The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

National

Afghanistan Waits on Health Care Reform

by

Day in and day out, people turn on the news and hear more and more about the proposed health care reform, and how the President wants it done and passed in as little time as possible. True that there are things wrong with the health care system, but there are many more important issues on the table that continue to get brushed aside.

Health care this, health care that. Baucus bill here, Baucus bill there. What about taking a stance on the future of Afghanistan and whether or not to send more troops? This has become more of a game to the current administration. The only downfall to not taking action soon is that more and more American soldiers will continue to die at rediculous rates.

The time is over! It is time to decide on a direction for Afghanistan. Understanding the dificulties of politics, at some point one would question the President on when he would make his next move. Today’s delay comes way of waiting on election outcomes. True, it would be nice to have the backing of the incoming government to support any future steps. However, the major concern comes when the lives of not only Americans are in danger, but the Afghan people.

The pressure on health care has taken front stage before the lives of the American troops. American soldiers are continuing to die, while a new health care bill takes shape. The American troops should always come first! NOT health care reform!

Take a good look at history. How was America so victorious during WW2? The soldiers came first. America was behind it’s troops 100%! There wasn’t a health care bill being shoved through Washington at the time. Global Warming/Cooling wasn’t a hot topic. Failed government policies weren’t debated and blamed on the previous administration. NO! The troops came first. The President listened.

Afghanistan: From Strategy to Comparison

by

Among the most heavily debated issues in Washington, none is more prevalent than what the next steps and actions will be in Afghanistan. From an addition of 40.000 troops, to a slow and deliberate pullout of troops in favor of strategic air strikes, President Obama definitely has to make a difficult decision. A decision that many hope will not take too much longer, and one that will receive more attention than what it has in the last few weeks.

Whatever the decision shall be, Obama has another thing weighing down his shoulders with Afghanistan. That would be the parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam. In commentary at RAND Corporation that originally appeared at The Huffington Post, James Dobbins shares the same concern.

Here are a few things from his commentary that shed some light on this issue:

Beyond that, polls are showing that Americans are increasingly skeptical about this conflict, and citizens of other nations contributing troops, such as Britain, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, are even more negative.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Now that U.S. involvement in Iraq has finally begun to require fewer resources, Afghanistan is the new focus of American and European anti-war sentiment, and increasingly Obama’s critics are drawing on the analogy of Vietnam. They assert that the United States and its allies are bogged down in a long, inconclusive conflict in support of a corrupt and incompetent government against an elusive, popularly based enemy operating out of an untouchable cross-border sanctuary.

In fact, the two societies, Vietnamese and Afghan, and the two insurgencies, Viet Cong and Taliban, could hardly be more different. Yet the conflicts may, in the end, have a similar impact on American public opinion. And that could have a similar impact on their outcomes. The most decisive battles over Vietnam were fought for the heart and minds of the American people and the most decisive defeat was in the U.S. Congress. The contest for Afghanistan is now being conducted over this same terrain.

For years, the war in Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan. Obama has characterized Afghanistan as a war of necessity, in contrast to Iraq, a war of choice—and a bad one at that. Yet as controversy over Iraq fades, this comparison, perhaps accurate and certainly powerful in its time, has dwindling impact. In its place is a new controversy, Afghanistan as the new Vietnam.

There’s no debate about how that war turned out, but little agreement on why. The insurgency in South Vietnam had been reduced to manageable proportions by the time American troops departed in 1973. Counterinsurgency thus largely succeeded, yet the war was still lost when North Vietnam launched a conventional invasion in 1975. Vietnam thus offers material for both sides in current debate over troop levels in Afghanistan. Those who argue for a better resourced counterinsurgency campaign can point to the tactical and operations successes in Vietnam. Opponents recall the strategic failure.

To read Mr. Dobbins commentary in its entirety, please visit RAND Corporation.

Direction for Afghanistan Becoming Priority with Obama

by

In what President Obama refers to as “his war,” he is definitely taking his time deciding what direction to take the war in Afghanistan. Soon, he will be faced with making a decision that could either be victorious or one of defeat. Either way, one not to be taken lightly.

Someone else not taking the decision lightly is General McChrystal. Hand-picked by Obama, he was asked to deliver an assessment on the situation/progress in Afghanistan. His 66 page assessment was subsequently leaked to the media, and became somewhat of a source of controversy.

The most heat to date would be that didn’t go through the proper chain of command. There are proper measures that are to be taken in military structure. It doesn’t change depending on the amount of stripes you have, or how many stars you have. There is a chain of command that must be followed. However, this argument does nothing on the surface but stall the debate going on behind closed doors.

The debate is whether or not to follow the commanding general on the ground who sees first-hand what is happening, or go with a group of selected Republicans and Democrats who have put their heads together who think they have derived the greatest plan ever. Ask 100 different people on what they would do, and you would likely get 100 different answers. Everything from, “Pave the country” to “Nuke the damn place and show Iran that we mean business” to “Continue this hunt and peck operative that hasn’t proven anything yet.”

More consideration should be shown to Gen. McChrystal and what he proposes. But, Obama doesn’t want to look like the failure. He would rather have McChrystal take the fall. If McChrystal was smart, which he is, he would resign immediately if his demands are not met. Another reason for resignation would be that it would demonstrate Obama’s distrust in anyone, even the person he appointed to be in command.

So, certainly this is a very difficult situation for many. Even the enemy. Either choice would be a victory in their eyes. If troops are decreased, then they will view it as victorious as they did with Russia. If troops are increased, then another victory in that U.S. troops will be stretched so thin they would have a hard time being victorious in any other region if conflict were to escalate. If heavy bombing missions were to take place, then they would see it as a victory because Americans would be killing innocent men, women and children.

Time should be spent dissecting any and every option by the President. However, he should not be out gallivanting around begging for the 2016 Games to be held in Chicago. This, along with other issues plaguing the American people, should be top priority.

Obama Dumped by Olympic Committee for 2016

by

In Copenhagen, the decision was announced that the 2016 Olympics would be held in Rio de Janeiro and not to Chicago.

United States President Barack Obama campaigned for the 2016 Games to be held in his hometown, Chicago. Rejected in the first round, many were stunned by the announcement. Of those shocked, Senior Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper said, “The whole thing doesn’t make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote. To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving.”

From the White House, Obama said, “I’m proud I was able to come in and help make the case in person. I believe it’s always a worthwhile endeavor to promote and boost the United States of America and invite the world to see what we’re all about.”

One critic, GOP consultant Brad Blakeman said:

“It demeans the office. For the president to be reduced to the effect of the Billy Mays pitchman for the United States to get the Olympics for his home city of Chicago is just not something that presidents do. His priorities are screwed up and the American people are seeing that this president just doesn’t get the effects and importance of governing.”

General McChrystal’s Assessment In Afghanistan

by

U.S. Army General Stanley A. McChrystal submitted his initial assessment of the rising conflict in Afghanistan to President Barack Obama. Aside from the fact that this certain report was leaked to the media, this is nothing new. Commanders are always submitting their situation report (SITREP), or in this case, initial assessment as Gen. McChrystal has been in current command since June 15, 2009.

Assuming command of an already controversial conflict in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal observed that “The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted. Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating.” With a grasp of the overall attitude and direction, his assessment is full of information that would be useful to the administration in determining the future involvement of American forces.

Redefining the Fight

This is a different kind of fight. We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations in an environment that is uniquely complex.

Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population.

Not a stranger to desert warfare, as he was part of both Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, his understanding of history and the inner workings of classic counterinsurgency operations, Gen. McChrystal could be treading down a failed path similar to that of Vietnam. The two conflicts are similar in many ways. Both were highly debated conflicts in the start, and heavily contested during. The failed outcome of Vietnam, in many eyes, would not be a path many Americans are willing to go down.

Another commonality, their uniquely complex environments. Where Vietnam was intensely fought in the jungle, Afghanistan is being fought in the mountains and communities. While they are differing terrains, it is how difficult the discernment of friend and foe is that makes the terrain hard to make advancements. Fighting among the population was difficult in Vietnam, and is proving more and more arduous in the Afghan region. The protection of the people is the priority over seizing terrain or destroying insurgents.

Another similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam, are the short and long-term implications:

We face both a short and long-term fight. The long-term fight will require patience and commitment, but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive. Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insugency is no longer possible.

Over the last eight years, the American people has been somewhat patient. However, when defecits mount higher and higher for what seems to be an unending war, their commitment faulters and becomes null. A clear plan must devised to mesh the short-term yet decisive victories with the long-term goal of defeating the insurgency and restoring Afghanistan to its population.

To accomplish this measure, Gen. McChrystal proposes a focus be placed on two principle areas:

  1. Change the operational culture to connect with the people.
  2. Improve unity of effort and command.

Taking care of the people will most definately improve unity effort and command. Without the population focused on the effort to shield and protect them from the insurgents, there cannot be a relationship with the Afghan command and their unifying hand in controlling the violence. Certainly, taking care of the people will ease the burden on the command and their efforts.

Gen. McChrystal outlines that “These concepts are not new. However, implemented aggressivley, they will be revolutionary to our effectiveness.” Correct in that they are not new, but there is some doubt as to its effectiveness. With the majority of both Afghans and Americans in opposition of continuing operations, the outcome of any further actions, however aggressive they may be, would have to not only be sold to the Obama administration, but also to the people of Afghanistan and America. A joint effort on both fronts to combat the insurgents is what could show to be most effective and revolutionary.

General Stanley A. McChrystal’s Initial Assessment

European Missile Defense System Shelved by Obama

by

Departmentt of Defense discusses decision of European missile defense system.
Departmentt of Defense discusses decision of European missile defense system. Photo by Reuters.

President Barack Obama, along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced today that the longtime debated missile defense system would not be continued. The missile defense system would have been built in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The decision brought immediate criticism from Republicans. Ohio Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader said, “Scrapping the U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more then empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe. It shows a willful determination to continue ignoring the threat posed by some of the most dangerous regimes in the world, while taking one of the most important defenses against Iran off the table.”

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyle commented saying:

“Not only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the Cold War, when Eastern Europe was considered the domain of Russia.

“This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe. The message the administration sends today is clear: the United States will not stand behind its friends and views ‘re-setting’ relations with Russia more important.”

The Obama administration states that Russia was not the reason for scrapping the missile defense system, but that it was new intelligence about Iran and its short and middle range missiles with a lack of intercontinental ballistic capabilities.

In a secret report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it states that Iran has “sufficient information” and ability to make and deliver a nuclear weapon along with the development of a long range missile system.

The Russian government views the decision by Obama as “a victory for common sense.” Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russia’s Parliament, also went on to state “It another positive signal that we have received from Washington that makes the general climate very positive.”

Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev said, “We appreciate the responsible attitude of the President of the United States to implement our agreements. I am ready to continue the dialogue.”

While this missile defense system has been shelved by the Obama administration, it does not mean the area will be left without. The Department of Defense has developed a four-phased plan that would shield the area.

  • Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;
  • Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;
  • Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and
  • Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.

Obama went on to say, “Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program. Because our approach will be phased and adaptive, we will retain the flexibility to adjust and enhance our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve.”

 

Transcript of President Obama’s Remarks

White House Fact Sheet on the “Phased, Adaptive Approach”

Cybersecurity Act of 2009 a Test in Presidential Power

by

If it isn’t health care reform, it’s something else. Now it comes in the form of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, or S.773.

The controversy raised with this is that it gives the President control to shut down the internet if certain emergencies arise. On pages 43-44 of the 51 page bill states:

 

Some will see this as a non-issue. Others feel that it is a total violation on their freedoms. Those who seem most bothered by it, feel the President is creating too much power.

However, the President is doing his hardest to stimulate the job market with anything and everything he can get his hands on. Yes, even with the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 he will try to create jobs. On page 41 the bill says:

One decent thing in the bill overshadowed by the extended power of the President if this passes. While the debate over health care reform is still so rampant, there is great attention that should be paid to the other bills that surface during the debate.

“Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President’s designee, shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology of the feasibility of- (1)creating a market for cybersecurity risk management, including the creation of a system of civil liability and insurance (including government reinsurance)”

 “The President – (2)may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;”