Wasting Our Time in Afghanistan

This is from a George Will piece in the WaPo that I caught linked at VodkaPundit.

Torrents of uninteresting mail inundate members of Congress, but occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan. He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are "too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical successes."

Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says that the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.

Returning from a mission, his unit took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew had been placed no more than an hour earlier. "There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties" and "two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home." U.S. forces "are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present." But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house "are good people."

This is obviously not the way to run a counterinsurgency. Someone is missing the basics, and that someone in the President. The timeline is a joke and complete proof that he has no intention of actually finishing the job. I doubt his military commanders agree with him on that one, and I'd bet most counterinsurgency experts do either.

You do have to be more cautious with collateral damage, but this is ridiculous. There are other examples in the piece that are frankly quite sad. I wonder how many deaths can be easily attributed to playing too soft on such events.

I have to say the conclusions that George Will comes up with are farcical at best:

Obama has counted on his 2011 run-up to reelection being smoothed by three developments in 2010 -- the health-care legislation becoming popular after enactment, job creation accelerating briskly and Afghanistan conditions improving significantly. The first two are not happening. He can decisively influence only the third, and only by adhering to his timetable for disentangling U.S. forces from this misadventure.

First, there is no way to get out of Afghanistan by the time of the mid-terms. Sticking to the time table will just have the US pulling out of the situation as an assured failure. He's setting the US up for another guaranteed Vietnam scenario. The Taliban know and understand that he's bailing out of the counterinsurgency and so do the Afghan people. The attrition that the Taliban fighters are seeing may have some minor effects in the short term, but they do nothing in the long term. A secured and stable Afghanistan is what is needed.

The fact that Afghanistan appears now to have vast mineral resources should be an encouragement to the administration to actually try and succeed. If they can even marginally clean up the Afghan government they could get the world to invest in Afghanistan's resource development and provide the people with wealth and stability. With those two together they would likely stand firmly against the Taliban. Especially if they are given security while the resources are developed. Many have lived under the Taliban and understand that there will be no wealth if they return to power. Poverty can be a strong influence to stand against an oppressive power.

Well, unfortunately, the President doesn't seem to think about those things. He's just out there to push a political agenda that has reached all time unpopularity and he's slowly sinking below the Jimmy Carter level of incompetence.

Being a realist I won't say Obama is the worst president ever, but he certainly is much worse than Bush ever was.

Groucho Politics

Why isn't there a modern day Groucho?

Steve Green (vodkaPundit) isn't Groucho, but his drunk blogging definitely helps you get through the LOUSY speeches by the ONE. Green embedded the above clip in his drunk blogging of Obama's speech and all his comments made me hear Groucho.

Pathetic speech, but at least Green made it a bit easier to listen too. I'd enjoy seeing him do an MS3K version of the President's speeches. I'm betting it would be pretty difficult, but still would be hilarious.

Oh, and while watching that Marx Brother's clip, I realized that they were far ahead of their time. Groucho would make a killing today as a political satirist.

D-Day Memorial and Stalin

Stunning. I pretty much don't get this. Usually you put up memorials to honor the dead, don't you? If this had been a memorial to the Stalinist atrocities it would be one thing, but this is a memorial to the veterans of Normandy.

From a link seen at Instapundit:

Eastern Europeans in embassies and communities around the capital region are upset today that Virginia's new D-Day memorial monument, unveiled in a ceremony this past week, contains a statue of the head of notorious Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

I'm just not sure of why the designer of the monument, not to mention those who approved and paid for the damn thing, would think Stalin should be enshrined in a monument in the USA.

From the header link:

The president of the D-Day Memorial Foundation, William McIntosh, did not return three calls from The Washington Times. He has told reporters that the foundation merely sought to mark Stalin's role in the war.

Joe Fab, who co-directed and wrote a recent documentary on the story of the soldiers of Bedford, titled "Bedford: The Town They Left Behind," said he understood from an artistic standpoint why one might include a Stalin icon, adding that he likes to "try to keep an open mind" about such things.

"All kinds of art have dimensions and complexity," he said. "If it leads to thoughtful reflection and provokes discussion, then it may have a purpose."

Mr. Edwards said the foundation tried to deflect some of the criticism by installing the bust at a private ceremony last week and by adding a plaque that describes Stalin both as a wartime leader and as a genocidal dictator.

Thoughtful reflection? Yeah, I'm pretty sure most of that thoughtful reflection regards "who the hell was the moron that thought this was a good idea?" You want to incite thoughtful reaction about the monsters of the world? How about doing it on its own and not desecrate the memorial to our veterans and the sacrifices they made?

But hey, we're the country that is letting a Mosque be placed at the site where the largest terrorist act in the USA was performed, by people who were Moslems. It almost seems like the US is run by people who want to rub our faces in the feces of our enemies contempt.

Good Bye Helen, We Won't be Missing You

The Hag Harpy of the POTUS news room has shuffled her way to the edge of the roof, stumbled and fell off. No doubt she intended to continue her anti-Semitic rants except for the little issue of her opening her mouth and proving she was an idiot.

From Mark Steyn:

The departure in ignominy of Helen Thomas has been commented on below, and I don't have much to add, except how pathetic is this?

The Hearst website is temporarily down, thanks to the traffic hitting the site.

Helen Thomas was an unreadable and unread columnist, and the only time she generates so much traffic that it crashes the site is the announcement that her career's self-destructed. That tells you a lot about American newspapering right there. Good thing two columnists didn't say something dumb or the site could have been out for weeks.

and

A guy with a flip camera just took out one of the most storied names in American journalism. Presumably US newspaper managements have been assured by Obama, Pelosi, Frank et al that that bailout's a-comin' any day now. The alternative is that they're inept timeserving mediocrities too dullwitted even to know they're going over the falls.

I love my flip camera. I love the existence of them. It allows people to prove that things actually happened and that idiots really did say stupid things. Oh and for the Liberals out there, it lets people prove things didn't happen, you know like all those racist tea-partiers screaming nigger at black congressmen.

Well I'm glad she's gone. Her incoherent rants during press conferences was something that was tolerated for far too long.

Establishment Dumping

Looks like the message is getting louder. Now, will the morons in the Republican party start listening. I'd ask the same question of the Dems, but they truly don't have a clue and don't seem to want one.

In quick succession Tuesday night, the jittery inhabitants of Washington's marble halls found three more reasons to worry about their staying power. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the Senate's patron saint of resilience, was turned out in a Democratic primary in favor of an unwanted rival, Representative Joe Sestak, who had neither major union support nor White House support. In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln, a model of southern Democratic moderation, was forced into a primary runoff by a self-styled outsider, Bill Halter, challenging from her left. And in Kentucky, the Washington establishment's chosen Republican Senate candidate, Trey Grayson, fell to the son of a libertarian outlier who carried the flag of another party. "I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," declared Rand Paul, son of Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, upon winning by a double-digit margin.

Makes me wonder if Arlen has figured out that it isn't about the public being irritated by grid lock in Washington. If they had grid lock they'd probably wouldn't be ousting some of these guys. Specter shot himself in the foot when he changed parties and his constituents are making him pay.

Apparently Time thinks that the Dems continued control of the Murtha seat is a win for Obama. I read the description they themselves lay out and I don't see it.

This anti-incumbent mood pervades both parties, leaving open the possibility that the same wave that brought Obama into office in 2008 will undo his governing majorities in 2010. The one bright spot for Obama was a special election Tuesday night in Pennsylvania's 12th district, where Democrats held on to a seat in a conservative district previously held by John Murtha, the big spending defense appropriator who died earlier this year. The seat was won by Mark Critz, a pro-life, pro-gun former Murtha staffer who opposes health care reform and overcame significant Republican spending. The victory demonstrated that Democrats still have hope for making Congressional races local, not national, affairs in the fall.

Hmm. A conservative Dem who is against health care reform doesn't exactly sound like a Obama supporter. Of course we'll all get to see how he votes and the next election will see if he stays. Of course, voting Critz in doesn't mean they'll get getting all those juicy military contracts at the levels they are used to, but that won't have any effect on the "local" level of races.

Tea Partiers are having a big effect, and if that isn't obvious to the establishment, then they will be removed. Can't be any worse than what Washington has been for the past 20 years.

Clinton's Memory

I have to say I find Slick-Willy a bit obtuse. He decries the the partisan times and whines loudly about how such partisan times leads to violence. I just don't quite understand how he seems to come off all innocent when the trigger to the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City happened to be the Governments destruction of the Waco Compound of the Branch Davidians. No doubt nut jobs go over board, but they don't typically act without stimulus.

Was McVeigh's actions wrong? No shit, of course they were. Were the FBI actions wrong at Waco? You betcha.

I just can't quite figure what his point is with this:

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.

Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Is he really trying to push the tea party into the cause of any disaster that does happen? I think so. It strikes me as pretty obvious, even if he doesn't clearly state it. Of course, I didn't think he would come out and say it straight.

Note that Clinton does not have the guts to say outright that people who criticize the government too harshly have blood on their hands. Instead he strongly suggests it, then retreats to the position that criticism is OK, though violence isn't, as if anyone were suggesting otherwise. Still, he wants to draw a line between "criticizing a policy or a politician," which is "part of the lifeblood of democracy," and "demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws," which encourages mass homicide. But since he offers no examples of either, it's hard to know what sort of speech he considers beyond the pale. For example, if I call Clinton a state-worshiping crybaby who equates opposition with sedition, is that legitimate criticism or demonization?

Must be demonization, because it doesn't follow the talking point of the Liberal administration that is standing as the victim in all things at present. I think the tea party should watch the governments actions very closely now. Things can become really ugly really fast with very little cause, especially if they are set up by some far left fanatic trying to twist the politics of today to what he really wants.

UPDATE: Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) talks on this in his Hair of the Dog this week.

AgitProp

I guess I have to agree with everything in this article. I'm glad the tea party goers have learned to video everything as many times as possible. This makes the MSM look foolish in a massive way, and the commentators like Olberman look more foolish than ever.

In composing it, I checked with my source on the scene, Greg Farrell, to get a timeline on the passage of the Black Caucus members from the Cannon Building to the Capitol and back. According to Farrell, they left the Cannon Building about 2:30 PM on March 20^th and returned about 3:15 PM. He had no reason to exaggerate.

I asked because at 4:51 that same day, McClatchy reporter William Douglas posted an article on the McClatchy website with the inflammatory headline, "Tea party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman."

Go watch the video and any others if that one isn't good enough for you.

Hopefully the tea partiers will all carry video and when anyone tries to stop them filming, everyone will start to film. It will keep the police honest, and will prove as this does that not only is the MSM pushing an agenda, but they are openly lying to the public.

No doubt many of the MSM are seeing those little video recorders and youtube as being double-plus-ungood.

Don't Quit Your Day Job

I honestly can't tell from his delivery if he's trying to be funny, but if he is, he really needs to work on his delivery.

On April 1, anything suspiciously bizarre or interesting is to be taken with a shaker full of salt. Still, a recent comment from (D-GA) has many wondering if he's misguided on gravity and geography or just a very gifted deadpan comedian.

At a March 25 meeting of the Armed Services Committee, of which Rep. Johnson is a member, the esteemed congressman had an interesting discussion with Robert Willard, commander of the United States Pacific fleet. The topic: Guam. Specifically, how an influx of Marines and their families may cause the tiny island to "tip over and capsize."

I guess I'd disagree with the gifted adjective. Gifted would be if he were doing this comedy line in say a comedy venue and not in a congressional committee meeting. This is just foolish.

National Health Service - Maybe Congress Should Read These Reports

Informative article out of the UK on the NHS. Suppressed by that managerial overlords to ensure their little fiefdom is unaffected no doubt.

DAMNING reports on the state of the National Health Service, suppressed by the government, reveal how patients’ needs have been neglected.

They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

One report, based on the advice of almost 200 top managers and doctors, says hospitals ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting-time targets.

Oh it gets better, read for yourself.

And this is the health care system that the liberals think we should emulate here? Nice.

Just the Facts

AP fact checking Obama's SOTU. I found this interesting:

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

Makes you wonder when the Congress will get upset with Obama grabbing at their responsibilities.

This is good too:

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

I guess I can give him the credit on that one. Not that it matters really. His dawdling around doing anything in Afghanistan did more damage than his drones have done good, so maybe he'll now let the generals actually do their jobs.

Oh, and one very poorly covered fact, that the ONE didn't bother discussing is Iraq.

December was the first month since the beginning of the Iraq war in which there were no U.S. combat deaths, the U.S. military reported.

There were three noncombat fatalities.

"That is a very significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward, and I think that also speaks to the level of violence and how it has decreased over time," said Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Must be related to the Iraqi's stepping up and taking the casualties in Harry Reid's "lost war."

November recorded the lowest casualty figures for Iraqis since the U.S.-led invasion, with 88 civilians killed and 332 wounded. In addition, 12 Iraqi soldiers died in November and 44 were wounded. Among Iraqi police, 22 died and 56 were wounded.

Previously, January 2009 had the lowest Iraqi civilian casualty figures since 2003. Since then, figures had been fluctuating, with August being the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians in more than a year.

Now just imagine a world where Obama would give at least the military credit for getting it right.

McCain-Feingold Reversed

Looks like the McCain-Feingold suppression of political speach law has been seriously reversed.

The ruling represents a tremendous victory for free speech and a serious blow to proponents of campaign-finance “reform,” who have roundly denounced the ruling and have all but predicted the downfall of the Republic as a result. But the reformers’ rhetoric is just that; the Court’s ruling will simply result in a more diverse mix of political speech, and that is a good thing for American democracy.

The ruling in Citizens United is a straightforward application of basic First Amendment principles: “When Government seeks to use its full power . . . to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

I have to say, I really am fascinated at just how many of the Dems are coming down against this. Especially telling is the fact that all the liberal justices dissented from most of the findings. So much for those bastions protecting your rights. I just don't see why the politicos on both sides can't realize that those rights were codified because they were of extreme value. Get Obambi's whine:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.

What forceful response would you like? And what response would not be unconstitutional? It's a victory for everyone, not just big companies.

Also, the disclosure and disclaimer parts of the bill are still standing. If anything this is the part that will aid in transparency and detection of corruption.

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.

I understand the finding is very large, so it will be interesting to see what comes out in the analysis.

Global Warming Demonstrably Disproven - Hell Freezes Over in MA

OK, I am still having problems with this. I'm quite pleased, mainly because I can't wait to see the Democratic leaderships head exploding. I'm even stunned that Coakley is reported to have conceded. At lest the BoGlob said so. Very strange times.

Now let's see how Deval can try to delay Brown's taking the seat, if he dares.

Then there is the play of the Senate Dems to get in a vote before he's seated. Or if that fails they can use the nuclear option. But I'm sure they won't choose that. They think this is bad, they play that game and 2010 regular elections will be a catastrophe. And personally, I don't want to see the Republicans with a super majority either. Well, unless the Dems do rush healthcare "reform" through. Then I could live with it for just long enough to repeal that abomination.

Another Government Meddling Mess

I'd be surprised if this didn't cause a mess. As usual the politicians put in place a foolish law and its results are warping the economy and damaging industry. This is a Bush mess that was brought to you by a democratically controlled congress.

It sounded like a good idea: Provide a little government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.

But as laudable as that goal sounds, it could end up causing more economic damage than good -- driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that has long used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry, and highlighting the many challenges involved in decreasing the nation's dependence on oil by using organic materials to create biofuels.

In a matter of months, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program -- a small provision tucked into the 2008 farm bill -- has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy that is funneling taxpayer dollars to sawmills and lumber wholesalers, encouraging them to sell their waste to be converted into high-tech biofuels. In doing so, it is shutting off the supply of cheap timber byproducts to the nation's composite wood manufacturers, who make panels for home entertainment centers and kitchen cabinets.

Imagine if politicians just did nothing for a while. Things would go so much more smoothly.

Obama's EO and that Inconvenient Constitution

This is startling.

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Go and read it. INTERPOL can now arrest anyone in the country and completely ignore our constitution. No fourth amendment protections. Makes you wonder how many CIA and Military personnel will now be hauled off to the ICC for war crimes by the definition of those fuckers.

Top 10 Corrupt Politicians

Bruce linked this at No Looking Backwards.

Read the details. These scumbags no doubt will have a long and successful career in politics.

1. Chris Dodd (second year on the list)
   
2. John Ensign
3. Barney Frank
4. Timothy Geithner
5. Eric Holder
6. Roland Burris/Jesse Jackson, Jr.
7. Barack Obama (third year on the list if you ignore dishonorable mention)
8. Nancy Pelosi (third year on the list)
9. John Murtha (dishonorable mention a couple of times)
   
10. Charles Rangel (second year on the list)

I wonder how Reid, Conyers and Feinstein got off the list. Or maybe this list has gotten that much scummier. I guess Hillary finally got off the list because she's an appointee now and not an official political scumbag.

Obama's Xmas Present to Fannie and Freddy Execs

Did we just hear about what bastards the Wall Street guys or the Bankers were for paying out big bonuses, even when they were contractually required or just deserved? Well, apparently Obambi is now throwing money bonuses at Freddy and Fannie execs. Well that and handing them huge wads of money to accelerate their destruction of the economy.

Best of all, he hides it by handing it all out on Xmas eve.

The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress.

The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama's current term.

But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009.

The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.

But hey, don't worry, he's and his lackies are only hear to try and help the little guys.

Can't Give a Straight Answer

This baffled me when I saw it and I still can't figure out how she made the statement. It is obvious that the system failed terribly.

Making the rounds of the Sunday news shows, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared, "One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked."

That drew the fire of Republicans and other critics, who said a tragedy had only been narrowly averted.

On morning news shows today, Napolitano sought to clarify her remarks, saying she was referring to the system of quickly notifying other flights and law enforcement on the ground.

"Our system did not work in this instance," she said on NBC's "Today" show. "No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way."

Of course the Republican critics were wrong as well. It wasn't averted, the attack failed. Averted would mean that someone did something to stop it. At the point anyone did anything the device was a failure.

Napolitano should be angering people with such statements. Be truthful right from the beginning. Don't choose what you meant the answer to be. Answer directly.

Of course the terrorists succeeded. The flight the next day to Detroit had the crew freaking out about a guy who was sick. Not to mention all the changes to the internal monitoring, that had nothing to do with the issue in the first place.

Obama's Afghan Policy

You can find the speech and transcript at Small Wars Journal.

Looks like it's not popular. The military types don't like it, putting it mildly, and the loony left, better known as "the base" don't like it either. James Taranto has a decent piece discussing some points. (title link) I especially enjoyed reading Rumsfeld's response that he linked to. I'm oh so very tired of hearing about how someone else buggered it up while the ditherer in chief delayed for months.

I personally preferred the drunk blogging of it. Stephen Green makes it easier to swallow especially with a martini (or bucket of vodka) chaser.

A couple of entries at Blackfive gives some taste of what military types are thinking.
Uncle Jimbo has this bit. Though I am a bit pained by the Palin quote he starts the discussion with.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin makes an interesting statement.

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.

I'm sorry did I miss something? He never said he was gonna do COIN and he certainly didn't say anything about "clear, hold and build". He didn't articulate any strategy at all. He had a goal of knocking back the Taliban, but didn't mention what our troops were going to do. Let me know if I missed something.

He also has a short bit here.

McQ (usually at QandO) has this piece.

Robert Haddick at SWJ has an interesting piece on the strategy. Here's a pretty damning bit that he starts off with.

The most controversial feature of President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan is his decision to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from the country in July 2011. This feature (no doubt aligned with his re-election plans – why else withdraw troops at the start of the Afghan summer fighting season?) is a fatal flaw and makes it very likely that little will go right for his Afghan strategy. Indeed, it negates the point of hastily adding over 30,000 U.S. and European soldiers in 2010.

Over the past three months President Obama and his team have analyzed the Afghanistan problem from first principles. Yet in spite of this effort, their solution is not likely to make the problem go away. Regrettably, the next few years are likely to reveal that America still lacks a winning strategy for modern irregular conflict.

Yep, I pretty much read this all as only politics. No doubt it ends up outside of politics, but the calculations only came up with a strategy that will help him get re-elected. Anyone surprised?

Lots of other links, but I have to go to work.

Shoe Based Karma

Heh, this kills me:

PARIS (Reuters) - An Iraqi reporter imprisoned for throwing his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush found himself on the receiving end of a similar footwear attack in Paris on Tuesday.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, whose flare-up against Bush last December turned into a symbol of Iraqi anger, was speaking at a news conference to promote his campaign for victims of the war in Iraq when a man in the audience hurled a shoe at him.

Now that's karma.

Not So Stimulating

Niall Ferguson in Newsweak. Not sure what they are doing publishing Niall's commentary since it is definitely NOT supportive of Obamanism, but hey, maybe they had a troubled conscience. Or not.

This bit pretty much validates what I am continually arguing is the fact.

Meanwhile, let's consider the cost of this muted stimulus. The deficit for the fiscal year 2009 came in at more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That's a bigger deficit than any seen in the past 60 years—only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942. We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war. Yes, I know, the United States is at war in Afghanistan and still has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq. But these are trivial conflicts compared with the world wars, and their contribution to the gathering fiscal storm has in fact been quite modest (little more than 1.8 percent of GDP, even if you accept the estimated cumulative cost of $3.2 trillion published by Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz in February 2008).

I think a lot of people are still in denial over this stimulus and its affects. Most people I work with seem to think the stimulus is going swimmingly and deny that this is an unprecedented spending spree.

Well, read it all. It's long, but he makes some outstanding points on the whole economic mess we're living in.