Friday, December 4, 2009
A most civil.......Civil War
On his way off the field Oregon State coach Mike Riley stopped at the goal line turned around, stood and watched it all.
It was Oregon 37, Oregon State 33 in the Civil War tonight. The Ducks go to the Rose Bowl. But it was the sight of Riley at the goal line that I can’t shake today.
Because he was waiting to congratulate Oregon’s Chip Kelly. And the Ducks coach was soaking wet from a Gatorade bath, 40 yards away, locked still by a mosh-pit of celebrating bodies. Also, ESPN cameras and the Rose Bowl Committee were waiting for him.
The field was filling with bodies. The players were leaving the field. And this is right about where most football coaches wave each other off, see.
But Riley stood.
And Kelly mushed on.
They eventually met at the goal line, shook hands, and wished each other well in the postseason. And that’s what I’ll remember most about Thursday’s Civil War.
I’m sure the Big 10 Conference is proud to send the Buckeyes to Pasadena, but they haven’t seen offenses like either of the ones on display in Eugene. And what we’re really talking about now is Oregon finishing the job that started in this rivalry game on Jan. 1 in front of the country.
It’s a simple game, we’re told.
Run. Block. Tackle.
But what Oregon must do now is take care of business in a Bowl Championship Series contest. Because the Ducks didn’t just outscore the Beavers on Thursday, they were validated by them.
It feels that way when you’re locked into a wonderful game with two of the best teams in the country exchanging wild possessions. And you had to realize that’s just what we had in the final five minutes, with both coaches unwilling to take their offenses off the field.
The first meeting of what will certainly be called “Mike Riley vs. Chip Kelly I” went to Kelly. And when I saw the men match wits, shuffle personnel and shake afterward, I thought, “Ohio State is toast.”
The Pac-10 is 9-2 in bowl games over the last two years. Conference commissioner Larry Scott said that not having USC as the conference champion helps validate the rest of the conference. But what happens if the Ducks go to the Rose Bowl and don’t win?
It becomes just another cute little story. The 90-day odyssey that was Boise State-to-the-Civil-War for Oregon ends up hollow without that big payday at the end. Not because of the stakes, but because it’s clear as the cold night that Ohio State couldn’t have handled what happened at Autzen Stadium.
Oregon State played a marvelous game. Even with Oregon wisely spying a linebacker man-to-man on Jacquizz Rodgers (64 rushing yards, 73 receiving), the Beavers still managed to make this close. They refused to stop playing and gave the Ducks a terrific test. By the end, everyone in the stadium must have agreed that if this game were played in a neutral site, we all might still be watching overtime.
But it ended with the Ducks offense, evaporating 6:09 with a 12-play drive.
Then, Riley waited and watched. You had to like that. And Kelly, in a first-class move, refused to jog over and accept a BCS berth before he'd shook the hand of the man he battled all night.
I'm not sure the Buckeyes understand where this is going.
OregonLive
This guy was elected
By the good people of Arlington, TN. Wow. The 'war on Jesus/Christmas/America/Whatever' continues.....
In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.
Wiseman made the statements on his Facebook page, where he declared Obama to be a Muslim. Only people on Wiseman's "friend's list" had access to the post. He has more than 1,600 friends on Facebook.
"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."
"A Charlie Brown Christmas," which first aired in 1965, has become an endearing program for many because of its emphasis on the "real meaning of Christmas," including Linus' memorable reading from the Gospel of Luke of Jesus' birth.
In Wiseman's extensive thread that attacked the president, his supporters and Muslims, he stated "...you obama people need to move to a muslim country...oh wait, that's America....pitiful."
At another point he said, "you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different........"
In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.
Wiseman made the statements on his Facebook page, where he declared Obama to be a Muslim. Only people on Wiseman's "friend's list" had access to the post. He has more than 1,600 friends on Facebook.
"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."
"A Charlie Brown Christmas," which first aired in 1965, has become an endearing program for many because of its emphasis on the "real meaning of Christmas," including Linus' memorable reading from the Gospel of Luke of Jesus' birth.
In Wiseman's extensive thread that attacked the president, his supporters and Muslims, he stated "...you obama people need to move to a muslim country...oh wait, that's America....pitiful."
At another point he said, "you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different........"
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
So why did Obama choose more war?
Well crap...I don't know. But some I argue with daily have asked me what I though about military establishment influence on President Obama...and if that played a role in his decision last night. I can't say for sure obviously...but I believe the influence is there and very pervasive.
Today's DoD is far more independent from the Executive Branch than in previous decades. They are still subordinate obviously by means of chain of command, national security strategy and purse strings......but the animal has grown larger than it's cage.
There are incestuous relationships at play that dwarf Eisenhower's 'military-industrial complex' speech. Between military analysts funneling propaganda through mainstream media outlets to executive positions in defense corporations for retiring flag officers to my recent discovery of the 'Senior Mentor Program' [DoD hiring former flag officers working at defense corporations to mentor current combatant commanders]......and the think tanks who are hired to provide analysis and background to the DoD...to partisan think tanks actually lecturing soldiers [Michael Rubin of AEI speaking to troops at Ft's Riley and Carson]....gone are the days of quiet subordination to the CinC....I believe.
That Petraeus [and now possibly McChrystal] attaining such a fiefdom with possible political aspirations only exacerbates the problem [not that that is a new phenomenon].
The bottom line is that aside from the axiom of no commander ever not asking for more, or tendering the assessment that withdrawal is required....Obama's commanders and senior military advisers will always push forwards rather than back. They will always look for the win rather than the reality. It's rather hardwired into most senior military leaders. Obama would have to truly buck the paradigm and show independent leadership to reverse the course we're on. I had held out some small hope that he might....and I was wrong.
Today's DoD is far more independent from the Executive Branch than in previous decades. They are still subordinate obviously by means of chain of command, national security strategy and purse strings......but the animal has grown larger than it's cage.
There are incestuous relationships at play that dwarf Eisenhower's 'military-industrial complex' speech. Between military analysts funneling propaganda through mainstream media outlets to executive positions in defense corporations for retiring flag officers to my recent discovery of the 'Senior Mentor Program' [DoD hiring former flag officers working at defense corporations to mentor current combatant commanders]......and the think tanks who are hired to provide analysis and background to the DoD...to partisan think tanks actually lecturing soldiers [Michael Rubin of AEI speaking to troops at Ft's Riley and Carson]....gone are the days of quiet subordination to the CinC....I believe.
That Petraeus [and now possibly McChrystal] attaining such a fiefdom with possible political aspirations only exacerbates the problem [not that that is a new phenomenon].
The bottom line is that aside from the axiom of no commander ever not asking for more, or tendering the assessment that withdrawal is required....Obama's commanders and senior military advisers will always push forwards rather than back. They will always look for the win rather than the reality. It's rather hardwired into most senior military leaders. Obama would have to truly buck the paradigm and show independent leadership to reverse the course we're on. I had held out some small hope that he might....and I was wrong.
Obama the War President
The speech last night at the US Military Academy was a Bush speech. Rhetoric and platitudes. We're sending more forces to a place where Al Qaeda isn't....to fight an enemy who didn't attack us and prop up a government that is the antithesis of legitimate. Obama spoke of the history of occupation of the Afghan's without mentioning our own occupying force. He spoke of being a partner not a patron to Afghanistan....without mentioning how Afghanistan would be able to sustain itself or it's security forces whenever we do finally leave. He spoke of partnering with Pakistan without mentioning their opposition to the escalation.
And on cue...the perpetual war hawks are on the airwaves decrying the mere mention of an exit strategy. Claiming that this threat is the most serious to face our nation since 1941, they draw comparisons with WWII without the requisite sacrifice or interruption of their daily routine. They speak in flowing vagaries about 'staying the course', 'finishing the job' and not 'surrendering'....without ever a mention of the realities that do not match the rhetoric. They want a perpetual 'long war' that only affects the military and their families, saps our economy, prevents us from reacting to any other threat [or to Al Qaeda itself].....all while subsidizing corrupt Afghans and providing them free health care. Ironic.
I make no apologies for tiring of aimless, vague and pandering rhetoric substituting for national policy. While most of America fixates on balloon boy, Tiger Woods or White House party crashers....I want accountability, direction and political courage. Obama had his chance to show that with Afghanistan. Instead, be mirrored the last Administration.
And on cue...the perpetual war hawks are on the airwaves decrying the mere mention of an exit strategy. Claiming that this threat is the most serious to face our nation since 1941, they draw comparisons with WWII without the requisite sacrifice or interruption of their daily routine. They speak in flowing vagaries about 'staying the course', 'finishing the job' and not 'surrendering'....without ever a mention of the realities that do not match the rhetoric. They want a perpetual 'long war' that only affects the military and their families, saps our economy, prevents us from reacting to any other threat [or to Al Qaeda itself].....all while subsidizing corrupt Afghans and providing them free health care. Ironic.
I make no apologies for tiring of aimless, vague and pandering rhetoric substituting for national policy. While most of America fixates on balloon boy, Tiger Woods or White House party crashers....I want accountability, direction and political courage. Obama had his chance to show that with Afghanistan. Instead, be mirrored the last Administration.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
There is no level of Hell....
That is fit for the likes of Richard Cheney. I'm normally not a proponent of impeachment....but in case of the last Administration.....the case is pretty airtight. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton over lying about a blowjob, right? Anybody get killed over that lie? Did national security or the economy suffer because of that lie? Did international diplomatic prestige take a hit over that lie?
I think not. But here we have the treasonous bastard himself sanctimoniously stating:
Politico
I think not. But here we have the treasonous bastard himself sanctimoniously stating:
Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable — if not impossible — national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration’s unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq.
But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.
Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.
Politico
Conflict of Political Interests?
I can't find anything online about this yet, but listening to Bill Bennett interviewing Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute this morning....Rubin states that he will be traveling to Ft Riley, KS and Ft Carson, CO to 'speak to the troops'. AEI's website appears to be down, but RightWeb profiles Rubin and his partisanship:
Imagine the hue and cry if a senior fellow of a noted left wing think tank were speaking to soldiers. Radical indoctrination! Marxist brainwashing! Politiszing the war!
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who served as a Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq during George W. Bush’s first term. An outspoken and controversial proponent of hawkish U.S. foreign policies, Rubin is closely associated with neoconservativism. His track record includes working for a number of rightwing Israel-centric groups (including AEI, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Middle East Forum), championing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, suggesting assassinating foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, reportedly misrepresenting translations of statements by Iranian officials, working at the heavily criticized Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP), and consulting for the Lincoln Group, a PR firm accused of planting propaganda in the Iraqi press.
Since the election of Barack Obama, Rubin has proved a relentless critic of the president in op-eds published in rightist outlets like the National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. In a November 6, 2009 op-ed, Rubin joined a chorus of conservative writers like Newt Gingrich in lambasting Obama for not attending ceremonies celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall, making the outlandish claim that this was a sign of “American isolation and weakness.” He wrote, “Pres. Barack Obama's decision not to celebrate one of the seminal events of the 20th century … [is] replete with symbolism. … I'm afraid that Obama does not understand how important his refusal to attend commemoration events will be, not only to those still suffering under the yoke of oppression, but also to adversaries who see American isolation and weakness as a phenomenon to be exploited.”
Rubin has repeatedly chastised Obama on Iran policy. In an October 2009 op-ed, Rubin charged that Obama’s insistence on pursuing a diplomatic process in the context of the P5+1 group of states would not halt Iran’s nuclear program, and would ultimately “leave Israel with no choice” but to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.
Rubin also blasted Obama for his decision to extend constitutional rights to suspected terrorists and try their cases in civilian courts, making the legally dubious argument that the Geneva Conventions do not “fully apply”—this despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against the George W. Bush administration’s argument that the conventions do not apply to so-called unlawful combatants. Rubin opined, nevertheless, that Obama’s decision “undermined national security and eroded the foundation of human rights law.”
Imagine the hue and cry if a senior fellow of a noted left wing think tank were speaking to soldiers. Radical indoctrination! Marxist brainwashing! Politiszing the war!
Tonight is the night
That President Obama loses any goodwill from the Constitution Insurgent. I don't care much for him and certainly didn't vote for him....but I held out hope that he might at least stem the tide of foreign interventionism and degradation of our national security.
Such will not be the case. Instead, Obama will have his LBJ moment. The moment where he could have shown true leadership instead of political cowardice. He continues to allow special interests to dominate public opinion and punditry on the airwaves, without bringing the narrative of reality to counter it.
He will tonight talk of security and sacrifice; of destroying Al Qaeda and establishing democracy in Afghanistan. And it's all tripe.
Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan; they're everywhere else. Pakistan doesn't welcome this escalation. The Karzai Regime is corrupt and illegitimate.
Aside from the military and their families, is anyone sacrificing? Is anyone doing their part or doing without in this endeavor that is trumpeted to be such a calamitous threat to America itself? This underscores the hypocrisy of the Long War. It is at once both a dire threat to national security and the American way of life and such a non-issue that money need not be raised, bonds not be sold, national service need not be asked, etc... We are told simply to 'go shopping'. This 'war' [in Afghanistan] merely props up continued corruption and sets up a condition where the state will be unable to sustain itself if we ever leave. All while providing them free health care and your tax dollars. Add to this, the think tanks and companies that are making money hand over fist...and...have influence on policy and opinion. The invasion of Iraq was a fraud of epic proportions. The current endeavor is the epitome of fraud...both fiscal and intellectual. Any 'war' where we have taken the bait and played by the enemy's rules is fraud. Any 'war' where we consistently cannot define a mission, much less a metric for victory is fraud. A 'we'll know it when we see it' benchmark is a dishonor to those serving and those who have fallen.
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece today on the eerie similarities between the justifications for escalation in Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan.
Such will not be the case. Instead, Obama will have his LBJ moment. The moment where he could have shown true leadership instead of political cowardice. He continues to allow special interests to dominate public opinion and punditry on the airwaves, without bringing the narrative of reality to counter it.
He will tonight talk of security and sacrifice; of destroying Al Qaeda and establishing democracy in Afghanistan. And it's all tripe.
Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan; they're everywhere else. Pakistan doesn't welcome this escalation. The Karzai Regime is corrupt and illegitimate.
Aside from the military and their families, is anyone sacrificing? Is anyone doing their part or doing without in this endeavor that is trumpeted to be such a calamitous threat to America itself? This underscores the hypocrisy of the Long War. It is at once both a dire threat to national security and the American way of life and such a non-issue that money need not be raised, bonds not be sold, national service need not be asked, etc... We are told simply to 'go shopping'. This 'war' [in Afghanistan] merely props up continued corruption and sets up a condition where the state will be unable to sustain itself if we ever leave. All while providing them free health care and your tax dollars. Add to this, the think tanks and companies that are making money hand over fist...and...have influence on policy and opinion. The invasion of Iraq was a fraud of epic proportions. The current endeavor is the epitome of fraud...both fiscal and intellectual. Any 'war' where we have taken the bait and played by the enemy's rules is fraud. Any 'war' where we consistently cannot define a mission, much less a metric for victory is fraud. A 'we'll know it when we see it' benchmark is a dishonor to those serving and those who have fallen.
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece today on the eerie similarities between the justifications for escalation in Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan.
In order to prepare Americans for Obama's Afghanistan escalation speech tonight at West Point (at least he's not wearing a fighter pilot costume), White House officials have been dispatched to speak to the media (anonymously, of course) to preview all of the new and exciting aspects of the President's plan. As a result, media accounts are filled with claims that there are major changes ordered by Obama that will transform our approach there.
But to anyone with a memory that extends back for more than a few weeks, all of this seems anything but new. In December, 2007, George Bush delivered a speech to the nation announcing his escalation in Iraq -- that one only 20,000 troops, compared to the 30,000-40,000 Obama has ordered for Afghanistan. It's worthwhile to compare what Obama officials are excitedly featuring as new and innovative ideas with what Bush said; I'm not comparing the Iraq and Afghan escalations: only the rhetoric used to justify them.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Has the 'War' reached your town yet?
Horde your bibles and hide your children...godless heathens are descending once again!! It's that time of year again, when the holier than the holier than thou start squawking when they don't see a total saturation of their religious holiday across our multi-cultural and religiously diverse land. A land without a state sponsored religion I might add......much to the chagrin of the chosen ones.
This year, the decadent and evil American Humanist Organization has launched an ad campaign that ***gasp*** implores people to "Be Good...For Goodness' Sake". The nerve of them, asking people to treat others well and kindly...without the oversight of an invisible sky wizard!
Well....the mis-named Liberty Council is having none of that! If you have the twisted desire to visit their website...don't forget to check out their 'Naughty or Nice' list, where they segregate commercial companies who don't mention 'Christmas' at all or as often as the holy believe is required.
Err.....what century do we live in again?
This year, the decadent and evil American Humanist Organization has launched an ad campaign that ***gasp*** implores people to "Be Good...For Goodness' Sake". The nerve of them, asking people to treat others well and kindly...without the oversight of an invisible sky wizard!
This year's holiday campaign aims to promote the idea of being good without God. For example, on D.C. ads that appear on the interior of Metro cars and buses the slogan is accompanied by the explanation, "Be Good for Goodness' Sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God."
"Humanists have always understood that striving to make the world a better place is one of humanity's most important responsibilities," said Speckhardt. "Religion does not have a monopoly on morality--millions of people are good without believing in God."
Well....the mis-named Liberty Council is having none of that! If you have the twisted desire to visit their website...don't forget to check out their 'Naughty or Nice' list, where they segregate commercial companies who don't mention 'Christmas' at all or as often as the holy believe is required.
The American Humanist Association is waging war against Christmas, but its temper tantrum is doomed to fail. Most Americans believe in God and celebrate Christmas.
Liberty Counsel is fighting back with our seventh annual Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign, which is designed to educate and, if necessary, to litigate to make sure that Christian aspects of Christmas are not censored.
As part of the campaign, we have included our "Naughty & Nice List" of stores that either censor or recognize Christmas. We thank God for this campaign's successfulness.
Err.....what century do we live in again?
Nuclear Beer!
Now if I could only figure out what 35 Pounds exchanges to in dollars......
The BrewDog team have pulled off our most audacious and ambitious project to date, and smashed a world record in the process. We have today, Thursday 26 November 2009, set a new world record after creating the strongest beer in the world. Weighing in at an ABV of 32%, BrewDog’s ‘Tactical Nuclear Penguin’ beats the previous record of 31% held by German beer brand Schorschbraer.
The BrewDog team have pulled off our most audacious and ambitious project to date, and smashed a world record in the process. We have today, Thursday 26 November 2009, set a new world record after creating the strongest beer in the world. Weighing in at an ABV of 32%, BrewDog’s ‘Tactical Nuclear Penguin’ beats the previous record of 31% held by German beer brand Schorschbraer.
This beer is bold, irreverent and uncompromising. A beer with a soul and a purpose. A statement of intent. A modern day rebellion for the craft beer proletariat in our struggle to over throw the faceless bourgeoisie oppression of corporate, soulless beer.’
The Antarctic name inducing schizophrenia of this uber-imperial stout originates from the amount of time it spent exposed to extreme cold. This beer began life as a 10% imperial stout 18 months ago. The beer was aged for 8 months in an Isle of Arran whisky cask and 8 months in an Islay cask making it our first double cask aged beer. After an intense 16 month, the final stages took a ground breaking approach by storing the beer at -20 degrees for three weeks to get it to 32%.
For the big chill the beer was put into containers and transported to the cold store of a local ice cream factory where it endured 21 days at penguin temperatures. Alcohol freezes at a lower temperature than water. As the beer got colder BrewDog Chief Engineer, Steven Sutherland decanted the beer periodically, only ice was left in the container, creating more intensity of flavours and a stronger concentration of alcohol for the next phase of freezing. The process was repeated until it reached 32%.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
This....
But....but...what would happen if we just withdrew??
Wouldn't Al Qaeda simply roll back in and attack us again? Wouldn't we look impotent on the world stage?
No and No. After a withdrawal...and if....Al Qaeda tried to re-establish themselves in Afghanistan, we have a myriad of options at our disposal that are far more lethal and far more conservative than perpetual occupation.
Remember....we're not even fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan....we're fighting the 'Taliban' [entities]...who didn't attack us, don't have global jihad aspirations, and simply want us to leave. Why again are our sons and daughters fighting and dying there?
To start, we now have an incredibly detailed picture of the human and geographical terrain in Afghanistan, compared to September 2001. With that, we have HUMINT sources, SIGINT signatures and IMINT data to detail any occurrence of a 'training camp' being established post-withdrawal. Every arm of our military can contribute to a post-withdrawal reaction force, should Al Qaeda attempt to establish itself again [though nobody has anything beyond hypothesis that this would even occur, as AQ has the same information that I just posted above]. Having Al Qaeda back in Afghanistan would actually be to our great benefit, as they could then be interdicted. That's the myth of a 'safe haven'. Terrorism 101: establish a static position, and you are vulnerable to attack.
Predators already fly out of bases near Islamabad and in Uzbekistan. Army Special Forces would continue to aid the Karzai regime, or in the event of a coup, tribes that would be anti-Taliban [as we did with the Northern Alliance with great effect]. SF teams, Navy SEALS, MARSOC and three Ranger Battalions are all trained to strike and interdict in a non-permissive environment from Carrier Task Groups or friendly airbases. And Special Mission Units (SMU's) are an even more highly trained and specially focused element to conduct HVT grabs, raids and ambushes. Airspace permissiveness is not really an issue beyond Stinger and other manportable air defense systems that the Taliban already possesses.
The savings in terms of dollars, manpower and most importantly lives, would be tremendous for obvious reasons, but also the not so obvious, such as force Protection, which eats up an enormous chunk of the war budget and manpower.
If Al Qaeda returns and holds ground in Afghanistan, we have every opportunity to strike at them. Host government authorization doesn't appear to be an impediment, as we are striking with impunity inside Pakistan, while the government outwardly condemns them.
No and No. After a withdrawal...and if....Al Qaeda tried to re-establish themselves in Afghanistan, we have a myriad of options at our disposal that are far more lethal and far more conservative than perpetual occupation.
Remember....we're not even fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan....we're fighting the 'Taliban' [entities]...who didn't attack us, don't have global jihad aspirations, and simply want us to leave. Why again are our sons and daughters fighting and dying there?
To start, we now have an incredibly detailed picture of the human and geographical terrain in Afghanistan, compared to September 2001. With that, we have HUMINT sources, SIGINT signatures and IMINT data to detail any occurrence of a 'training camp' being established post-withdrawal. Every arm of our military can contribute to a post-withdrawal reaction force, should Al Qaeda attempt to establish itself again [though nobody has anything beyond hypothesis that this would even occur, as AQ has the same information that I just posted above]. Having Al Qaeda back in Afghanistan would actually be to our great benefit, as they could then be interdicted. That's the myth of a 'safe haven'. Terrorism 101: establish a static position, and you are vulnerable to attack.
Predators already fly out of bases near Islamabad and in Uzbekistan. Army Special Forces would continue to aid the Karzai regime, or in the event of a coup, tribes that would be anti-Taliban [as we did with the Northern Alliance with great effect]. SF teams, Navy SEALS, MARSOC and three Ranger Battalions are all trained to strike and interdict in a non-permissive environment from Carrier Task Groups or friendly airbases. And Special Mission Units (SMU's) are an even more highly trained and specially focused element to conduct HVT grabs, raids and ambushes. Airspace permissiveness is not really an issue beyond Stinger and other manportable air defense systems that the Taliban already possesses.
The savings in terms of dollars, manpower and most importantly lives, would be tremendous for obvious reasons, but also the not so obvious, such as force Protection, which eats up an enormous chunk of the war budget and manpower.
If Al Qaeda returns and holds ground in Afghanistan, we have every opportunity to strike at them. Host government authorization doesn't appear to be an impediment, as we are striking with impunity inside Pakistan, while the government outwardly condemns them.
Palin's Army
Here is yet another [of a wide library] video of Sarah Palin supporters, gathered outside of a Border's bookstore for one of her signings. Now the typical right wing response will be...."but this leftist video only showed embarrassing comments...."
OK....but after perusing YouTube and right wing blogs.....where are the informed, intelligent and cogent supporters??? Where are the people who can accurately sum up Palin's qualities and policy platforms?
This is your America......if it weren't so early [and the fact that I'm at work].....I would be drinking already, after watching this travesty.
OK....but after perusing YouTube and right wing blogs.....where are the informed, intelligent and cogent supporters??? Where are the people who can accurately sum up Palin's qualities and policy platforms?
This is your America......if it weren't so early [and the fact that I'm at work].....I would be drinking already, after watching this travesty.
The Importance of Words
I usually flip the radio dial between Bill Press and Bill Bennett on my morning commute. This morning Bennett touched on one of his favorite themes, the importance of words. As I listened, I was struck by the hypocrisy of a faction of antagonists in the misnomered 'war on terror' saga.
Terror cells, and Al Qaeda in particular, deem themselves warriors in an armed struggle against their foe.....in this instance the decadent west. They believe they fight a holy war and that they are soldiers in every sense of the word. They take honor in that role.
For purposes of this conversation, I'll distill the American characters into two factions, the realists and the nihilists. The realists attempt to understand terror groups in order to subvert and eliminate them. The nihilists choose brute military force to quash them....believing that to understand them is to show sympathy with their cause. But the nihilists are hypocrites [for more reasons than need be expressed here] in their use of words; which is ironic, as they place so much emphasis on words and their effect on the masses.
Nihilists foremost want a 'war' on anything they oppose. When they feel slighted or under scrutiny, they proclaim a 'war' against them. No realist has ever declared 'war on Christmas'. Nihilists wish for terror suspects to be held as POW's, yet not treated as POW's; they place great stock in the fact that Al Qaeda declared 'war' on the west....though that is about as successful as our own 'war on drugs'. Nihilists call 9/11 a mass murder....and label the perpetrators as murderers and thugs. But Nihilists want terrorists tried by military tribunal, even though this legitimizes the terrorist claims of being a soldier.
Realists understand that calling this operation a 'war on terror', using massive military force against terror cells and trying terrorists under military means......all legitimizes the struggle in the minds of the terrorists themselves.....and more importantly, future recruits and benefactors. Realists also understand that terrorism is a crime by Federal Statute...and that treating the suspects as criminals using our Justice system is a far more lethal blow to morale.
So is this hypocrisy the work of fearmongering or simple ineptitude? Is it calculated propaganda to stir the semi-ignorant masses of mouth breathers, or is it semantic laziness? Given the nihilists history of 'freedom fries'.......I opt for door number one.
Terror cells, and Al Qaeda in particular, deem themselves warriors in an armed struggle against their foe.....in this instance the decadent west. They believe they fight a holy war and that they are soldiers in every sense of the word. They take honor in that role.
For purposes of this conversation, I'll distill the American characters into two factions, the realists and the nihilists. The realists attempt to understand terror groups in order to subvert and eliminate them. The nihilists choose brute military force to quash them....believing that to understand them is to show sympathy with their cause. But the nihilists are hypocrites [for more reasons than need be expressed here] in their use of words; which is ironic, as they place so much emphasis on words and their effect on the masses.
Nihilists foremost want a 'war' on anything they oppose. When they feel slighted or under scrutiny, they proclaim a 'war' against them. No realist has ever declared 'war on Christmas'. Nihilists wish for terror suspects to be held as POW's, yet not treated as POW's; they place great stock in the fact that Al Qaeda declared 'war' on the west....though that is about as successful as our own 'war on drugs'. Nihilists call 9/11 a mass murder....and label the perpetrators as murderers and thugs. But Nihilists want terrorists tried by military tribunal, even though this legitimizes the terrorist claims of being a soldier.
Realists understand that calling this operation a 'war on terror', using massive military force against terror cells and trying terrorists under military means......all legitimizes the struggle in the minds of the terrorists themselves.....and more importantly, future recruits and benefactors. Realists also understand that terrorism is a crime by Federal Statute...and that treating the suspects as criminals using our Justice system is a far more lethal blow to morale.
So is this hypocrisy the work of fearmongering or simple ineptitude? Is it calculated propaganda to stir the semi-ignorant masses of mouth breathers, or is it semantic laziness? Given the nihilists history of 'freedom fries'.......I opt for door number one.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Who Knew?
The allegedly "ultra-liberal" New York Times features a blog called Home Fires, highlighting the writings of veterans who have returned from war. Now part of my daily reading list......won't my boss be happy...
The Army, and especially the infantry, gives its junior leaders tremendous responsibility. The rough world of the 82nd Airborne Division was a steep learning curve for me, a freshly minted lieutenant accustomed to the studious habits of Stanford University, of its School of Engineering, no less. I learned an awful lot and, I think, emerged a better person.
More recently, I’ve realized some of my beliefs have formed so slowly and subtly that their learning has been entirely unappreciated. I’ve learned that no matter what, life goes on — it’ll do so with or without any one of us — and I’ve found a measure of respect for selfishness; for people who look out for themselves and their lives yet to come. This is surely cynical.
If there’s redemption in the selfishness, it has to do with loving life, with respecting yourself enough not to end your days prematurely or in futile pursuits. Yes, I said it. Somewhere between my second and third tours, I came to believe that our foreign, undeclared wars flouted our Constitution and made us less safe — from terrorism, from debt and from tyranny at home. Believing this wasn’t easy, but I couldn’t help it. Without faith in our military endeavors, my long-held notions about duty, heroism and fighting the good fight didn’t survive long.
I think you’re only a hero for as long as your image is useful, as evidenced most dramatically by then-Major George S. Patton’s cavalry charge against World War I veterans protesting for their pay in 1932, and General Douglas MacArthur’s zeal in pursuing them across the Anacostia River even after President Hoover ordered an end to the assault. If you’re not troubled by history, you’re not studying it correctly. Let’s choose our role models carefully.
Obama caves on Afghanistan
McClatchy is reporting that Obama will announce on 1 December, the decision to send an additional 34000 soldiers to Afghanistan.
The Monday evening meeting was the ninth that Obama has held on the crisis in Afghanistan, where the worsening war entered its ninth year last month. This year has seen violence reach unprecedented levels as the Taliban and allied groups have gained strength and expanded their reach.
A U.S. military official used the term "decisional" to describe Monday evening's meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.
The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
So continues a long American tradition (dating back to the insurgency battles in the Philippines) of the United States committing troops [or escalating in this case] against an enemy who neither attacked us nor poses a security threat to us. This decision spotlights the Obama Administration as decidedly un-liberal and bringing about little to no 'hope' or 'change'.
This decision further taxes our already worn military establishment, allowing for nearly no reserves in contingency.
This decision also comes amidst our ironically recent tradition of funding and supporting our own enemies.
No word yet on any substantial strategy shift from the Administration.......but as we have not yet defined the mission......after eight years.....what's the point right? War seems to be good business.
In a related note House Appropriations Chairman David Obey has called for a 'war surtax' to fund the ongoing....and going.....and going....effort.
"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
ABC
Normally, I'm set against almost any new taxes....but as we have not been asked to mobilize, sacrifice or contribute to this allegedly vital effort.....maybe it's times this splendid little adventure hits it's ardent [and armchair] supporters where it hurts.
Strangely...Mr. HopeandChange states today.....
Signaling he's decided on new troop levels for the Afghanistan war, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he intends to "finish the job" on his watch and destroy terrorist networks in the region.
AP
As Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan [save a few footsoldiers/forward observers], how are more troops in Afghanistan going to accomplish that?
The Monday evening meeting was the ninth that Obama has held on the crisis in Afghanistan, where the worsening war entered its ninth year last month. This year has seen violence reach unprecedented levels as the Taliban and allied groups have gained strength and expanded their reach.
A U.S. military official used the term "decisional" to describe Monday evening's meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.
The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
So continues a long American tradition (dating back to the insurgency battles in the Philippines) of the United States committing troops [or escalating in this case] against an enemy who neither attacked us nor poses a security threat to us. This decision spotlights the Obama Administration as decidedly un-liberal and bringing about little to no 'hope' or 'change'.
This decision further taxes our already worn military establishment, allowing for nearly no reserves in contingency.
This decision also comes amidst our ironically recent tradition of funding and supporting our own enemies.
No word yet on any substantial strategy shift from the Administration.......but as we have not yet defined the mission......after eight years.....what's the point right? War seems to be good business.
In a related note House Appropriations Chairman David Obey has called for a 'war surtax' to fund the ongoing....and going.....and going....effort.
"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
ABC
Normally, I'm set against almost any new taxes....but as we have not been asked to mobilize, sacrifice or contribute to this allegedly vital effort.....maybe it's times this splendid little adventure hits it's ardent [and armchair] supporters where it hurts.
Strangely...Mr. HopeandChange states today.....
Signaling he's decided on new troop levels for the Afghanistan war, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he intends to "finish the job" on his watch and destroy terrorist networks in the region.
AP
As Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan [save a few footsoldiers/forward observers], how are more troops in Afghanistan going to accomplish that?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Another group whose sole mission is to be offended
A Christian group says it is boycotting the Gap and its brands Old Navy and Banana Republic because they feel the company's holiday TV ads are "offensive," Brand Week reports .
The American Family Association (AFA) reportedly feels that the lighthearted ads poke fun at religion (Watch the ad below).
Gap has been criticized by the AFA in the past for not using the word Christmas in its holiday ads, but this year's version features the line, "Go Christmas, Go Hanukkah, Go Kwanzaa, Go Solstice."
Randy Sharp, a rep for the AFA, doesn't feel the ad is in good taste, however. "It looks like an attempt to patronize people," he said. "What they did was almost make a joke of it."
Gap said its campaign was designed to include all people. A Gap representative told Brand Week that the company "is and has always been an inclusive, accessible brand in which everyone can participate and we embrace diversity across all of our customers, and more importantly respect their beliefs as individuals. ... We focus our marketing on the joys of the holiday season as a whole."
I guess some people won't ever be happy unless we live in a repressive theocracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
