Archive for category Defense
Irresponsibility of Leftist Press-Treason
Posted by Tom in Defense, Military Policy, Press, Terrorism on August 5, 2010
WikiLeaks is anonymous. No identified founders. No manager. No nuthin! Oh, there the is that cute little fop, Julian Asuange who describes himself as being on the WikiLeaks advisory board. He recently released Pentagon files, heretofore secret, on the war in Afghanistan. As a result according to Defense Secretary Gates, the lives of our troops and our Afghan partners are in danger.
This is not a case of “loose lips sink ships;” this an intentional broadcast of secret information while the country is at war. The military traitor should get military justice.
But the rub is the self important Julian Assnage and his co-conspirators in the New York Time, the Guardian and Der Spiegel, the so-called responsible press. In the NYT case, it’s printing all the news “fit to print”
As Tony Blankley points out in his “Wiki Espionage” post their conduct is a clear violation of the Espionage Act (Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 794). Opposition to the war cannot justify treason.
“If Mr. Assange had perpetrated this outrage against Russia, inevitably there would be a news report a few month later announcing the death of Mr. Assange and his loved ones (should he have any) because of an unlikely street accident. Thank goodness we live in nation of laws — not of executive actions.
“But the rule of law will not last long if the law is not used to avenge grievous wrongs committed against our nation.
“It is the high duty of our government not to let Mr. Assange walk free (assuming the evidence in court of his espionage is as convincing as the news accounts suggest). Let the federal prosecutions proceed — wiki, wiki.”
The conceit, self aggrandizement, and above-the-law attitude of the NYT is appalling.
Gingrich on the Islamic Terrorist Threat
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Military Policy, Terrorism on July 23, 2010
America’s Twilight? Or, Is There Anyway Out?
Posted by Tom in Defense, Economics, Foreign Policy, Military Policy on July 8, 2010
Niall Ferguson’s discussion of the Future of America’s Economy was recently given at the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival. It is brilliant and I would embed it here but am unable to do so, thus I link it and strongly commend it. As a financial historian teaching at Harvard, he asks whether the Western Ascendency is finished. He reviews the empirical evidence supporting that proposition. And, it is strong.
“My working assumption is that the financial crisis that began in the summer of 2007…has accelerated a fundamental shift in the economic balance of power. Even before the crisis, Jim O’Neill and his team at Goldman Sachs were forecasting that China’s gross domestic product would exceed that of the United States in 2027 at half past four on October the 15th, which is just a little pinch of salt to remind you that all such projections need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Still, whether it’s 2027, ‘28, ‘29 or ‘30, the interesting thing is the first time they made that projection, they thought it would be 2040. Every time I see Jim, I say, “Have you moved the date forward yet?” because he made that 2027 call before the financial crisis.
“The financial crisis unquestionably has hit the United States much harder than China. Their stimulus worked much better than ours…The first point I just want to put out there is: it’s hard to believe, under these circumstances, that the acceleration, the shift, if you’d like, from West to East hasn’t been speeded up by this crisis.
“The second point is: Of course, power is not just about GDP. It’s not just about the economy. Power is also about the ability to project hard power through military means. And some people in Washington like to comfort themselves by saying, “We can still do that way more than they can. Count their aircraft carriers, count ours.”
“But one point that follows from the financial crisis which is terribly, terribly important is that by combating our crisis of private debt with an extraordinary expansion of public debt, we inevitably are going to reduce the resources available for national security in the years ahead. Because as the debt grows, so the interest payments you have to make on it grow, even if interest rates stay low. And on current projections, the federal debt is going to be absorbing around 20 percent, a fifth of all the taxes you pay, within just a few years. The item of discretionary federal expenditure most likely to be squeezed is, of course, defense. And there are lots of historic precedents for that. So, I fear that the financial crisis doesn’t just impact on the economy. It actually impacts on American power in the hardest sense.”
This is just a taste, and he does offer some hope, so I won’t spoil his offering but suggest you link to the talk.
NASA’s New Role: Diplomacy
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Terrorism on July 6, 2010
Stretch goals are important, they compel reaching, thinking outside the box, innovation, risk-taking; yes and ultimately excellence. Where better to expand U.S. horizons than at the space agency, NASA? Kennedy challenged a shot for a man moon landing in 1961, a dramatic stretch goal. This to answer the Russians unmanned landing in 1959. The challenged worked: on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon.
What’s Obama’s stretch goal for NASA? Well …, er …., it’s diplomacy. Yes, you heard right, diplomacy. Obama wants better relations. With whom you ask. The Muslims! Not the English, the Poles, the Germans, nor the Israelis; no, the Muslims.
According to this Fox News item, “NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.” Bizarre! Mars? No, the Muslim world!
And, note the contrast with Kennedy. JFK was answering the USSR. It was an “in your face” response to an enemy seeking to burry us. Obama confronts Islamists seeking to burry us. What’s he do? Well, he goes about the Middle East bowing, scraping and apologizing for the United States. Oh, and he gives NASA a charge to improve relations with Muslims.
Hussein Obama is well named!
Unprotected Against Jihad
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Military Policy, National Character, Terrorism on June 1, 2010
Hussein Obama’s counterterrorism tzar, John Brennan trivializes the danger of Islam according to Andy McCarthy in today’s NRO post, An Islam of Their Very Own. The article is a must read with only two conclusions possible: Obama is stupid or naive or he is converting the U.S. to sharia, that is Islamic law. In essence, become Muslim or die, so ruled Mohamed after his militant successes.
“Brennan admonished that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists.’” Why not? “Because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.” Right again. There is no gainsaying that jihad is deemed to be a divine injunction in Islam. If one regards all forms of Islam as “legitimate,” then jihad, too, must be legitimate. Yet “legitimate” is a slippery concept. It could mean that something is good. Or it could just mean that something is authentic — something that really exists, for good or ill.
“Islam falls into the latter category. It exists. In many of its iterations — not just al-Qaeda’s ideology but Islamist ideology, which is quite mainstream — Islam means the West existential harm. This is why we are supportive of reformist Muslims, however pessimistic some of us may be about their prospects. The point, though, is that Islam is not going away. It is part of the hand we are dealt, like it or not. We don’t need to trash-talk it gratuitously, but neither should we pretend that it is an asset on our security ledger. It’s not.
“Alas, the Hope administration doesn’t see it that way. For Brennan, as for Obama, Islam is immovably in the first category: “legitimate” as in “good” — end of discussion. To sculpt this alternative reality, two things are required. First, we must ignore Islam’s many troublesome elements — e.g., its supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc. Second, to the extent that the resulting atrocities can’t be ignored, we must pretend that what ails the Islamic world is our fault, not Islam’s.”
Andy’s point echos the points made during Herman Pirchner’s presentation and discussion at our last Reno Hayek dinner, namely that radical Islam and its Jihad is closer to the Koran than any reformist/secular branch of that “religion.” I put that in quotes to denote that it is more than just our concept of “religion;” it is government, society and religion in the sense that Mohamed imposed upon his conquests.
Here’s my empirical observation: not many, if any, Moslems have condemned the Jihads, the terror, the 911 carnage, the call to exterminate Israel.
These people are backward, immoral, intolerant, and violent. They advocate or tolerate “supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc.” For them, the end justifies the means, no matter how distorted either end or means in reality are. They blow themselves up in hopes of “virgins in heaven.” Pity those few virgins in number! But, that is the level of their intelligence.
Hussein Obama apparently ignores “man caused disasters.” Islam is good because he wishes it so. This is contrary to the reality that we witness every day. Islam is bad.
“Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.” Andy McCarthy’s article is a must read.
Hussein Obama is hell-bent-for-leather to “hope and change” the United States into an Islamic nation under Sharia law. Be very fearful for our nation.
Two Hypocritical Presidents
Posted by Tom in Defense, Homeland Security, Immigration on May 21, 2010
Hussein Obama continues to denigrate and debase America. The latest, he stood side by side with Felipe Calderon and and joined in Calderon’s criticism of the Arizona law that authorizes enforcement of U.S. law on illegal entry into the U.S. He is a hypocrite because the U.S statute which he has not enforced is more susceptible to profiling than the Arizona law. Calderon is a hypocrite because the Mexican law on illegal entry is worse than the U.S. law in terms of its harsh application. But to stand by Calderon’s side while Calderon demeans one of these United States is unforgivable for any American president.
William Bennett and Seth Leibsohn have an excellent article on the subject in NRO: “Allowing the running down of a part of the United States by the head of a foreign government, at the White House, standing next to the president — who not only didn’t challenge him, but encouraged him — is a foreign- and domestic-policy catastrophe. And in any catastrophe, one has to ask what were the conditions or causes that led to such a thing. Did the president tell Mr. Calderón ahead of time it would be okay to blast away at Arizona, which is to blast away at the United States? Or, less likely, was nothing said ahead of time and Mr. Calderón simply took note of the administration’s statements about Arizona thus far? Or, had Mr. Calderón simply observed over the past year not only President Obama and his administration’s take-down of Arizona but President Obama’s other attitudes about America, such as his bowing to foreign leaders and his calling America “arrogant,” “dismissive,” and “derisive” of our allies?
“There are nearly half a million illegal immigrants in Arizona. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, while illegal immigrants make up 9 percent of the Arizona population, they are responsible for 22 percent of the felonies in Arizona and they constitute 11 percent of the state prison population. Arizona is now the kidnapping capital of the United States, and Phoenix has the second-largest kidnapping problem in the world (second to Mexico City).”
“According to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, kidnapping in Arizona increased 402 percent between 2004 and 2008, with almost 70 percent of the kidnapping cases submitted for prosecution involving illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants account for 16.5 percent of those sentenced for violent crimes; 18.5 percent of those sentenced for property crimes; 33.5 percent of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale, or transport of drugs; and 44.4 percent of those sentenced or forgery and fraud in the Phoenix area. And, according to DOJ statistics, three Border Patrol agents are assaulted on the average day at or near the U.S. border. Someone is kidnapped every 35 hours in Phoenix, Ariz. — mostly by agents of alien-smuggling organizations. And one in five American teenagers last year used some type of illegal drug, many of which were imported across the unsecured U.S.-Mexico border. For example, most of the cocaine and meth consumed in America comes in from Mexico, and in some states, over 90 percent of the marijuana consumed is from Mexico.”
There is a compelling interest for the Arizona law because there is no adequate enforcement of the federal law nor adequate security of our Mexican boarder. Perhaps that’s why a majority of Americans agree with the Arizona position according to a recent Fox News Poll.
Super Power to Super Wimp
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, National Character on May 20, 2010
How weak can we be? Charles Krauthhammer answers the question in today’s NRO post, The Fruits of Weakness. The Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make the nuclear bomb and continues accelerated enrichment. Even the French say the deal will help Iran continue its nuclear program. The joint hands up photo is the collective finger to the weak Hussein Omama.
“That picture — a defiant, triumphant “take that” to Uncle Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched thisadministration in action, have decided that there’s no cost to lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.”
Iran Obama overtures and appeasements rejected, Obama acquiescence to Russia’s reformation of its USSR sphere of influence, Obama appeasement of Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, are all examples of our weakness, our desire to withdraw and disarm.
“This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying, and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.”
“Given Obama’s policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies.”
Hussein Obama Is Anti-semitic
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy on April 16, 2010
Investors Business Daily editorializes on Obama’s bullying of Israel today in a convincing piece, Israel Or Terrorists. “Are we Israel’s staunch ally? Or, do we blame the Jewish state for Islamist violence? An increasingly anti-Israel U.S. government cannot have it both ways.”
The article goes on to show Obama’s attempt to make the West Bank and Gaza the equivalent of the Nazis’ Buchenwald. A grossly false comparison, which unfortunately our president is wont to do.
But the real punch is the stupidity of the Obama policy. Instead of returning the Mideast to a Garden of Eden, a Palestinian settlement would only embolden terrorists to push harder for a Sharia world.
Again, our Neville Chamberlain president shows his true bias. He is anti-semitic.
Obama: the “peace in our times” president
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, Terrorism on April 14, 2010
Like a broadway scripted play Obama is into his foreign policy-defense act. (This, the act that follows Obamacare!) It is, to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Macbeth, a policy “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Act 5, Scene 5)
No, that is to naive but not too harsh. As I think Clifford May’s tax day NRO post, The Obama Doctrine, points out well, Obama has showcased his photo-op national security initiatives: the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (STARTT), new National Security Strategy (NSS) and his international Nuclear Security Summit with 40 heads of state.
- STARTT: Reduce US/Russian nukes by 30% for good example to others. “That’s a lovely vision, but which do you think is more likely: that rogue regimes will see these reductions as virtuous and emulate them? Or that they will see these reductions as an opportunity and exploit them?”
- NSS: We pledge not to use nukes against non-nuclear nations. But we fail to define our non-nation enemies. Obama strips terms like “islamic extremism” from the document for fear of offending! We’re back to “man-caused disasters” and “overseas contingency operations.” ” Imagine if President Roosevelt had decided not to speak about German Nazism, lest he offend Germans who were not Nazis, nor utter the words “Italian Fascism” since not all Italians were of the Fascist persuasion, and of course refrained from mentioning Japanese militarism . . . you get the idea.”
- Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit made little progress on cleaning up “loose nukes” and ignored Iran and North Korea.
- NPR: Obama will not modernize our nuclear weapons nor will he use nukes against enemy attacks against us with chemical or biological weapons. In other words, deterrence is a thing of the past. The policy will “actually provide our adversaries with an incentive to accelerate development of offensive capabilities. They clearly do nothing to strengthen deterrence.” Deterrence is what has kept us safe since 1945. The concept that attacks on us or our allies will not bring measured response but extreme, disproportionate devastation is what prevented such attacks. In this regard, Obama is the equivalent of the Russian in Dr. Strangelove who kept the doomsday machine secret, Obama wants to eliminate deterrence–really dumb!
Finally, our own Neville Chamberlain has decided to eliminate necessary missile-defense! “President Obama has scrapped a missile-defense system for eastern Europe, cut the number of planned deployed ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California from 44 to 30 (these provide the only protection to the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missiles), cut $1.5 billion from the missile-defense budget (then, curiously, restored about $600 million), and nominated a missile-defense opponent, Philip Coyle, as his top missile-defense adviser.”
In sum, the “Obama Doctrine” postures against non-existant threats, fails to treat real threats, and removes and reduces our defense capability. He’s an articulate empty-suit and a danger to our security.
Afghan Failure Easy To Predict
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy on April 7, 2010
Tony Blankley’s post in today’s RCP, puts it on the line, Replace Karzai, or Get Our Troops Out. Essentially as has been well reported there has been a break with Karzai which itself was easily predictable, given that we are without a necessary local partner, and given the fact that we are unable to replace him, we should get our troops out of there. If 911s occur in the future, we use extraordinary means to show the Allah can send a thunderbolt using the U.S. as his agent. That means heavy payback with heavy but unavoidable “collateral damage.” Think in terms of Tokyo during the final days of WWII. This is my take not Blankley’s.
That said, Blankley railes as others have on the poor Afghan troop decision that there would be a withdrawal in 18 months. If the superpower is not going to stay the course, the locals make new–or in this case old–friends! That is what has happened.
My December 3rd, Afghanistan Was the Easy Decision, post quoted a Ralph Peters article calling Obama’s troop decision a “bait and switch.” He said it send the following messages: ”To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I’ve written off. To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp. To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered. To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country. To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).” This is pretty close to what is happening, and easy to predict.
With all the credit Obama deserves for his predator assassinations at the Pakistan boarder, he messed up the opportunity to secure some of Afghanistan’s warring tribes. By telescoping an 18 month withdrawal to appease his leftist base he unnecessarily subjected our troops to risk, death and worse. He should get out. Set up a strong Pakistan relationship and make that the line of regional defense.
He has recently embarked on a dangerous voluntary nuclear disarmament which will hurt us after the next 911 when we need to show that Allah is mad at Al Qaeda and the Taliban.