Have You Forgotten?

How President Obama lost "big-time" to the Rolling Stone

From its very beginning, even in its very title, the Rolling Stone article The Runaway General never seriously pretended to be anything but a hit piece written to make Gen. McChyrstal and his staff look like a bunch of cartoon-ish clowns on the very verge of going full-tilt maverick.

The President had an obligation and a duty to be The Commander In Chief AND The President Of The United States in this affair, carefully weighing the evidence and carefully considering the consequences of his words and actions on our nation's interests, our efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In my judgment, he failed miserably when he accepted the General's resignation and with his remarks in the Rose Garden.

The Runaway General was an article written with the intent of creating a destructive division between the General and his state-side superiors. President Obama made the article succeed in that. President Obama gave the Rolling Stone the win, without even much of, or any real fight at all.

President Obama should have turned the situation around and made it clear that our success in Afghanistan was not going to be jeopardized by an over the top and ridiculous hit piece produced by a silly music magazine with its extremist attempt to make the General and his staff look like idiots.

The President could have then made the observation that while commanders in the field may have differences of opinions with their civilian leadership back home, they understand and are fully committed to our nations tradition and principle of the primacy of civilian leadership over the military.

He could have further remarked that it is natural for every General, and in fact, every President, to want to provide our soldiers with all of the tools, materials and troop levels necessary to assure overwhelming victory in the field, but it is the unfortunate nature of political reality that it is not always easy or even possible to provide as much material and personnel support to the troops in the field that we would all like. He could have made a half-humorous aside at this point that he is personally very glad that no shitty little Rolling Stone reporter has overheard and misreported his private complaints about the difficulties he has had in providing the military with everything that they have have asked for in their efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The President should have then berated those people in his Party and in the press who have tried to liken Gen. McChrystal to Gen. MacArthur, pointing out that at no point in any part of that stupid execrable article or in any other report about Gen. McChrystal from anywhere else, did he actively engage in the same kind of blatant and extra constitutional attempts to undermine the President's authority and our nations tradition of Civilian leadership of the military in any way or fashion resembling the excesses of General MacArthur.

The President should have then concluded by expressing his confidence in the abilities of Gen. McChrystal, his staff and his efforts to help make Afghanistan a successful, productive and peaceful nation.

Instead, Obama FUBARed it.

This was a Sister Souljah moment for President Obama and he flubbed it "big-time."

Do You Need A "Smoking Gun?"

See: Evidence Mounts for Taliban Role in Car Bomb Plot

One senior Obama administration official cautioned that “there are no smoking guns yet” that the Pakistani Taliban had directed the Times Square bombing. But others said that there were strong indications that Mr. Shahzad knew some members of the group and that they probably had a role in training him.

In a video on Sunday, the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing.

Before 911, there was a problem with connecting the dots.

After 911, there was an outcry of rage over the fact that the dots were not connected.

Smoking guns and connecting the dots.

In the world of 910, we thought like lawyers, needing rock solid irrefutable evidence in order to "Connect the Dots."

Is it 910 all over again?

Hillery Clinton's Risky Rhetoric On Pakistani Taxation Policies

See: Hillary urges rich Pakistanis to pay more tax

“The very well-off” in Pakistan “do not pay their fair share for the services that are needed, in health and education primarily,” she observed.

It's one thing to talk to Pakistanis about the Taliban but why does she think that she has license to lecture them on internal tax policy in regards to building up a welfare state?

Does she really believe that this kind of officious rhetoric helps us?

She has done this before.

Gelb on Islam

There is an important article posted up at The Daily Beast by Leslie H. Gelb . The Daily Beast is notably left of center so the publication of Gelb's article there is all the more notable.

Of the terrorist killings and maimings that have taken place over the last three years, over 90 percent have been Muslim on Muslim, Shiite on Sunni, Sunni on Sunni, or Shiite on Shiite, with rare exceptions. Most of these slaughters have religious, cultural, and historical causes. But wherever the fanatics lodge themselves firmly in power, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, they will try to practice the totalitarianism of Hitler and Stalin. Their rule is the end of hope for women, the end of freedom for all, except themselves—and the institutionalization of corruption and cruelty, which they rationalize with their interpretation of the Koran. They’ve tried to impose totalitarianism in Iran, but haven’t succeeded so far—because the Iranian people have fought back. And if you listen to the fanatics’ rhetoric, they plan to move on to the rest of the world and apply the same principles. They are Muslim fanatics. The culprits are not Hasidic Jews running amok around the world or Tea-baggers bent on replanting Christianity among the heathen.

I think that Gelb still has a few misconceptions about Islam to work through, but he is looking at the problem of Islam with more thought than is usually found on the political left. For that he deserves our respect.

Gelb correctly takes American Political leaders on both the left and the right to task for their counterproductive avoidance of specifically identifying Muslims or Islam as the source of most terror attacks in the present world. He correctly blames "Political Correctness" for their failure to speak honestly about the problem.

Go to the link.

Read the whole article.

Living In The Land Of Make Believe And Wishful Thinking

In the wake of the Fort Hood Massacre, our nations leadership will try to make us all ignore the obvious.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think that we have to come to an honest consensus about what Islam is and is not.

Is Islam what the Qur'an and the Haddith describe? Or is it something else?

Massacre In Texas

Is this a Jihadi attack?

Twelve people have been killed and 31 wounded in a shooting spree at a Texas military base by what officials believe was possibly carried out by an Army officer.

The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.

The shooter was killed and two other suspects, who are also soldiers, have been apprehended, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone said.

Later in the article

Cone said the motive for the attack, which took place just after 1:30 p.m. CT, is unclear.

Some things come to mind.

The Obama Administration Considers Letting The Taliban Win In Afghanistan

The Obama Administration will certainly go down in history as one of the worst in US Forign policy history. Worse than even the Carter Administration.

From an AP article:

WASHINGTON - Senior al-Qaida leaders are forging deeper relationships with Pakistani militants and often operating from their camps inside the Pakistan border, fueling Obama administration arguments for a shift in the Afghan war strategy that more narrowly targets the terrorists.

For eight years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has focused mostly on Afghanistan's Taliban as an unabashed ally of al-Qaida.

Now, however, forced to choose between sending more troops in an intensified counterinsurgency campaign against Afghanistan's Taliban or largely maintaining troop levels and using more drone strikes to take out al-Qaida along the border, U.S. officials must first determine which enemy is the greater priority.

The Obama Administration will lose Afghanistan with this kind of thinking. I am inclined to think that they would be less bothered by losing Afghanistan to the Taliban then be perceived as pursuing victory. Victory over the enemy is something that the modern day left can’t seem to stomach.

If the Obama Administration fails to defeat the Taliban, or at the very least, fails to keep them out of power in Afghanistan, then Afghanistan will return back to the stone age country that it was when it was executing woman in Soccer fields for showing a wee bit too much of ankle or daring to leave their homes without a male relative as an escort.

If Obama does not choose to pursue victory over BOTH the Taliban and al-Qaida, then his legacy will be one of surrendering to despair and misery from the farthest corners of the world to the very windows of our skyscrapers.

NATO Backs McChrystal In Afghanistan

Thom Shanker at the New York Times Reports that Nato backs General McChrystal’s strategy in Afghanistan.

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia - NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and on their own governments to commit more military and civilian resources for the mission to succeed.

General McChrystal, the senior American and allied commander in Afghanistan, landed here early Friday to brief NATO defense ministers on his strategic review of an 8-year-old war in which the American-led effort has lost momentum to a tenacious insurgency. The closed-door session — which had not been disclosed in advance — added a note of drama to the sort of NATO ministerial meeting that is often mundane.

“What we did today was to discuss General McChrystal’s overall assessment, his overall approach, and I have noted a broad support from all ministers of this overall counterinsurgency approach,” said NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

We can hope that NATO will give Obama the needed courage to work towards winning in Afghanistan over choosing to lose.

"This is another victory for Taliban"

The Taliban knows when they are winning.

Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the U.S. bombarded the outpost with airstrikes after leaving, as well as the local police headquarters.

"This means they are not coming back," Mujahid said. "This is another victory for Taliban. We have control of another district in eastern Afghanistan."

"Right now Kamdesh is under our control, and the white flag of the Taliban is raised above Kamdesh," Mujahid said.

Obama is losing the war in Afghanistan.

To Confront a Ruthless Adversary

The following is taken from Obama's remarks on having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies.

That part sounds good. I am worried that he is only referring to Al Qaeda and is excluding the Taliban.

Foreshadows of Defeat

There are a number of stories in the MSM about Afghanistan recently. This is one in the New york Times. Obama's dithering and failure to support a "Win" strategy is having predicable results.

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

As Mr. Obama met with advisers for three hours to discuss Pakistan, the White House said he had not decided whether to approve a proposed troop buildup in Afghanistan. But the shift in thinking, outlined by senior administration officials on Wednesday, suggests that the president has been presented with an approach that would not require all of the additional troops that his commanding general in the region has requested.

It remains unclear whether everyone in Mr. Obama’s war cabinet fully accepts this view. While Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has argued for months against increasing troops in Afghanistan because Pakistan was the greater priority, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have both warned that the Taliban remain linked to Al Qaeda and would give their fighters havens again if the Taliban regained control of all or large parts of Afghanistan, making it a mistake to think of them as separate problems.

The Taliban must be destroyed. Their worldview is absolutist. An absolutist response is the only sane way to deal with them. Anything less is a Happy Rainbow Farting Unicorn fantasy.

There is also the problem of object lessons. The Taliban was instrumental in the 911 attacks. Such attacks need to be "punished" so severely that nobody would look at the result and think that they, and more importantly - their cause, could survive attacking us in a like manner or method. They must be taught to believe that thinking that such attacks could succeed is a dangerous and hopeless madness.

The Obama Administration is playing a dangerous game very badly.