, failed.



Of course the Democrats accused the Republicans of playing dirty politics, and the"leftist" from Wisconsin masquerading as a Democrat, David Obey, said" "Why are we subject to criticism for idiocy that the other side committed?" This one time Republican who turned Democratic because McCarthy accused one of his friend of being a Communist. Has his own share of controversy.


"On March 7, 2007, a video was posted on YouTube of Congressman Obey arguing with proponents of defunding the Iraq War about their position on how to end the war. He angrily referred to them as "idiot liberals" and told them Democrats would not cut funding for the war because it would cut funding to other vital military functions such as armor and medical supplies for U.S. military personnel, but were instead working on an amendment to order an end to the war altogether. He also stated that to one of the proponents that "...if that isn't good enough for you, you're smoking something illegal!" Obey later apologized for the incident".

source: Wikapedia


I will tell you why you are blamed Congressman Obey! Americans know the Democrats are about to establish a low in public confidence level in all of history, and it is because, for the sake of power and hate of Bush, they have stooped so low as to attach funding for men and women in harms way to a bill for troop pullout plans and at least $21.2 billion of domestic spending and a surtax on "millionaires"


The so called "Patriot Tax" proposed by Democrats, would apply to individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million. It would take an extra $500 from $1 million earners, but Republicans pointed out that 82 percent of those hit would be people with small businesses.



The Democrats expected to use Republican votes to pass the war funds, but Republicans refused to follow the script, highlighting divisions among House Democrats between members who are willing to fund U.S. forces and members who want the U.S. to withdraw immediately and don't want to fund anything other than withdrawal. A final bill is not expected until next month, when the Pentagon says it will be running out of money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Please write, call, email or fax your Senators and Congressmen to quit playing politics with the lives of our brave men and women in harms way!

STRANGE BED FELLOWS

The commonality of Iranian President and the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination runs deeper than their Muslim roots. Although Barrack Obama has renounced his childhood Muslim religion and joined the Christian religion. Which by the way makes him an apostate in the eyes of all Muslims. They both feel that American troops should immediately withdraw from Iraq.Obama has even promised that if he is elected President he will have all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008! A sure prescription for a massacre of those waiting to be evacuated last!
Obama voted against going there militarily in the first place, and yesterday during his visit to Iraq, Ahmadinejad had this to say about the United States.
"Speaking in a nearly hour-long news conference at the end of an unprecedented visit to Iraq, Ahmadinejad called for immediate withdrawal of American troops and said the "U.S. allegations — that Iran is training Shiite militants who target American troops and Muslim rivals — don't matter to the Iranians. Of course American officials make such remarks and such statements, and we do not care ... because they make statements on the basis of erroneous information," said the hard-line Iranian leader, who smiled through much of the session. "We cannot count on what they say."
He said the foreign presence in Iraq was an "insult to the regional nations and a humiliation." Source: Iran Focus News

Perhaps Obama is pandering to the Leftist political organisations such as The National Peace foundation, and other groups who want to see the United States military strength weakened. What ever his opposition to the Iraq war is will remain in his heart and mind. But his solution to the Iranian quest for nuclear arms is based on "just Talking" to them. Perhaps Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs will stop production and dismantle their nuclear program if Obama is elected President. But I doubt it!


They will look upon Obama as a weakling the same as Hitler did when Neville Chamberlain went, hat in hand, to talk Hitler out of war in 1936.
Ahmadinejad is the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq since before the Iran/Iraq war 1980-1988 when Iraq invaded Iran in June 1980.When asked about terrorists, he had this to say about America in Iraq:
"Six years ago there were none of these terrorists. When the others stepped foot in this country and region we find a foothold for the terrorists," he told reporters after meeting Shiite political leader Abdul Aziz Al Hakim.
I guess he forgot the terror that Saddam Hussein's regime caused for the Iraqi people, especially the Sunni's.