The Cool Blue Blog

What I do and don't want to hear from the President regarding Afghanistan

When President Obama gives his address to the nation tomorrow night on how he plans to go forward in Afghanistan, I want to hear him say that either he is all in or he's folding. I do not want him to say anything that resembles something halfway between the two.

I want to hear the word "Victory" if he's all in.

I want to hear the words "complete withdrawal" if he's folding.

I can understand a rationale for either position, but I will not understand a rational for staying if it is not to achieve victory.

General Douglas MacArthur has been quoted as saying "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." And to me, this is a truism that especially applies today because if the President is going to commit more troops as is being rumored, and he is about achieving "Victory", then we are going to take casualties in excess of what we have seen thus far. Like the "Surge" in Iraq, which had the three pronged strategy of Clear, Hold, and Rebuild; the Clearing part is the most costly in human lives.

And it is the clearing part that will make people nevous as the reports of the dead and wounded come in. He will get pressure from people to stop it. And he must ignore that pressure and show resolve.

I don't know if he can do that.

I do not want to hear any variant of the "Biden Strategy". In my opinion Biden is a know-nothing with regards to military operations. I do not want to hear that we are going to implement a counter-terrorist operation; that our soldiers are just there to train Afghans and selectively target al Qaida. We are either going with the full up Counter-Insurgency or we should leave. Completely.

I think we can win in Afghanistan and by that I mean we can deny both Afghanistan and Pakistan as a haven for al Qaida and the Taliban while at the same time making Afghanistan a more stable and freer country. But only if the President is resolved to doing so.

And if he is so resolved, the tomorrow night I want to hear the word Victory.

Bringing health-care reform to a successful conclusion

The Senate produced two health care bills out of committee. Senator Reid caucused behind closed doors with Democrats to craft a single bill out of these. And on Saturday, he got the votes he needed to bring this bill to the floor for debate. But the likelyhood of this bill passing the Senate is in doubt.

Even in the blush of Saturday’s victory, Reid (D-Nev.) is far from having the votes to move his $848 billion package to final passage. At least four centrists have pledged to oppose it in its current form, largely over the public option. Reid is in a bind. Stay to the left, and moderates vote no. Move a tad to the right, and Reid faces insurrection from the left, as liberals in his own caucus and in the House vow not to compromise any further on their signature issue.

As one of the Senate most liberal members, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told POLITICO’s The Arena: “I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed.”

No Republican is going to vote for this, and how many of the Senate Blue Dog Caucus it will attract is similarly in doubt. But there is a way forward: Forget the Liberals and form an alliance with the Republicans.

There are 40 Republicans in the Senate and 27 members of the Blue Dog Caucus. If a bill could be crafted that satisfies these folks, the President gets a twofor: He passes health care reform legislation and he fulfills a campaign promise to be bi-partisan.

Similarly in the House, there are 177 Republicans and 53 Blue Dogs for a total of 230 votes: significantly more that the 218 needed to pass legislation.

Support of the health care legislation by the public continues to decline. Meanwhile, a plurality of Americans think that the President and the Democrats are not making a good-faith effort to include Republicans in crafting health-care reform legislation and 60% of Americans think it would be wrong to pass such legislation without Republican support.

And it must be clear to everyone that the Left wing of the Democratic Party is the problem here.

But the right leadership could change all that...

Staff Sergeant Patrick Jordan

When U.S. Army Reservist Staff Sergeant Patrick Jordan took control of the C66 tank he was riding in on April 4, 2004, he had never served as tank commander before.

It was during a long day of constant attacks by the Mahdi Army in Sadr City, Iraq. Nineteen Infantrymen had been isolated and in constant contact with the enemy for over three hours, when Jordan and his company traveled across the city to reach and evacuate them.

When the company commander moved to another tank due to communications problems, he left the then- Sergeant to take the lead.

Despite no prior experience and though he had no radio communications, Jordan "commanded his tank during a brilliant four-hour attack against elements of the Mahdi Army," according to the award citation of the Silver Star he earned for his actions that day.

The company was fighting through densely urban terrain as they tried to reach the isolated soldiers.

Jordan's tank was constantly assailed from both sides by hundreds of enemies firing both small arms and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). But he commanded the tank from its open hatch throughout the entire attack and evacuation. He ensured that his gunner fought the tank properly, and provided security at the rear of the combat column they were fighting in.

While commanding the tank and checking his gunner's work for proper fire control, Jordan also fought with every weapon at his disposal, through the extremely close quarters of the urban terrain.

In all they traversed over four kilometers to reach the 19 soldiers.

As his company commander coordinated the evacuation, Jordan provided cover from the enemy attacking the evacuation effort. And as the company moved towards safety, Jordan's tank again took up the rear.

When the Humvee traveling in front of him was hit and lost multiple tires as well as its engine, Jordan, of his own initiative and without orders, loaded the remaining infantrymen into his tank. He then pushed the damaged Humvee at speeds as slow as five kilometers-per-hour for over a kilometer. All the while they were still in heavy contact with enemy forces attacking from buildings on his immediate right flank.

Jordan remained out of the hatch throughout this journey, engaging and eliminating enemies with the array of weapons at his disposal.

Jordan persevered until he pushed the damaged Humvee back to camp, and safely delivered the infantrymen riding in his tank back to their base camp, as well.

Jordan was awarded the Silver Star in 2004 for his leadership and bravery which were key in evacuating those 19 men, and ensuring they all reached safety.

"I might've got the Silver Star, but we're all heroes," said Jordan, who has since been promoted to staff sergeant.

"Everyone who served. They're all heroes. No matter what war they fought in or if it was peacetime. They took time out of their lives to serve. Not everybody does that."

Hang 'em high

In defending the Obama Administration's decision to try  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees in a civilian court, Senator Patrick Leahy said:

"By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system -- a system respected around the world,"

Well, there are a number of things about that. First is that our world-respected judicial system requires that a defendant be considered innocent until proven guilty. But when speaking to Bob Schieffer, Leahy said:

I think it’s an example we’re showing the rest of the world. We have systems that work. We’re not afraid of these people. We’re ready to stand up to them. I don’t think we should run and hide and cower. Let’s use our system. And let’s convict them.

And he's not the only one. Both the Attorney General and the President believe the out come will be a conviction. So what does it say to the world when the people they hear have a presumption of guilt, not innocence? How does that reflect on our legal system.

And if there is a presumtion of innocence, might it not come about that one or more of these guys might be let go for one reason or another?

SCHIEFFER: What if he should be acquitted?

LEAHY: I don’t think he’s going to be acquitted. I’ve discussed the evidence that’s available. Again, I’ve not prosecuted this kind of a case, but I’ve prosecuted a lot of murder cases. I think most prosecutors know what is going to happen.

You have got Eric Holder, who is one of the most experienced prosecutors this country has ever had as attorney general. He’s got one of the greatest teams of prosecutors around him. I’ve gone over the case with him. I’d rather be the prosecutor than the defense counsel in this case.

And why is an aquittal or a mistrial so unlikely? Why it appears that the conviction rate of terrorism suspects in Federal courts is high (91%) it is not 100%. What's more, that 91% conviction rate was achieved when law-enforcement and prosecuters were intending to bring the case to court. That means that evidence was achieved by means of a search warrant; the suspect is read his or her Miranda Rights; evidenciary chain of custody was rigorously maintained. Do we have that wit, say KSM?

How could we? First, he was arrested in foreign country and the circumstances of his arrested are not even well understood. Some accounts have him arrested by Pakistani's. Others by a joint effort of Pakistani's and the CIA's Special Activities Division; or the Paks and the FBI; or the Paks and the US Diplomatic Security Service. Even when he was taken into custody is in doubt.

One thing is for sure, it was highly touted in numerous places that he asked for a lawyer and was denied.

How much evidence will be allowed into court given all this? What if none is allowed? And if the rules of evidence are abrogated for these cases, what will that tell the world about our much vaunted justice system? And what will it mean for everyone else? As James Taranto points out, if the rules of evidence are watered down for KSM et. al., will that not affect everyone else who is brought to trial?

Senator Leahy hand waves these concerns away.

SCHIEFFER: You know, anybody who has watched “Law and Order” or any of the other crime shows on television knows that the first thing that happens when a law enforcement arrests someone, they advise them of their rights, that they have a right to an attorney and so on. Now, there was no attorney here. This man was waterboarded 183 times. Do you think that we can find untainted evidence, enough of it, to convict him? Because if you say, well, he didn’t have a lawyer from the beginning, would that say to people, to a judge, well, you can’t use any of that evidence?

LEAHY: No, I think that we have plenty of evidence as obtained outside of the -- whatever he said in waterboarding. Keep in mind, they indicted him long before this waterboarding. They had evidence enough to bring indictments against him long before that. I don’t -- with the review that I’ve had of the evidence available, I have no question that they have enough evidence untainted by the waterboarding that will be admissible in court. And he will be convicted.

But the evidence required to gain an indictment are much lower than what it takes to convict, and execute, a defendant in a Capital case.

So let's just say that the case is thrown out of court for lack of evidence, or worse, he is acquitted because the jury could not agree on reasonable doubt, then what. Will the Obama Administration let him walk?

Not likely.

But if not, what will that say to the world about our judicial system?

And what would have been the point of the trial in the first place?

Jobs, jobs, jobs

So after ten months as President, Mr Obama has decided to focus on job creation.

President Obama plans to hold a White House forum on job creation next month, an attempt to signal his concern about the growing ranks of the unemployed and build consensus on future action to stoke the economy.

But wait! I thought that's what the $800 billion Stimulus was supposed to fix. Did I miss something?

Of course I'm being ironic. After all the months of the President and Vice-President trying to convince us what a great job creator the stimulus was, all of a sudden more needs to be done.

The real problem, and the real reason the President is suddenly focused on Jobs, has everything to do with the Democrats losing the governorships in New Jersy and Virginia. It was here that the President and the Democratic leadership finnally got through their heads that Health Care reform is not job one: Jobs and the Economy is.

In analyzing the election results, Steve Lombardo writing at Pollster.com notes:

The economy was a key driver of anti-incumbency sentiment last week and this will continue unless perceptions of economic performance improve. While the Dow is soaring again, unemployment has hit 10.2%. Despite the growing talk about a recovery, it has yet to hit Main Street. A recent Ipsos/McClatchy poll shows that only seven percent of Americans believe that the U.S. economy has "turned the corner." From most voter perspectives, the economy is still a mess and they are unsatisfied with the Democrats' response. This is confirmed by the exit polls:

• 89% of NJ voters were worried about the economy and Christie won 51% of the vote among them (Corzine 43%, Daggett 5%).
• 85% of VA voters were worried about economy and McDonnell won 63% - 36% among that group.

In short, voter attitudes regarding the direction of the country are really hurting the President and Democrats right now.

Meanwhile, support for healthcare reform is plummeting. In fact, most people, when asked,don't think it is the government's job to make sure everytone has health care.

More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

What's more, Gallup found that 61% of people have decided that maintaining the current system of healhcare is preferable to letting the government run it.

Throughout this decade, a plurality of Americans have consistently favored maintaining the current system, although support has fluctuated. In November 2007, the edge for the private system over the government-run system was just 7 points, vs. a 31-point gap in 2004. The current 29-point gap is thus at the high end of the historical range.

Almost 9 out of 10 Republicans and Republican leaners favor maintaining the current healthcare system based mostly on private health insurance. Democrats and Democratic leaners favor the concept of replacing the current system with a government-run system, but Democratic opinion is less monolithic than Republican opinion; more than a third of Democrats would favor maintaining the current system.

The President's epiphany that people are worried about jobs and the economy more than healthcare is not about him feeling your pain, it's about him feeling the pain of the people who are required to help him pass his agenda. An agenda which includes passing healthcare.

Whether you want him to or not...

Anita Dunn's hero

Well, Anita Dunn may be done at the White House, but now we know what she adored Mao Zedong so much:

One Beijing shop owner wanted to see what Obama could do for sales. Liu Mingjie created "Oba Mao" T-shirts, with the president wearing the uniform of the Red Guards, who caused chaos during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s.

Huh.

Incomprehensible

Walid Phares writing at The CounterTerrorism blog points out

The shooting inside a US military installation that led to the killing of many personnel compels us to ponder. Over the past few years and months authorities have stopped attempts on similar attacks. The Fort Dix Jihadi plot, dismantled in 2006, aimed at performing a killing of military personnel inside the base. Other cells, dismantled in Georgia, New York and North Carolina also had plans for attacking military installations on US soil. But more importantly a number of lone wolves have also expressed intentions to attack military personnel.

This year, a person by the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, shot two US military at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock, killing one. In cyberspace Jihadi threats against US military in the homeland and against American cities has been ongoing. Information collected by authorities, including from suspects and indicted individuals has shown a pattern by the Jihadists (militants or propagandists) indicating their intentions to strike at military and security installations.

And yet, our Commander-in-Chief finds this current attack "incomprehensible".

What makes this incomprehensible? The enemy will try to win in any manner possible; on the battlefield or behind enemy lines. And make no mistake, we are their enemy.

At Forbes.com, Claudia Rosett writes:

In the media, the question of the hour is how the military could have missed the warning signs of Hasan's impending attack. Such details are important, and it would be a great idea to have better mechanisms (or any mechanisms at all?) within the military to catch the warning signs and act in time. But vigilance of that kind starts at the top. Right now the biggest warning sign of all is a president who looks at a pattern of jihadi communications, recruiting and attacks on America, and tells the public that the bloodshed at Fort Hood is "incomprehensible." Not for the first time, the system is blinking red.

The media is one thing, but signals from the White House are broadcasting that the President is floundering

A senior Administration official said the President did not plan to accept any of the options presented to him in a war council meeting yesterday. Instead he pushed for revisions to clarify how and when United States troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan Government.

While Europe remains steadfast:

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he shared the concern of the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan about sending more troops to the country but stressed that the allies must stay the course and commit more to training Afghan forces.

"We are not in Afghanistan to protect and defend a specific government, but to make sure Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists who could easily spread from Afghanistan through Central Asia and further, not to mention the risk of destabilising Pakistan, a nuclear power, which would create a very dangerous situation," he said.

But what good will such sentiment be if the US gives up?

The Taliban senses confusion in our foreign policy:

"The shooting incident which was executed by the Muslim American soldier Nidal Malek Hasan, against the American soldiers at Fort Hood base in the state of Texas last Thursday, and caused the death of 13 and injury of 38 [soldiers], has caused fright and trance and enormous fears within the military and civil circles in America."

"Silence was declared in the American Congress; Obama considered the incident very confusing and very terrifying in the history of America..."

"The American army has killed tens of thousands of innocent people in two confusing wars and without directions, and lasted eight years; hundreds of thousands were injured, and other millions were displaced; away from their homes and refuges in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it also caused the death of thousands of their own soldiers and the injury of the same number whether wounds, handicap and psychological illnesses. These repeated disasters and carnage have awoken the human sympathy in the souls of the American soldier, and a question has personified itself for them: why are they, and other humans, are engaged in two wars with unclear features?"

But who is unclear? President Bush was never unclear about our goals in this war. Previous Presidents could use the word "Victory".

But not this President.

Fort Hood and all evidence that Jihadists are looking to attack our military at home and abroad makes it clear that the enemy is vibrant and will use all forces available to them in order to obtain a victory.

Will we?

Benign Contact

OK, so is there enough evidence for us now to proclaim that Nidal Malik Hasan performed a terrorist act when he shot the soldiers at Fort Hood?

OK, you may not have believed early reports that he shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he begain firing. Or that he wrote  "We love death more than you love life" when referring to people he consider true Muslim's.

But it is no longer possible to deny that he had contact with the al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki who later praised Maj Hasan's actions. Nor is it possible to deny that he had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki.

You may call him a lunatic, but what makes him any more of a lunatic than the suicide bombers that he revered?

What is inexplicable is how a muslim Islamist, whose investigation for contacting the likes of Anwar al -Awlaki, could have concluded that his exchanges with the terrorist recruiter was deemed benign contact.

How is any conversation with a terrorist recruiter benign let alone conversation with a known al Qaeda recruiter and a known Islamist serving in the US Army.

But the weeding out of others who are like Hasan will be much more difficult when you have the Army's top guy saying "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,"

How about being on the lookout for more traitors in military uniform. The bad part is that Maj Hasan made no secret of his afinity for Jihadists and it is at least likely that he was not reported because "Army leaders would be on the lookout" for people who seemed to be prejudice against muslim soldiers.

It is very true that the direction from the top military brass needs to be balanced. We do not want a witch hunt. But at the same time we can not afford another Hasan either in a war zone or at home.

But General Casey does not seem to be able to strike the right balance. His direction comes down on the side of political correctness which is detrimental to the welfare of our troops and our country.

General Casey should be replaced by someone who can strike the right balance.