The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

assessment

The Systemic Failure to Connect the Dots

by

President Obama keeps refering to the attempted attack by the crotch bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a systemic failure. However, what he is failing to admit is that he is the system. His administration is his system. So yes, this is a failure of his system and administration to keep the people safe.

Obama wanted an assessment as to what led to this attempted attack and what could be done in the future to prevent another act from happening.

That assessment is posted HERE.

The actions suggested for prevention are HERE.

The main theme to the assessment is that they failed to “connect the dots” with all the information that they already had. They admit that they had sufficient information prior to the attack that they could have possibly prevented it from happening.

What are some of the dots?

  • The major pieces of intelligence were collected between the months of October and December.
  • On Nov. 18, his father met with U.S. Embasy officers in Nigeria to express concern that his son was under the influence of extremists.

The main thing to take away from the Corrective Actions statement, is to try a little harder.

For more commentary:

Top 5 Political Issues of 2009

by

As the year comes to a close, a look back through the top five political issues of 2009 have definately sparked interest in many ways. It is not to say that these were the only issues, however this is a list of the most pressing and longest lasting issues.

5. Nuclear Iran

Iran has been, for many years, trying to obtain enough nuclear material to produce their own nuclear weapons. 2009 has proven to be a monumental year for Iran. They were secretly operating in a facility rapidly producing material at an alarming rate. Also, they got enough international interest that brought the most powerful nations together to attempt to bring an end to their nuclear weapon wishes.

4. Government Spending

As a roll-over issue from last year, the amount of government spending has definately been increased under the watchless eye of the Obama administration. In just one year, this administration has tripled the defecit with programs like TARP, stimulus packages and bank and business bailouts. The other side to this horendous spending spree, is that most all of it was financed and backed by China.

1. (3 way tie) Afghanistan War

At the very start of Obama’s presidency, he took a strong stance on the war in Afghanistan. With an initial strategy that wasn’t, he asked his hand-picked general, Gen. McChrystal, to give prepare an assessment. An assessment that was soon leaked to the media. Wasting time deciding on a direction, Obama finally announced that he would send a surge of troops and that the mission would be completed by 2011. This sparked a buzz among some that the troop surge was purely political, being that troops would be victoriously coming home in the middle of the 2012 elections.

1. (3 way tie) Health Care Reform

Among one of the most talked about items during the election was health care reform. Obama has now stated that this is something he wants passed by Christmas, a date that has been continuously pushed back as it faces more and more opposition. Opposition now coming from both sides of the isles. With a government take-over of an industry amounting to one-sixth of the economy, and a price tag in the trillions, health care reform is something talked about by mostly every American.

1. (3 way tie) Global Climate Change

The most highly talked about international issue at the close of 2009 is climate change. An industry built on manipulated science. Pending legislation being built on the same science has proved to be a costly change that many Americans are not willing to accept. At what point will action be taken to truely investigate and study the climate, without falsifying the numbers?

Certainly, the year has brought many issues. Some more pressing than others, and for the most part will be a deciding factor for 2010 also.

Top 3 Reasons The Obama Surge Fails

by

On tuesday, Dec. 1, President Obama finally decided on a direction for Afghanistan. Along with his decision, came many opinions on the speech. Everything from talking about how good or bad the delivery was, to how many troops, to why we need to continue efforts in Afghanistan.

Whether those opinions are of heavy value or not, in summary, here are the top 3 reasons why Obama’s plan fails.

1. Troop Levels

While it did take months to decide on a direction, his minimalistic approach to troop levels has been a concern since the leak of the General McChrystal assessment. The minimum number of troops requested by McChrystal was 40,000, but Obama will be deploying only 30,000. This alone demonstrates that Obama does not have complete trust in his General. This could be due to his lack of military service and what it truly takes to carry out a mission of the magnitude he expressed during the speech.

2. Time Tables

The announcement of time tables are a ridiculous way to fight a war, with the simple fact that you do not freely give your enemy a front row seat to what you will do and when you will do it. Now, not only does the enemy know how many more opposition they will encounter, but they also know when they will get there. Worse yet, they also know that after those 30,000 troops get there, they will only have to fight them for roughly a year or so.

The other side to the time table factor is that troops will begin deploying back home in the year 2011. The importance to that year is when troops begin coming back home, debate among 2012 presidentail candidates will be heavily engaged.

3. Political Influence

During his farwell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower offered a prophetic warning when he said:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

With application to what is being done in direction to Afhganistan, Obama is warrenting a misplaced power. A power, that in time of war, should and has fallen on the shoulders and conscience of the Generals in charge of battle. With total disregard to the needs of McChrystal, this will politically end disastrous as did Vietnam.

For more commentary:

Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy Announcement

by

President Obama has stated that he will announce his strategy for Afghanistan on December 1, which will be addressed at West Point. It has been reported on that he will likely announce a troop increase between 30,000 and 35,ooo. While this is less than what Gen. McChrystal requested earlier in his assessment, the major spotlight will probably be his exit strategy. All of which will ignite the debate on everything dealing with how you commit to a troop surge to formulating an exit strategy that will ultimately leave Afghanistan and its people in a better way than befor troops first entered country.

The committing to an increase of troops weighs heavily on previous assessments and studies that were presented to Obama. Most controvercial of these assessments was issued by Gen. McChrystal, which found its way leaked into the hands of the media. This itself has presented a hurdle for the Obama team. The very metrics that got the president elected – the social media powerhouses of Facebook and Twitter – have been the distracting factor in easily formulating a plan for Afghanistan. In what is termed “the war of leaks,” the Obama administration has been faced with numerous leaks of information that has forced them to continuously rewrite their strategy. 

The long-awaited plan from Obama has stirred a great deal of controversy, namely speaking how America would exit the Afghan territory. Whatever the announcement may be, one guarantee by Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, is that the war will not continue on for “another eight or nine years.” Reportedly, the upcomming announcement will include an exit strategy of “off-ramps,” points starting next June which could adopt a more limited strategy or even a halt of deployments.

The reported “off-ramp” strategy | McClatchy:

  • As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops. In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.
  • “We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that’s it,” the U.S. defense official said.
  • It’s “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.

Breast Cancer Screening Changes

by

Changes over breast cancer screenings are becoming quite controvercial by some, even saying that the effects of the proposed health care reform is already taking shape. So what exactly are the changes?

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

  • The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE).
  • The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years.
  • The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.

American Cancer Society Responds to Changes to USPSTF Mammography Guidelines

Below is a statement from Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer, American Cancer Society.“The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40. Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider. When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.”

For more of the statement, please click here.

Making Sense of New Mammography Recommendations

That fact that the USPSTF and the American Cancer Society now have different screening recommendations for women in their 40s simply reinforces the importance of educating yourself about the potential risks and benefits of screening, talking with your physician, and making the decision that’s right for you. This point is highlighted by the USPSTF, which notes “The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.”

My Personal Story

Fourteen years ago, at the age of 36, my mother was performing a self breast exam and found a lump. The worst thing a woman could find while doing an exam. Some of the most horrifying thoughts raced through her mind, only to be confirmed in a few weeks. That’s right. She had full on, heavily advanced stage breast cancer. The operation soon followed with a radical mastectomy, and chemo appointments soon filled her schedule. Fast forward through nine horrible years of cancer, having lost half of her intestines, and being bed-riden, she lost her life. At the age of 45, my mother passed away from breast cancer. She was a healthy person. She ate well. She was slightly active. However, the breast cancer didn’t care about any of that.

Ultimately, people will say these new guidelines aren’t all that bad. Then they will try to throw statistics at you. All you need to know, male and female, is to check yourself. Educate yourself on the proper way to perform a self breast exam. Husbands, help remind your spouse. Wives, help remind your spouse. The two of you could even help eachother.

Do not rely on someone else to do everything for you. Take an active role with your lives.

Obama Rejects Proposed Strategies for Afghanistan

by

Nov 11 has now come and gone, and so have all the proposals for action in Afghanistan. The hand-picked general submitted his assessment, which itself brought a good deal of controversy. However, General McChrystal was put on hold for Olympic bids, for Afghan elections, and even a few rounds of golf.

Now, it was commented in an previous post that if Obama delayed long enough, it would be cause enough to probe for yet another assessment. Well, enough time has passed that Obama is now asking for more information and direction that should be pursued. The absurdity in all of this is that if he knew how to act on pressing issues in a timely manner, this would not be an issue.

He has gone on record to say that this is his war. But there is one problem with that statement. He has continually shown absolutely NO ownership. The only things he’s been consistent on is putting off the direction needed, and that the troops are still in a dangerous way.

After announcing that none of the proposals would be chosen, instead he has embarked on a trip to Asia that will postpone the decision even longer if not until after Thanksgiving. The time has certainly come that something come to be in the way of a decision. The troops are waiting. The American people are waiting. The Afghan people are waiting.

For more commentary:

Afghanistan Awaits Tee Time Decision

by

Almost two months ago, General McChrystal submitted his assessment on the situation in Afghanistan along with some requests. His most debated request being a surge of troops in upwards of 40,000.

Still without a decision, President Obama has yet to signal what direction he wants to go with Afghanistan. However, this does not mean that he has not been busy.

USAToday reports that Obama is now tied with former President Bush when it comes to rounds of golf, matching him at 24 rounds. Barack has only been in office for 10 months, while Bush elected to stop playing after 2 years and 10 months.

While Obama has been busy teeing off on the links, he has at least been thinking of what his next actions will be, after an election run-off in Afghanistan.

Fox News reports:

The administration is debating whether to send tens of thousands more troops to the country, while the Afghan government is moving to hold a Nov. 7 runoff election between President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah. The runoff comes after complaints by international monitors of fraudulent voting in the first election. 

But, Obama’s critics say the time for him to make a decision is running out.

“Republicans want very much to support the president’s decision,” Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told “Fox News Sunday.” But he cited Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s own warning that U.S. and NATO forces may only have about one year before the insurgency’s momentum becomes irreversible. 

“It’s been more than two months since the recommendation went to the president. And Gen. McChrystal is talking about a 12-month time frame,” Kyl said. “So clearly time is of the essence here.”

Obama said to a group of Navy service men and women that he “will never rush the solemn decision of sending [troops] into harm’s way.”

The Waiting Game for Afghanistan

by

With the announcement of a run-off election for November 7 in Afghanistan, hopes for action by President Obama rise. Without having made one decision about future actions in Afghanistan, it looks as though a decision won’t be made any time soon.

So the question arises: Will Obama have waited too long to make a decision that he will order a new strategy assessment report?

Without pressure from either side, it may be possible. Another possibility would be his hand-picked commander, General McChrystal, to step down or be released from command. Without the support and trust of the President behind him, why wouldn’t he.

The problem Obama is facing is one of popularity. However, popular politics isn’t cutting it with the troops. They are the ones suffering and in need of help. Continuing to put pressure on NATO for support and troops isn’t going to cut it. It is time for Obama and his administration to step it up and decide whether they want to win or lose.

So far, many feel they are on track to lose.

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.

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