Iraq

Obama And The Tipping Point

March 30, 2011 by Daniel

There is no denying that America is facing a tipping point. And, at some point, enough will have been enough. But, on which front? Troops are still engaged in operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they face a possible operation in Libya as the turmoil continues.

Look, everyone knows that Qaddafi is a mad-man. He has killed his own people, and will continue as long as he is around. So, what does the future hold? Well, as fate would have it, we have a model that isn’t that old. And, if things continue the way some say, we are following it almost to a tee.

In 1991 we ‘stopped’ Saddam, but he stayed in power. What happened next? Well . . . We’re still there. We finally went in and got him, and now he’s a goner. But, with all the money that was spent to get him and liberate the Iraqis, and all the money that we are having to spend to re-build the country, we are amounting a huge amount of debt. And that’s exactly what they want. Hit us where it hurts, and that is in the pocket.

Well, the Iraq war was sold as a short strategic mission. Same as what we are told about Libya. Oops! Sorry, a ‘kinetic military action.’ What’s the difference? Nothing! One is simple to define, while the other is just an Orwellian attempt to appear neutral.

And, that neutrality is what will lead to the tipping point of sending in ground troops. Which questions, Why Libya? (Couldn’t he have just told the United Nations to take a hike?) The answer is simple. It is a strategy by the Obama machine to gain some level of popularity in an unfavorable upcoming 2012 election. His action, or lack of in most cases, is almost a mirror image of Bush. All that he opposed for Iraq, is leading him to accept the fact that his foreign policy approach to apologize is one if ignorance.

With so much Middle Eastern turmoil, and lack of direction from Obama, and his administration, in his laid back ideology has brought America to its knees. Once seen as a dominant global superpower, America is now seen as the whipped sister that the left has wished her to be for years.

So, as it seems, America has finally reached a tipping point as Obama; the Emperor without clothes has humpty-dumptied his way off the great wall, and is dithering his way off the golf course and into campaign mode, and for what? A kinetic military action, aka war, without any real direction to save himself for a 2012 run?

The Tragedy at Ft. Hood on More Than One Front

November 7, 2009 by Daniel

There is no denying that what happened the other day at Ft. Hood was a tragedy. However, it is the underlying issues that face this a tragedy on more than one front.

Ask anyone and they will tell you that their thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost a loved one and also with those who were injured by this act of terrorism. But most people, especially those in the media, will say that is where this ends. But it doesn’t.

As said before, this is a multi-faced tragedy. The media is trying to portray Nidal Malik Hasan as the enraged victim. The only way he is the victim is that he was shot in order to stop the assault. Now he is laying in intensive care, probably against his jihadist wishes, hooked to a life-saving ventilator.

You see, that is where the line gets fuzzy with many people. That being referring to Hasan as what he really is, a radical Muslim extremist. To deny that fact would be to deny that those 13 people didn’t die by gun shot.

Fox News – Witnesses to Fort Hood Shootings Tell Tales of Horror, Heroism

As a psychiatrist, Hasan, 39, had listened to soldiers’ tales of horror. Now, the American-born Muslim was facing imminent deployment to Afghanistan. In recent days, Hasan had been saying goodbye to friends. He had given away many of his possessions, including copies of the Holy Koran.

At 2:37 a.m. Thursday and again around 5, Hasan called neighbor Willie Bell. Bell could normally hear Hasan’s morning prayers through the thin apartment walls, but Hasan skipped the ritual Thursday.

Bell didn’t pick up either time, but Hasan left a message.

“Nice knowing you, old friend,” Hasan said. “I’m going to miss you.”

About an hour later, surveillance cameras at a 7-Eleven across from the base captured images of a smiling Hasan, dressed in a long white garment and white kufi prayer cap, buying his usual breakfast — coffee and a hash brown.

At the processing center on the southern edge of the 100,000-acre base, soldiers returning from overseas mingled with colleagues filling out forms and undergoing medical tests in preparation for deployment.

Around 1:30 p.m., witnesses say a man later identified as Hasan jumped up on a desk and shouted the words “Allahu Akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great!” He was armed with two pistols, one a semiautomatic capable of firing up to 20 rounds without reloading.

So how does one go about making the claim of calling Hasan a Muslim extremist? Simple. Take a look again at the facts. He had obviously planned this attack, all be it small or large. He planned an attack. He was giving away his possessions. He was passing out copies of the Koran. Phone calls to some of those whom he felt most closest to at abnormal times in the middle of the night. Only a radical idealist would do this.

He is a devout and heavily practicing Muslim. That in itself is not extreme. The beauty of being an American is that you can freely practice whatever religion you want to. Same with Hasan. He freely studied being Muslim. What is extreme is climbing on a desk, guns in hands, and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” Granted, God is great, but radical Muslim extremists shout out “Allahu Akbar” when they begin their assault. Same as Hasan. He is a radical Muslim extremist.

Another front of this tradgety is that this attack happened on U.S. soil, on a military installation (Ft. Hood), by a U.S. soldier. Now the threat has been introduced to within the ranks of the U.S. military.

The Hill – Top GOP recruit says Ft. Hood shooting shows ‘enemy is infiltrating our military’

A top Republican congressional recruit said on Friday that the shooting at Ft. Hood, Texas yesterday by a solider allegedly sympathetic to suicide bombers shows that the “enemy is infiltrating our military.”

Allen West (R-Fla.), a retired military colonel who served as a commander at the Texas base, said in a release that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s attack may indicate a broader effort by Islamic extremists to recruit downtrodden members of the military.

“This enemy preys on downtrodden soldiers and teaches them extremism will lift them up,” West said in a statement. “Our soldiers are being brainwashed.”

The release added that West claims “the horrible tragedy at Fort Hood is proof the enemy is infiltrating our military.”

In Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, he says: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. . . Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.”

How true those ancient words are still relevant today. When near, seem far way; when unprepared, appear unexpected. To echo Mr. Allen West, this “is proof the enemy is infultrating our military.” Reguardless if Hasan was being teased about being Muslim, it is his being Muslim that opened him to the extreme “teachings” and “brainwashing” of our enemies. This does not give anyone the right to go on a murderous spree killing 13 fellow soldiers and wounding 30 more.

Even if Hasan was not contacted to act in this manner, it does not cancel the idea that he was acting on behalf of the extremist ideology. He had been red-flagged by the military for over six months. Also, in that same period of time, he was making comments on blog posts in a manner that showed his support for terrorism and the ideology that followed.

Another front of this tradgety is people again painting him the victim saying that he was suffering from Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) because he had been the psychiatrist for many returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. Only one problem with that arguement. He NEVER served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any place else for that matter. How does one suffer from PTSD without ever serving in combat? Yes, he had heard a lot. Yes, he had seen soldiers in pain. Had he suffered? It is different. He didn’t suffer from PTSD. That sounds like more of a copout than truely addressing the real issue. He is a radical Muslim extremist!

To sum all of this up, he is a radical Muslim extremist. The media is waging a multi-faced front on the issue. Too many people are too concerned about labeling him for what he is. Let the facts speek for themselves. Nidal Malik Hasan: Radical Muslim Extremist!

For more commentary:

Afghanistan: From Strategy to Comparison

October 11, 2009 by Daniel

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.

Afghanistan The Next Vietnam

September 7, 2009 by Daniel

The conflict in Afghanistan has proven more difficult to fight recently, even with an increase of American troops. Which has been a cause for conflict among some. For others, they are left wondering whether or not we learned from history, or if we are permitting it to repeat itself.

It is well known that President Barack Obama was in total opposition of the troop surge in Iraq, as well as opposing the republican lead war. Most would agree that it was a war fought along political party lines. Most democrats were against the war in Iraq while republicans were supportive. There is no secret that party officials oppose the other side when it comes to war, unless they are the one leading the effort.

In Vietnam, America was lead to war by a democratic president with opposition coming from the republican party. By the time things began taking a turn for the worst, a republican had taken office and the streets were filled with protesters. They protested everything from the amount of troops that were dying to that it was an unnecessary war.

Either way you look at it, the arguments made a point. There was a large amount of casualties, and it did seem that it was an unnecessary war. Unnecessary in the fact that there seemed to be no true plan. The war wasn’t fought with a clear idea as to what the outcome would be. For many, this rings so true today with the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

With things taking course in Afghanistan, it seems that the Vietnam effect is in true form. It also seems that some history seems to be repeating itself along party lines. A war started by a republican administration, and taken over by a democratic administration has proven to be a challenge. In the start, it was obvious there was opposition with entering Afghanistan. However, things changed once the Obama Administration took charge. With a heavy focus on a draw-down of troop levels in Iraq, there was no sign that there would be an increase of troops in Afghanistan. Since the current administration took over, troop levels have doubled in size and there has been an influx of casualties.

The Vietnam effect doesn’t stop there. As in the past, the administration has no real objective. There has been no real objective other than to get the elusive Osama bin Laden. Is the objective to place a centralized government into operation? If so, then the effort is useless. History has shown that the Afghan people reject this proposal. They have never had a centralized government like what is practiced in America, and it appears as though they never will.

In the ’80’s, Russia made a serious attempt to change the way Afghanistan runs itself. As then, things are proving to be more difficult than expected. However, Mikhail Gorbachev, then Russian leader, was accepting to the fact that they would ultimately not win the engagement. Something the Obama administration seems unwilling to accept, defeat.

Gorbachev, and his administration, saw the course and withdrew his troops from a decade of fighting. American troops have been in the region for almost the same time, however they will soon see an infusion of more troops. As in Vietnam, when things seemed against America, efforts were increased. Only to later be withdrawn in haste.

Vietnam was a heavy burden on America that caused a huge political divide. The conflict in Afghanistan seems to be taking the same course. Facing a political divide, and a huge deficit, the war is taking a turn for the worse. Public opinion is not as divided, but the majority is now against the effort. Deficits amount on an already bankrupt nation. Troop levels are on the rise, as well as casualties.

The Obama administration is not willing to accept defeat, at any level. Things could only get worse before they get better. With the majority of the people against the war, and unfavorable poll numbers toward President Obama, many are left questioning what the administration will do next.