The Cool Blue Blog

Obama's Foreign Policy

When it comes to Democratic values and terrorism, Presidential hopeful Barak Obama couldn't have been more clear. When speaking of the present situation in Pakistan on Meet the Press he said

"...my main concern is making sure that the opposition parties feel comfortable that they have the opportunity to participate in fair and free elections"

Of course, he doesn't feel the same way about Iraq

"Only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely -- that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq," Obama said.

But what happens to Democray in Iraq if "opposition parties" don't "feel comfortable that they have the opportunity to participate in fair and free elections"? Why is it more important for Pakistan to feel comfortable than it is for Iraq to feel comfortable?

And while Obama panders to the anti-war crowd, he is clearly not anti-War, on August 1st of this year, in what was billed as a "major foreign policy speech", he said

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will,"

Suggesting that as President he would take unilateral action in Pakistan regardless of the wishes of the Pakistani government.

Yet, at the same time he accuses Senator Clinton is flawed judgment when she voted for the invasion of Iraq. Recently, Obama's campaign tried to tie Clinton's Iraq vote to the current trouble in Pakistan

“She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today,” he said, according to Time.com. “So that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend.”

Of course, in Iraq, we deposed a dictator and liberated a people while at the same time managed to successfully prosecute a war against al Qaeda

Iraq's interior ministry spokesman said Saturday that 75% of al-Qaeda in Iraq's terrorist network had been destroyed this year, but the top American commander in the country said the terror group remained his chief concern.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was due to improvements in the Iraqi security forces — which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.

He also credited the rise of anti-al-Qaeda in Iraq groups, mostly made up of Sunni fighters the Shiite-dominated government has cautiously begun to embrace. Additionally, an increase in American troops since June has been credited with pushing many militants out of Baghdad.

According to Obama

"... one of the things that we haven't focused on is that the vast majority of the Pakistani people are moderate and believe in rule of law. That's who we want as allies in the fight against Islamic extremism," Obama said.

To Obama, doing this very thing in Iraq is not good,  but doing it in Pakistan is OK.

Do any of his foreign policy positions make sense?

Christmas in Iraq

Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards men. Let it begin in Iraq

Thousands of Iraqi Christians picked their way through checkpoints and along dusty streets lined with concrete blast walls, packing churches in Baghdad on Tuesday for Christmas Mass...

"We did not celebrate last year, but this year we have security and we feel better," said Rasha Ghaban, one of many women at the small Church of the Holy Family in Karradah, a mainly Shiite district in downtown Baghdad where many Christians live. "We hope our future will be better, God willing."

Families streamed into the church's courtyard, wrapped in heavy winter jackets to protect them from the early morning chill. Young children with neatly combed hair held their parents' hands, and women stopped by the front door to pick through a basket of small lacy headscarves, placing them over their hair before walking in...

The pews were almost full — women toward the back and on the right side of the church, the men on the left — and still more people streamed in. Outside, police armed with automatic rifles manned a checkpoint at the corner of the narrow street, searching every passing car for possible bombs.

Christians have often been the target of attacks by Islamic extremists in Iraq, forcing tens of thousands to flee. Many of those who stayed were isolated in neighborhoods protected by barricades and checkpoints. Less than 3% of Iraq's 26 million people are Christians — the majority Chaldean-Assyrians and Armenians, with small numbers of Roman Catholics.

A coordinated bombing campaign in 2004 targeted churches in the Iraqi capital, and anti-Christian violence also flared last September after Pope Benedict XVI made comments perceived to be against Islam.

But this year, with the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha coming just before Christmas, Iraq has been living through some of the most peaceful moments since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.

Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, leader of the ancient Chaldean Catholic Church and Iraq's first cardinal, celebrated Mass before about 2,000 people in the Mar Eliya Church the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood of the capital.

"Iraq is a bouquet of flowers of different colors, each color represents a religion or ethnicity but all of them have the same scent," the 80-year-old Delly told the congregation.

Muslim clerics — both Sunni and Shiite — also attended the service in a sign of unity.

And

The 2nd Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army (IA) Division invited Coalition forces to a Christmas Party at an Assyrian Christian School in Kirkuk, Dec. 15.

With Christians representing approximately two percent of the population here, according to military officials, the theme of this year’s celebration was ‘Ethnic and Religious Diversity’.

“Kirkuk is a good place to be for Christians … a place where all ethnic groups, Arab, Kurd, Turkman and Christian, are living in peace,” said the priest of the Christian school. He also ministers to 2-4 IA Soldiers who operate from Iraqi Army Base K-1 in Kirkuk.

Both IA and Coalition Soldiers, with the 2414 Logistics Transition Team (LTT) at K-1, came armed with presents, which they passed out to the children who were clothed in various ethnic dress to represent the cultures that are striving to bring back some semblance of normality to this ethnically diverse area of northeastern Iraq.

“We want to live and work with our neighbors in harmony … as Iraqis,” Maj. Zyad Junaid Omar, 2-4 IA Civil Affairs (CA) officer, said. Zyad, whose father is an Arab and mother a Turkman, said that he invites Coalition Soldiers along to show Iraqis that, “Americans are good people that want to help.” He also wanted the Iraqi public to see how well the IA and Coalition work together.

“Maj. Zyad is a patriot in the true sense,” said Lt. Col. Greg Markert, 2414 LTT. “He wants to make a difference. He is not concerned about the ethnic background of these children. He’s concerned about Iraq’s future … which they represent.”

The gifts the Soldiers handed out were contributed by employers, friends and family of Pennsylvania Guardsmen Sgt. 1st Class Ken “Gunny” Ganiszewski, 2414 LTT, and Markert, both of Philadelphia.  “What started out as a suggestion snowballed into 200 packages full of toys, candy, blankets … the response has been tremendous,” said the former Marine.

This was just one of the several ongoing civil affairs programs run by the 2-4 IA’s CA team.

             

Cpl Marco Martinez

In the spring of 2003, the 1st Marine Division drove north toward Baghdad; the tip of the spear that would lead the American assault against Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen and Republican Guard throughout central Iraq. It was no easy road. Then-Cpl. Martinez's actions during the battle of Tarmiya dealt the regime's forces a serious blow; so much so that he was awarded the Navy Cross, the second-highest decoration in the United States armed forces.                    

On April 12, 2003, Martinez, serving with the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, responded to a call to reinforce a platoon that had been ambushed. Under fire, Martinez moved his team into supporting positions to assault the enemy force. He eliminated two hostile fighters on the initial attack after his squad leader was wounded by a grenade blast. Martinez took control and led the assault into the area where the ambush had originated. Martinez and his outnumbered men moved through and cleared a nearby building occupied by enemy fighters. As they entered another compound they took stronger small-arms fire from the hostile forces inside. Martinez and his men fought their way through the building and into a courtyard, where the Fedayeen continued to engage the Marines from a garden shed.                

Martinez saw that the enemy left a rocket propelled grenade launcher and two rounds on the ground on their way to the bunker. As his team provided cover fire, Martinez ventured into the open and grabbed the RPG launcher and sprinted behind a palm tree. After enemy fire wounded a member of his team, Martinez fired an RPG, 15 yards from the shed. The hostile forces continued targeting Martinez - but his assault had allowed his men to safely evacuate the wounded Marine. While the rest of the team took care of the injured man, Martinez single-handedly attacked the bunker. Dodging bullets, he ran up to the shed and lobbed a grenade into the building, killing four enemy forces and ending the firefight.                   

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England presented Martinez with the Navy Cross in May 2004. The first Hispanic-American to receive the Navy Cross since the Vietnam War, Martinez repeatedly credits the Marine Corps for turning his life around. Having been a member of a gang for several years as a teenager, Martinez became drawn to the Marines after an encounter with a recruiter as a high-school senior. Today, Martinez emphatically states that "All I ever am, or will become, I owe to my beloved Corps."

From gangbanger to Navy Cross: The story from KABC in Los Angeles

Former Marine Corps Sergeant Marco Martinez has a dramatic take on what his life was like as a "gangbanger" in New Mexico before he joined the Marines: He believes he was one step from going over the edge.

"I was basically a leech on the side of America's body, sitting there, sucking blood out, not doing anything productive. Finally, when I joined the Marine Corps, I understood what it was to be an American," said Martinez.

You do not have to spend much time with Martinez to realize that is his core belief....

"Our first casualty ended up losing about a liter of blood within about a 35-minute time frame," said Martinez. "And the second wounded Marine was paralyzed from the waist down and bleeding out pretty good, too, so if I hadn't have done what I did, both those Marines would probably be dead right now."

Martinez has written a book he calls "Hard Corps," about his experience that led to the awarding of the Navy Cross. It lives up to its title.

What you hear from Martinez is a sincere expression of the way he feels. He believes in the war in Iraq and he was ready for the ultimate sacrifice.

"I really thought I was going to die, and I was at peace with that, because I had done so many things beforehand, where I might have died over misinterpreted glances, colors, girls," said Martinez.

These days he is a community college student studying business and working as a nuclear plant security guard. Fellow students don't know about his heroism. He is uncomfortable with the adulation he's received, as the first Hispanic and first Marine in Iraq to be awarded the Navy Cross.

"I kind of felt that since we were all in it together, why am I the only one receiving this award? I kind of felt the award was for everybody," said Martinez. "I really felt that I was just doing my job. And all the accolades I was receiving were unnecessary, anyone else in my squad or my platoon would have done the same. If I hadn't done it, someone else would have done it."

Maybe, maybe not, but it was that attitude that made you do it.

And that's why you're the man.

Nice job, Marine!

God's side

Why is the war against the Islamists important? And specifically, why is it important to win the Battle for Iraq?

One of the main reasons is precisely because that in order to fight and sustain a religious war, you have to claim that God is on your side. And if God is on your side, then it follows that you will win: No matter the odds against you.

And even more specifically, if you are trying to convince people that blowing up innocent men, women and children is what God wants, against all sensibilities to the contrary, then you have better win to prove that God is on your side.

And if you lose....

If the Islamists, the Jihadists, lose their moral authority; if it starts to appear that God is not on their side, then fewer people are going to sign up to kill innocent men, women and children, which is the only real weapon they have.

That and the media.

The first string of their tether was strained when they got routed so easily in Afghanistan. OBL thought that luring America into that unforgiving country would prove to be the same trap that the Soviets found themselves in. When all it took was a few hundred CIA and Special Operators, air support and some unaligned Afghan tribes less than 30 days to shut down their operation and send the terror "mastermind" fleeing to Pakistan, the only justification could have been that God sneezed during that period of time.

But when al Qaida was routed from Iraq, things started looking like maybe these guys, somewhere along the line, got on God's bad side.

And people are starting to notice. Not us heathens mind you, 'cause what we think don't count: but Imams, and not just any Iman, but al Qaida's Imam

One of Al Qaeda's senior theologians is calling on his followers to end their military jihad and saying the attacks of September 11, 2001, were a "catastrophe for all Muslims."

In a serialized manifesto written from prison in Egypt, Sayyed Imam al-Sharif is blasting Osama bin Laden for deceiving the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, and for insulting the Prophet Muhammad by comparing the September 11 attacks to the early raids of the Ansar warriors. The lapsed jihadist even calls for the formation of a special Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and his old comrade Ayman al-Zawahri.

The disclosures from Mr. Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl and Abd al-Qadir ibn Abd al-Aziz, have already opened a rift at the highest levels of Al Qaeda. The group's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, a former associate of the defecting theologian in Egypt, personally mocked him last month in a video, remarking that he was unaware Egyptian prisons had fax machines. Meanwhile, leading Western analysts are saying the defection of Mr. Sharif indicates the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda.

The author of "Inside Al Qaeda," Rohan Gunaratna said in an interview this week, "There is nothing more important than a former jihadist as important as Dr. Fadl criticizing the jihadist vanguard." Mr. Gunaratna, who acts at times as a consultant for American and Western intelligence, described the reformed theologian as "both an ideologue and operational leader, but he was primarily an ideologue."

An expert on Islamic terrorism with the Jamestown Foundation, Steven Ulph, also said the defection of Mr. Sharif could hemorrhage support for Al Qaeda. "The important point to make, when you have the combination of a respected ideologue, plus someone who was in the field, say these things it is more important than having a Saudi sheik that moderates his message," he said.

Back in September, a fatwa was issued against Osam bin Laden and al Qaida, but this most recent condemnation is much more striking.

People have asked in the past, "So how do you defeat an ideological movement?" The question and has always been obvious: make it clear to everyone that the foundation of the ideology are flawed.

In this case, the way to do that was to defeat the Islamists on the field of battle.

Because ultimately, this is how they are keeping score.

The Battles in Afghanistan, and especially Iraq have done that, make no mistake.

The Anti-Science Democrats

The Democrats in Congress have gone home for the Christmas recess. They didn't do much this year, thankfully, and barely managed to pass a budget the President could approve; constraining their spending to a mere 11,144 pork appropriations a decline of only 17% from their Republican counterparts.

The Democrats are in charge, so their priorities prevail, as it should. But it should be pointed out that their priorities did not include basic science.

The $515 billion spending package takes a big bite out of President George W. Bush's promise--backed up by votes earlier this year in Congress--to give a substantial boost to the research budgets of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Instead, the agencies get meager increases--a portion of which is eaten up by projects earmarked by legislators for their constituents--or across-the-board cuts. The package also makes moot the double-digit hikes authorized for research, education and training, and investment in innovation spelled out in a 6-month-old law, the America COMPETES Act, that the community fought hard to pass (ScienceNOW, 3 August). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would receive a 0.5% increase after high hopes for a slice that would at least keep up with inflation. Among the major science agencies, only NASA would receive the president's request--a 3% rise that is universally acknowledged as too little to handle all the projects in its pipeline.

However, Congress did fund

$700 million for a Minnesota bike trail, $113,000 for rodent control in Alaska, and $1 million for an energy project in the district of Lousiana Democrat William Jefferson, who faces trial for bribery next year.

The new Energy Bill does boost ethanol production, however, but it doesn't appear to be a good investment

Let’s start with the math. Corn doesn’t grow like a weed. Modern corn farming involves heavy inputs of nitrogen fertilizer (made with natural gas), applications of herbicides and other chemicals (made mostly from oil), heavy machinery (which runs on diesel) and transportation (diesel again). Converting the corn into fuel requires still more energy. The ratio of how much energy is used to make ethanol versus how much it delivers is known as the energy balance, and calculating it is surprisingly complex.
 
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that, “Today, 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.” Even that modest payback may be overstated. Skeptics cite the research of Cornell Uni¬versity professor David Pimentel, who estimates that it takes approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.
 
If the benefits are in doubt, the costs are not. It would take 450 pounds of corn to yield enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV. Producing enough ethanol to replace America’s imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation—or roughly 95 percent of the active farmland in the country. Once we’ve turned our farms into filling stations, where will the food come from?
 
There’s a simple reason that ethanol is popular with politicians: money. Substituting corn ethanol for a large fraction of the gasoline we burn will mean sluicing gushers of cash from more populated states to politically powerful farm states. And a lot of that cash will wind up in the pockets of the big agribusinesses, like Archer Daniels Midland, that dominate ethanol processing—and whose fat checkbooks wield enormous influence in Washington.

Congress has it's priorities such as $1,000,000 for a Woodstock Museum at Bethel, NY.

But clearly science is suffering.

Reality filters

"Who's winning? ...Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. ... The American people are losing." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Dec 18, 2007

"They like this war. They want this war to continue" - Speaker of the House  Nancy Pelosi, Dec 13, 2007

In summary, tactical and operational momentum has been achieved, and there have been notable overall improvements in the security situation. These improvements, combined with an increase in provincial government expenditure rates, have contributed to improvements in the delivery of essential services and other key programs to the Iraqi people. Cooperation with Iraqi and Coalition forces by tribal leaders—both Sunni and Shi’a—has advanced “bottom-up” reconciliation and assisted in countering extremism. The numerous “tribal awakening” movements and the CLC program are making progress at the local level, but challenges remain at the national level. The key to long-term success will be the GoI’s ability to capitalize upon local gains, pass key legislation and promote national reconciliation....

While AQI retains the ability to conduct high profile attacks, it is mostly on the defensive and faces dwindling support within Iraq. Coordinated security operations have pushed much of AQI from its strongholds in the Baghdad area. “Bottom-up” reconciliation initiatives such as the tribal-based security initiatives and CLC movements have spread beyond Anbar to both Sunni and Shi’a tribes. Support from the international community for Iraq continues to build, and Iraq and Turkey have been able to manage increased tensions on their border. Sustaining these gains will depend on continued political, economic and diplomatic progress. - Pentagon Report to Congress Dec 7, 2007

Divided government works pretty good

I spend the majority of my on-line time between Scalzi's Blog and Steve Barne's blog, when I'm not blogging that is. It's odd that both are Sci-Fi writers and both have politics far to the Left of mine. Go figure.

Back when the 2006 election results came in, Scalzi professed his love for divided government. When I asked if that meant he would be voting for a Republican President in 2008 since Democrats owned Congress, I didn't get an answer.

I admit, though, that I was skeptical of the whole divided government thing: namely today's Democratic Party in charge of Congress. Turns out I'm pretty happy with the results.

This much is clear: Democrats in Congress buckled under pressure from the White House to hold spending near the administration’s specified limit, and they’re poised to give the president more war money with no strings attached.

But the buckling didn’t stop there.

Democratic policy priorities that liberals hoped would be included in the omnibus spending legislation were also left on the cutting-room floor.

Under a veto threat, Democrats removed the reversal of a long-standing anti-abortion provision, abandoned long-sought provisions that would have loosened travel and trade restrictions on Cuba and deleted a line item demanded by unions that would have required federal contractors to pay union wages in disaster areas like New Orleans.

What remains is a smattering of modest policy advances and spending increases on health care, education and transportation that Democrats are touting as the appropriations bill makes its way to the president.

It seems that Republicans were better able to discern what the 2006 election results meant better than the Democrats. Democrats thought it was a mandate to end the Battle for Iraq, but clearly it was not. They could not even get all in their own party to vote for withdrawal, often passing related House measures by the slimmest of margins. And as things improved in Iraq, that margin got even slimmer.

Republicans, on the other hand, interpreted the election results as dissatisfaction with the way they let spending get out of control. Democrats, in the run up to the election played on this theme by promising "pork" reform, something they promptly forgot about after the election. This gave the Republicans a chance to take back the issue. And take it back they did.

The Veto threat was only credible if the Republican block stood firm. And it did.

It stood firm on the War. It stood firm on FISA, and it stood firm on the budget.

And on the budget issue, I have to say, the spending restraint would not have been possible had the Republicans kept control of Congress.

So yeah, I'm pretty happy with the results. Scalzi, not so much. In fact the only thing he got right was the divided government being a good thing part

It seems that in the 12 years they were out of power, Democrats forgot how to pass legislation. They forgot that they can not simply do whatever the hell they want; that they have to work with the other side and craft legislation that is acceptable to both parties. SCHIP is a great example of what has gone wrong in Congress since the Democrats took over.

Perhaps, next year, they'll get the hang of it.

Still, while I am happy with the budget results, the most egregious errors of the Democrats are most disturbing in a long-term strategic sense, yet are under the RADAR of most voters. Their outright snubbing of Columbian President Alvaro Uribe will, if not corrected, have unpleasant consequences for us in an area of the world that is rapidly heading Anti-American Left. And our relations with the newly minted non-terrorist state Libya are also being damaged

Tripoli underwent a dramatic transformation in Washington's eyes after the disclosure and abandonment of its nuclear program in 2003. In 2004, after about 25 years with no diplomatic presence in Libya, the US opened a temporary mission in Tripoli, the capital. In August 2007, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that she would visit Tripoli, the first visit of an American cabinet secretary since 1953.

Full restoration of diplomatic and economic relations appeared to be just around the corner.

But this fall, US-Libyan relations hit a snag: Congress denied the administration's 2008 budget request to construct a new embassy. Congress also let it be known that it would not hold confirmation hearings for Gene Kretz, the administration's ambassador-designate to Tripoli. And now it appears Secretary Rice's travel plans have been shelved....

Imperfect as it is, Libya's rehabilitation remains the best working model available. Washington's decades-long commitment to sanctions and the administration's policy of aggressive WMD interdiction succeeded in bringing Tripoli to the table. But the structure of the deal – front-loaded with rewards and absent human rights and terrorism guarantees – left the US with little leverage to counter ongoing problematic Libyan behavior.

Expanding on these thoughts on the Counterterrorism Blog, David Schenker writes

Yesterday, though, the House acceded to the Administration's request to fund the US Embassy. However, Congress did say that it will not allow the Administration to provide any financial aid to or run any programs in Libya....

Essentially, Congress will prohibit State Department from administering $1.15 million in programs in Libya next year. Congressional staffers suggest that Congress will for the time being also continue to oppose confirmation of an ambassador.

On January 3rd by the Libyan foreign minister will visit Washington.

The best thing that can happen now is for Republicans to convince the voting population that they have learned their lesson and get back in control of Congress.

The divided government thing has served its purpose. It's time for the return of the adults.

Sgt. Justin L. Clough

From the American Forces Press Service

Clough was a squad leader with the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, who led his Marines on more than 100 combat patrols in Iraq. The squadron frequently came under attack from direct and indirect fire and improvised explosive devices, and Clough impressed upon his Marines the value of working closely with close-air operators in case the need for combat assistance or a medical evacuation should arise.

The sergeant was so confident in his unit’s ability, he said, that even though he lived in an area crawling with insurgents, he lived without fear.

“You’ve basically got your family there to look out for each other, so it gives you a false sense of security all the time,” he said.

Clough’s illusion of security was shattered the day after Christmas 2006. While conducting a routine patrol in a sparse, sandy section near Fallujah, Iraq, a sniper shot him, sinking a bullet into a section of flesh unprotected by body armor.

“It went in my right hip, came out my left hip, nipped my femoral artery and bruised my sciatic nerve,” Clough said. “I don’t have any feeling in my left foot or movement in my left foot any more.”

Clough hit the ground moments after being shot. He was losing blood so rapidly that he quickly blacked out.

Clough’s comrades immediately took control of the situation. Within 10 minutes, they stopped the sergeant’s bleeding and called in a helicopter to evacuate him. The hours of training and practice runs that Clough had conducted with his Marines would ultimately save his life.

While still unconscious, Clough made his homecoming from Iraq. “The next thing I remember is waking up New Year’s Day in Bethesda (Naval Hospital) intensive care unit,” said the Marine, whose first instinct was to confirm that his battle buddies back in Iraq were safe.

Clough returned to his parents’ home in Stonington, Conn., where he now undergoes outpatient rehabilitation. The tiny town of roughly 18,000 greeted him with open arms, the sergeant said.

“The first selectman of the town there gave me Justin Lewis Clough day,” he said. “It’s my own little day there in the town of Stonington.”

In addition to being honored as the USO’s Marine of the Year, Clough also has been recommended for the Bronze Star with Combat “V” for valor.

From Defenselink.mil

The unconventional nature of the war in Iraq has demanded much from the Marine Corps NCOs on the ground. During his two tours in Iraq, Marine Corps Sgt. Justin L. Clough exhibited leadership on numerous occasions, in combat, communications, air support, and rescue missions. Clough served a Squad Leader with the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, and his squad undertook more than 100 combat patrols. In between missions, Clough trained his squad to enhance its communication skills with aircrews that provide support during combat operations. He also taught his team how to conduct evacuations for the wounded, and implemented cutting-edge infantry tactics. Clough's dedication to training his men eventually helped save his life. Clough and his team repeatedly came under fire during direct and indirect attacks. They also had to constantly dodge improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Clough usually took the lead during assignments, constantly placing himself in the line of fire. On one occasion in Anbar province, an insurgent sniper wounded Clough. After quickly regaining consciousness, Clough's first concern was to look out for the Marines next to him. Sgt. Nathaniel Clough, Justin's twin brother, tended to his wounds.

Having been trained to deal with the situation at hand, Clough's squad quickly and ably radioed in his injury, requested immediate assistance, and prepared an evacuation by air.

For his actions in combat, Sergeant Clough was honored with the USO (United Service Organizations) Marine of the Year award, as well as the Purple Heart. He has also been recommended for the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor. Clough�s service, which includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan, has been recognized by numerous institutions, including Stonington, CT, where the town celebrated "Justin Lewis Clough Day." Clough threw out the first pitch at a Washington Nationals baseball game this past year.

Clough is quick to praise those around him � especially his brother, whom Clough credits with saving his life. Sgt. Nathaniel Clough later earned the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with a Combat "V."

NATO, Afghanistan and Kosovo

In 1999, at the request of the EU, the US waged an unsanctioned (by the UN) was in the Balkans to alleviate the suffering of Muslims at the hands of the Serbs in Kosovo.

Since the UN was no help, mostly because of Russian vetoes, NATO embarked on a war that targeted Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian thugs.

Later, the road to democracy was taken over by the UN and security was in the hands of NATO. 8 years later, this hasn't worked out so well.

The gleeful voices of several thousand people echoed along Bill Clinton Boulevard in the Kosovo capital of Pristina yesterday, celebrating a day of national independence that has not yet arrived.

Even though nothing really changed yesterday, as the United Nations gave up its attempts to find a compromise on the status of the embattled Serbian province, it was enough for about 3,000 young people to take to the streets, waving banners and shouting, in Albanian, "Free Kosovo" and the name of the outlawed Kosovo Liberation Army.

Here, in this unstable corner of Europe, was what must have been the world's only pro-American demonstration. Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, who are largely Muslim, credit the United States with freeing them from Serbian control in the 1999 NATO war, and yesterday there were hundreds of Stars and Stripes flags in the air. One banner read "USA: Kick some Putin ass," a familiar sentiment....

Yesterday marked the deadline for a UN-appointed committee of world governments to determine the fate of Kosovo, and, effectively, the end of a UN truce that has kept the Serbian province in limbo. And it became clear that Kosovo's Albanian-speaking leaders are determined to declare national independence by the end of February.

The governments of almost all the European Union countries, plus the United States and Canada, seem sure to recognize the new nation, which will be angrily opposed by Russia, China and a few countries like Cyprus that have their own breakaway regions.

While the Albanian majority celebrated the day as a prelude to national liberation, the 100,000 Serbians who remain part of Kosovo's two million people reacted with silence, fearing vengeful attacks of a sort that have not been seen since 2004.

The problem is, of course, that even though they lost the war back in 1999, Serbia, with Russian backing, has been reluctant to give up control of Kosovo.

The United Nations in Kosovo today accused Serbia of provocation by opening a government office in the ethnically divided northern town of Mitrovica.

The opening of the office on Monday came after the end of negotiations which had failed to resolve the fate of Kosovo, Serbia's UN-run southern province.

"The opening of this office is raising the level of the Serbian government presence in Kosovo," the UN mission spokesman, Alexander Ivanko, told a news conference. "We consider this a provocative act."

The only option now is for a NATO supervised independence of Kosovo in order to prevent bloodshed.

But will the US be involved in that effort? Not unless NATO begins to step up to the plate in Afghanistan

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will consider shifting U.S. troops from Kosovo to Afghanistan next year if NATO allies do not fulfil their commitments, U.S. government officials said.    

Gates, in Ukraine on Sunday to ask eastern European countries for help in the war, had first considered laying the threat before NATO defence ministers this week at a meeting in the Netherlands, senior U.S. officials said.

The problem is not just the troop levels, but various rules of engagement authorized by the various countries

American, British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers do the bulk of NATO's fighting in Afghanistan and have sustained most casualties. France, Germany and other members have been criticized for imposing caveats on what operations their troops can take part in and keeping them in the relatively calm north.

The Marines, their job mostly done in Iraq, wants to fight al Qaida who is focusing again on Afghanistan. But Secretary Gates shot that idea down

Defense Secretary Robert Gates's decision to take a pass, at least for now, on a proposal to send marines to Afghanistan          leaves the future security of that country an open question.              

Secretary Gates appears to have rejected the proposal by Gen. James Conway, the Marine commandant, in part because Gates wants other nations to contribute more personnel to the NATO-led force in Afghanistan. Many say security there has deteriorated in the past year.

And it's not because, as the Christian Science Monitor attempts to imply, "a move to send more American          troops back to Afghanistan could be grist for Democrats in an election year" it's because Gates wants to put pressure on NATO to pull their weight in Afghanistan. Gates has been very clear on the matter

``The numbers are not that big, which, frankly, is one of the sources of frustration for me in terms of our allies not being able to step up to the plate and meet these needs,'' Gates told the House Armed Services Committee in Washington this week. ``I am not ready to let NATO off the hook.''

Despite the limits on the NATO forces, al Qaeda recently suffered a significant defeat

Afghan and NATO-led troops killed, wounded and detained hundreds of insurgents during fighting in the Taliban's biggest stronghold, the Defence Ministry said on Thursday.    

Musa Qala, in the southern province of Helmand, took on a symbolic importance after the Taliban seized it in February following the breakdown of a much-criticized local truce that allowed besieged British troops to pull out of the town in October last year.

Thousands of Afghan and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops captured the town on Tuesday after one of the biggest operations the Afghan army has carried out.

"During the successful operation by ISAF and Afghan troops in Musa Qala, hundreds of insurgents including several commanders and tens of foreign fighters have been either killed, wounded or detained," Defence Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi told a news conference.

       

Ed Morrissey comments

The Taliban faces a desperate situation in that area. With the Afghan winter pressing down on them, they cannot easily move around in Helmand province. Their lines of communication have been cut, and they have few options for haven. Without gaining shelter, the force ejected from Musa Qala will likely die in the snow, and so their suicidal charge in Sangin highlights their desperation.

Now that the Taliban has lost its best footing in Helmand, its other forces will find themselves in the crosshairs of the NATO coalition. They still have control in three remote towns in Helmand, but without Musa Qala, those outposts will not last long. The Taliban has to face a decision whether to stand and get annihilated, or retreat back across the border into Pakistan before the coalition finds them -- if they can manage the trek at this time of year.

If the Europeans want our continued assistance in Kosovo, they need to live up to their committments in Afghanistan.

Troops held hostage for pork

Before the Thanksgiving break, an appropriations bill that would have supplied money to the US Military on the field of fire was shot down by the Senate minority because it contained timetables for withdrawal. The troops have been left languishing ever since. I had suggested that it was a good idea to reallocate the pork funding to get the troops through.

Since returning from their break, a break which was much longer than the soldiers under fire get, the Democrats came up with a new plan: they'll drop the timetable and half the pork if the President will sign the bill. As far as Bush is concerned, they are still $13 billion dollars over budget.

Over the weekend, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey was informed that there is no deal so long as the pork remained: Bush threatened to veto this new $500 billion bill that would provide at least partial funding for the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to boosting funding for Democratic priorities such as school aid and health care.

Obey is exasperated

"...if you take those bills down to the president's level... it is very hard for me to understand how earmarks could survive. It's not a threat. It's a reality."

Poor baby. But I have to ask, is this the same Democratic leadership who, in the run up to the 2006 elections promised to eliminate pork?

The LA Times may snark that Bush "has adopted a new role as fiscal watchdog", which is true, but they also have to remember that while the Democrats believe their win was an anti-war mandate, the Republicans view their loss was as a result of being perceived by their base as spending too much.

Republicans are looking to get right with their voters.

The Democratic leadership has clearly misunderstood their mandate, because if there really was a popular uprising against the war, they would not have failed so miserably over the last year in ending it.

Or even limiting it.

The Democrats are getting squeezed none the less, because while Bush threatens a veto

...senior Democrats are facing a restive liberal base incensed by talk that a budget deal would provide more money for the war in Iraq without attaching any conditions aimed at forcing troop withdrawals.

Additional war funding would represent a major concession to the president, who has demanded that Congress abandon its push to impose a schedule for bringing troops home.

And this from a President who was declared a lame duck from the moment the new Congress took the oath.

The fact is Democrats have forgotten how to govern. They have forgotten how to compromise.

Yet, these days, their favorite thing to do is complain about how Iraqis can't settle their partisan differences.

Maybe they should all go to Iraq and show them how it's done.