You are here: Home / Archives for War on Terror

A Few Thoughts on Obama’s Afghanistan Speech

December 2, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

First off let preface this by saying I didn’t watch President Obama’s speech last night, instead I read the transcript this morning. The first thing about his speech that struck me is no where in it did he mention victory… A fact noted by LA Times blogger Andrew Malcolm:

President Obama spoke 4,582 words in his prime-time Afghanistan war speech at West Point last night.

He said “Al Qaeda” 22 times.

He mentioned the “Taliban” 12 times.

And here’s how many times the Democratic chief executive used the word “victory” — 0.

That telling omission says more than anything about Obama’s 322nd day in office, when he gave his first major address as the United States’ commander in chief.

The sad truth is nothing in the President’s speech leads me to believe that he is fully committed to prosecuting this war to it’s end even though he made winning the war in Afghanistan a central part of his Presidential campaign.

Anyway, President Obama outlined three broad strategies last night, the first Denying al Qaeda a safe haven is counter-terrorism… It’s Joe Biden’s “magic ninjas” and drones strategy. Which I would assume is why he decided to commit far fewer troops than Gen. McChrystal asked for. The second and third, reversing the momentum of the Taliban and safeguarding the Afghan people are elements of counter-insurgency, even with the 30,000 additional troops we’re woefully undermanned.

I have no doubt Gen. McChrystal will the best he can with the resources he has, but counter-insurgency is labor intensive mission and given the troops available I’m not sure he’ll be able to do much more than secure urban centers.

Lastly the President set a time line for our mission in Afghanistan, a time line that ultimately undermines the counter-insurgency mission.  In order for COIN operations to work you troops have to “flood the zone” and work to build trust with locals so they’ll be willing to provide us with the intelligence information we need to flush out the bad guys. The only way to do this by convincing the locals you’re going to be sticking around, by setting a date for withdrawal the President is telling the very people whose trust we need we’re not in it for the long hall. No one is going to cooperating with us for the simple reason they know we’re going to leave and the bad guys will still be there… ready, willing and able take revenge on anyone who cooperates with us.

Bottom line Wars don’t end Mr. President, they are either won or lost.

Related

Filed Under: Afghanistan, War on Terror Tagged With: , ,

Fred Thompson: The War in Afghanistan Has Been Lost

November 19, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

Oh boy, I wish Fred hadn’t gone here but the said truth is someone had to say it out loud…

From the Politico:

Former Sen. Fred Thompson today intensified his party’s criticism of President Obama’s long deliberation over policy in Afghanistan, announcing that Obama’s delay signals that “the war has been lost” and that nothing the president now does will “make any difference.”

“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today.  “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

“Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,” Thompson said.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has the audio here.

Ouch… Barack Obama made winning the war in Afghanistan a central part of his Presidential campaign and yet 10 months into his term in office he’s still formulating a policy… Unfortunately, I think Sen. Thompson is right, President Obama lacks the temerity to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and is instead voting ‘present’ just as he has done with everything else.

Jim Hanson laid it out months ago Mr. President, wars do not end, they are either won or lost:

The buck stops with you Mr. President, it’s time to make a decision… Do we give our war fighters the resources they need to fight and win or do we cut and run?

Update (5:15 p.m.): Pete Hegseth has a good post over at The Corner that takes Sen. Thompson to task for his remarks:

Let’s go back to an interview Senator Thompson gave on Hannity and Colmes on May 1, 2007:

HANNITY: The biggest battle we have is this war on terror, this battle in Iraq. We have a really deep divide in the country. Senator Reid the war is lost. We still have to finish the job there. Where do you stand in general on the war on terror and, more specifically, in Iraq, and on the divide surrounding Iraq?

THOMPSON: Well, let’s talk about Senator Reid for a moment. Right before I came over here, I was sitting outside, getting a bite to eat, before we did our interview. A young woman [former Army captain] came up and asked if she could sit down and talk to me a minute. . . . I asked her what she thought about this. She said, “How in the world can anyone, any one of our leaders, declare war, declare that the war has been lost when we’ve got troops in the field? My friends are over there in the field. I know what they think about this.”

And, of course, it’s just like all other Americans think. The very idea that they would do this and undercut our efforts over there is unprecedented. And it’s not only unprecedented; it’s awful politics.

We should not be fearful of these people politically. We just need to concentrate on what’s right. What is right? We need to take advantage of any opportunity we’ve got down there. I’ve got a lot of faith in Petraeus. I knew him when he was at Fort Campbell when I was in the Senate. He tells me we’ve got a shot? We’ve got to take that shot.

I’m sure Senator Thompson made many similar comments in 2007, and he was right. Sen. Harry Reid’s statement was unprecedented, and it was awful politics. And if Petraeus says we have a shot, then we’ve got to take that shot.

In light of the above, what is Senator Thompson doing undercutting the mission in Afghanistan? Is the mission less justified? Is it less achievable? Or is McChrystal less capable? No. Senator Thompson’s issue with the Afghanistan mission is President Obama. And while I share many of his frustrations — indecisiveness, lack of will, unwillingness to articulate the need to win — none of them give him, or anyone, grounds to declare the war lost.

I have a lot of respect for Fred Thompson but the more I think about his remarks the less comfortable I am with them…  Pete Hegseth is right, regardless of our frustrations with the President Obama’s lack of action there are just some things that shouldn’t be said while men and women are in harms way.

Filed Under: Afghanistan, War on Terror Tagged With: , , , , ,

Leon Panetta: Angency Briefed Lawmakers Truthfully in 2002

May 15, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

CIA Director Leon Panetta today released a statement defending his agency from charges that it mislead mmeber of Congress:

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

The bottom line here is this no longer a partisan issue… Republicans are calling her a liar and now, by implication, so is the White House. Speaker Pelosi has painted Democrats into a corner and she very well end up being sacrificed for the good of the party.

Related

Filed Under: Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , , , , ,

Top Pelosi Aide Briefed on Enhanced Interrogations in 2003

May 11, 2009 By Jeff 1 Comment

The Washington Post on Saturday reported that a top aide to Nancy Pleosi attended a briefing CIA briefing on Enhanced Interrogations, including waterboarding in 2003:

A top aide to  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday.

Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. But Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included  Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida.

A Democratic source acknowledged yesterday that it is almost certain that Pelosi would have learned about the use of waterboarding from Sheehy. Pelosi herself acknowledged in a December 2007 statement that she was aware that Harman had learned of the waterboarding and had objected in a letter to the CIA’s top counsel.

This would seem to conform earlier reports that Sen Pelosi new what was going on and didn’t raise objections until it was politically expedient. As far  as I can tell Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was the only member of Congress to raise questions at the time.

Regardless these tit for tat politically motivated leaks have to stop… Barack Obama opened this can of worms with the release of the OLC memos on Enhanced Interrogations, since then we’ve seen a series of competing leaks designed for political advantage.

It’s time to make the complete record available… As Ed Morrissey notes:

We need to see all of the documentation, with only the most sensitive information redacted, in order to know exactly what was done, who ordered it, who approved it, and who knew about it — and what we discovered as a result of it.

Only by getting all of the information on the table can we have an informed, rational discussion about methods, values, and responsibilities.  Obama opened Pandora’s Box, and now we need to let it all escape in order to get the full picture.  The drip-drip-drip leaks and releases are akin to a Chinese water torture on rational discussion of this topic, irony definitely intended.

Previous

Filed Under: Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , , ,

Debra Burlingame: The President isn’t Sincere about ‘Swift and Certain’ Justice for Terrorists.

May 8, 2009 By Jeff Leave a Comment

Debra Burlingame has must read Op Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal:

In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims’ families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama’s decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.

Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.

Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in.

The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing “a diversity of views” were invited to attend and express their concerns.

On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes (“you are the conscience of the country,” “my highest duty as president is to protect the American people,” “we will seek swift and certain justice”). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.

Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn’t rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.

Read it, read it all and share it with your friends and family… This is a column everyone should read. The sad reality is that much of the work done by the Bush Administration to protect this country from another terrorist act is slowly being undermined by a bunch of naive ideologues who will ultimately leave us vulnerable to attack.

Filed Under: Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , , ,

No Criminal Prosecution for ‘Torture Memo’ Authors?

May 7, 2009 By Jeff 1 Comment

It appears that the Bush Administration lawyers who authored the so called ‘torture memos’ are going to escape prosecution, the Justice Dept. will instead refer them to State Bar Associations for disciplinary action:

The Justice Department said it is nearing completion of an internal probe that is expected to recommend professional sanctions but no criminal prosecution for former department lawyers who authorized harsh Central Intelligence Agency interrogations.

John Yoo and Jay Bybee, Justice Department lawyers in the Bush administration who produced the memos, both responded to a draft version of the department’s report by a Monday deadline.

In a letter to two Democratic senators who have been following the probe — Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Richard Durbin of Illinois — the Justice Department said its Office of Professional Responsibility is examining the lawyers’ responses and will make any necessary revisions before seeking a final review from Attorney General Eric Holder.

I’m no fan of the of the interrogation tactics used but I’m not going to sit here with benefit of hindsight and second guess the decisions of people who had to make difficult choices in the shadows of the September 11th attacks.

Wars are ugly business that all to often call for good men to do horrible things… The unpleasant reality is that, if you aren’t willing do those horrible things in war, you will loose to those who are. It’s sad and scary thing that so many of our elected leaders can’t or won’t accept this reality.

Count me among those who agree with Gregory Kane:

Here’s why I don’t care that al-Qaeda operatives Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah were waterboarded after Sept. 11, 2001: I remember where I was the day before.
Every American who recalls that day can probably remember where he or she was when those jets hit the World Trade Center. I do too. But I remember where I was on Sept. 10, 2001, at about the same time.
In the lowest level of the World Trade Center, getting off a commuter train from Jersey City, N.J. I had an appointment in midtown-Manhattan and had to take a subway train from the WTC. Had I done that a day later, I’d have arrived at the WTC at just about the time the first or second jet hit.
But what if I had arrived maybe 15 minutes earlier and had some time to kill? What if I’d decided I wanted to go to the top of the WTC and take in the view?
Then I’d have been one of those people who were trapped above the inferno that raged below them, terrified, wondering how or if we could ever escape. I’d have experienced the terror they felt as the WTC Twin Towers collapsed beneath them and sent them to their horrible deaths.
And you sure as heck wouldn’t be reading this column. Yes, I came that close to perhaps being among the WTC casualties of Sept. 11.
So when President Obama declassified Justice Department memos that revealed the waterboarding of Mohammed and Zubaydah, perhaps you can forgive me if the knowledge didn’t exactly leave me prostrate with grief. Nor am I feeling the arguments of those who claim how torture violates our principles and destroys our values.
Filed Under: Politics, War on Terror Tagged With: , , , ,