afghanistan

President Obama: The Great Procrastinator

Yep, even the Politico has caught on.

President Obama takes heat on Afghan timing 

SHANGHAI, China – President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.

 

Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you're still lacking to make that call.”

Yep, just as President Reagan was  the "Great Communicator", our 44th President is the "Great Procrastinator" 

I note that a Google Search of "Obama" and "dithering" yielded 743,000 hits

I mean there was a single by the Lovin' Spoonful in 1966 that might be the theme song for the President's military "strategy"

 

Kerry Shafts The Military And The Country Again…Cowardice Or Treason??

John Kerry, the oh so pompous…who is seeking some legacy other than the betrayal of his comrades in arms in Viet Nam, has decided to extend his treasonous activities to brand new generations of our servicemen and women. Kerry is despicable. Thank the Lord above that the honorable men of the Swift Boat Veterans had the courage of their convictions and stopped Kerry’s White House aspirations. As it turned out it only deferred us the disaster which is Barack Hussein Obama. Barry and Kerry deserve each other. They share the same yellow streak. Obama’s inability to make a decision to send the resources to Afghanistan that the field commanders in charge have determined are required to accomplish the mission, despite the advice of the finest military minds in the country, is irresponsible and well… it’s cowardly. Every two bit tinhorn  bad guy in the world sees Obama for what he is…weak, ineffectual, indecisive and therefore not to be feared. John Kerry has already proven his yellow creds…his shameless self promotion and the outright prevarication of his service record were and are an embarrassment to the entire officer corps of the US military. Except perhaps a Jack Murtha who gave his honor away long ago. Kerry’s appearance before Congress as a member of the Viet Nam Veterans against the war was a LITANY of untruths created of whole cloth…and an insult to hundreds of thousands of men and women who served during the Viet Nam era faithfully upholding the oaths they swore. Now John Kerry seeks to falsify another  LEGACY on the bodies of our honored dead. Every day that Obama stalls in his decision and every day that the BOMBASTIC Mr Kerry goes in front of the cameras to play out his seditious game at our military’s expense is a day there is American blood on his and  Obama’s hands. Clearly there is gross malfeasance at work in the administration and in the halls of Congress. How long will we allow these truly evil people to play with the lives of those for who they are not fit to carry water? The day of reckoning cannot come soon enough. The ballot box is our recourse…The nearest opportunity is 2010. Let them hear us loudly and clearly.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

 

Commander-in Chief AWOL - Obama "Fiddles Around" While American Troops Lose Heart

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a "hawk" and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war - the Vietnam War - mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]

Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America's economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war - or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.

The Times Online is reporting a story about "American troops in Afghanistan losing heart." It is like "deja view" - a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].

They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.

Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet - but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .

“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” "We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .

The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .

Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .

These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today's military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like "you carry on for the guys to your left or right" are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.

As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a "chief" responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have "fiddle around" tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.

American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.

Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America's chief treasure - American blood. For "Pete's sake" - Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!

Captain Benjamin Sklaver 1976-2009

A reminder than the War on Terror is very real indeed appeared in Connecticut newspapers today. One of our better sons gave his life for freedom in Afghanistan

An Army reservist and native of Hamden who worked to provide clean water to villages in Uganda was killed while on patrol in Afghanistan Friday.Benjamin Sklaver, 32, son of Laura and Gary Sklaver of Hamden, was one of two soldiers killed in an ambush, his mother said Saturday.“We were told that his team was on patrol on foot in a town and they were ambushed by a suicide bomber,” Laura Sklaver said. 

I suggest one read the whole article to appreciate the sorts of people who are in our military today putting their lives on the line trying to improve the lives of people who have suffered under tyranny and despotism. Hopefully it should dispel the idea that we are fighting the war against Al-Queuda by bombing villages from a bomber cruising @40,000 feet.

This hits me personally because in a prior job I had the occassion to do a number of closings with Captain Sklaver's mom, who is a very well respected real estate attorney in Connecticut. My prayers tonight are with the Sklaver family, who mourn the loss of a life cut tragically short.

I'm not going to get into partisan politics on this, except to mention the the meeting the President had with the U.S. commander for Afghanistan Friday means a lot more to me than whether Chicago gets to play host to the Olympics.  Maybe its time we put things in perspective, folks

Russian Into Trouble

The World on a Silver Platter 

 

by  Lance Thompson

Barack Obama is the most authentically anti-war president since Jimmy Carter.  While a student at Columbia, he wrote a paper called “Breaking the War Mentality” which favored a unilateral nuclear freeze, advocated shifting spending from military to social needs, and supported other campus anti-military organizations.  During the presidential campaign, he advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and was widely known as the anti-war candidate of his party.  Upon taking office, his administration has cut funding for new jet fighters, missile defense systems for the United States and Eastern Europe, and Obama himself has pledged never to “weaponize space.” Obama is completely against war and the military.

Except for the war in Afghanistan.  Even during the campaign, Obama accused George Bush of focusing on the wrong war in Iraq.  Obama advocated increasing our forces in Afghanistan, and since taking office has supported continued efforts to attack the Taliban in that desolate region.  I have not understood why until Obama’s recent Russian visit with Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev.

True to his background, Obama pledged to cut our nuclear forces by a third, thus giving the Russians a diplomatic victory beyond their wildest dreams. America will voluntarily disarm in the face of rising threats from Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia itself.  Obama returned trumpeting his achievements.  One of those, perhaps little noticed, is the Russian agreement to allow American re-supply flights through Russian air space to our forces in Afghanistan.  Again, I wondered why.

Russia has a long and nearly unbroken tradition of denying over-flights to other countries, ever since the Communists took over.  During daredevil aviator Wiley Post’s round-the-world flight in 1931, Russia at first refused over-flight privileges and then relented at the last minute, only to furnish Post with inaccurate charts so as to give no information to a foreign government.  It has been much the same ever since, up to the 1983 shooting down of KAL 007 by a Russian interceptor.  The unarmed civilian jumbo jet went down with no survivors.  Russia ordinarily does not consider requests to cross its borders to even private aviators, let alone military flights.  Yet now, the Russians are granting that privilege to American military aircraft to re-supply our troops in Afghanistan.

Another long and consistent tradition is Russian expansionism.  During the colonial period, when Great Britain established coaling stations around the world to service the Royal Navy and protect its global empire, most other powerful nations followed suit.  This is what resulted in the Dutch East Indies, German possession of New Guinea and other Pacific islands, and French Guyana, to name a few.  The Russians, however, never went in for far-flung colonies they would need fleets to defend.  With the exception of some remote fur-trading outposts on the North American coast, Russia always expanded at its own borders.  In the 11th Century, Russians absorbed the lands of the Upper Volga, from the Urals to the Baltic Sea.  In the 16th Century, Russia expanded  to the Caucasus and Black Sea, into Turkestan and Siberia. Russians clashed with China and Japan, and in the 20th Century, brutally subjugated most of Eastern Europe, including bloody takeovers of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and half of Germany.  In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and became mired in a punishing guerilla war with enemies who included the Taliban.  The Soviet Union withdrew ten years later, having suffered tremendous losses.  But they never relinquished their claims or ambitions in the region.

Which brings us back to the present day.  American troops have succeeded where the Soviet forces failed.  Americans have defeated the Taliban repeatedly, cleared areas of the enemy, destroyed terrorist training camps and hideouts, and stabilized the national government and economy.  When the Taliban attacks in strength, they are decimated.  When they disperse, we hunt them down.  When they attempt to terrorize the population, they are exposed and captured or killed.  American troops have demonstrated resourcefulness, persistence, and courage.  And they have prevailed.

The American pattern for this kind of war is to defeat the enemy, establish a fledgling democracy, and withdraw our troops.  In the past, American presidents have always offered support and protection for the emerging democratic government, lest it be set upon by enemies during its infancy.

However, it is evident to the world that Obama is a new kind of president.  He criticizes our staunchest ally in the Middle East–Israel.  He withholds official support for Iranian protestors who stand up against the oppression of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the risk of their own lives.  He supports a Honduran dictator and condemns the legal measures undertaken to remove him from office.  He bows to the Saudi King, makes overtures to Hugo Chavez, and allows North Korea to fire missiles at United States territory.  Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is not the champion of democracy or freedom, as previous American presidents have been.  Obama more often sides with the tyrants rather than the oppressed.

This fact is not lost on the Russians.  They know that the American military, after defeating the Taliban, will some day leave Afghanistan and its infant democracy to its own devices.  And that is when Russia, with its chief Afghan opponent–the Taliban–destroyed by the United States, will return to claim Afghanistan for itself.  The Russians know Obama will not defend a struggling democracy, that Obama would rather placate a powerful opponent than challenge one, that he will abandon any ally to avoid confrontation.

Thus, the Russians are only too eager to help with our pacification of Afghanistan.  While our troops do the heavy lifting, the Russians will plan their takeover.  As soon as we’re gone, the Russians will sweep in behind us and swallow Afghanistan in a matter of days.  There will be no organized guerilla force to oppose them, as there was in the 1980's.  There will only be a free people, weakened by years of war, unable to defend themselves.

It’s impossible to know whether Barack Obama foresees this eventuality or not.  One can ascribe many errors in judgment to simple incompetence.  But rest assured that Russian foreign policy is not trusted to neophytes and community organizers.  Their expansionist strategy is long-term, consistent and ruthless.  And they know an opportunity when they see it.

 

41, 43, and Who Cleans Up Who's Messes

If there's one thing that annoys me about the Bush family, it's the myth that George H. Dubya cleaned up George Dubya's messes.  The reality is the exact opposite.  George Dubya cleaned up several of his father's (and America's) messes and he doesn't (at least yet) get credit for it.

Consider the following realities:

1. Afghanistan and 9/11 -- In 1991, when George H. Dubya was president, Ronald Reagan belatedly won the Cold War.  Where Reagan courageously supported the Afghan mujahideen when it was unpopular in this country, George H. Dubya was in charge when the decision was made that the United States no longer had any "interest" in Afghanistan.  George H. Dubya. was the President that allowed Afghanistan to collapse to the degree that the Taliban who hosted Usama came to power.

(And yes, lefty's, I'm placing the primary blame on Usama's rise on a REPUBLICAN President)

While George H. Dubya's Afghanistan decision was understandable given the realities of the time, it doesn't change the fact that the 1991 descent of Afghanistan into chaos was George H. Dubya's fault.

That said, in 2001, George H. Dubya's son George Dubya was confronted with a major decision.  Following the worst attack in our nation's history, George Dubya had to clean up his father's screw up in Afghanistan.  Thank God George Dubya learned from the biggest mistake of his father's presidency.

2. Saddam Hussein -- Removing Saddam from power was, easily, the greatest accomplishment of 43's Presidency.  The fact that we even question 43 over his courageous decision to remove Saddam from power proves how divorced from reality this nation has become.

In 1991, George H. Dubya had the opportunity to remove Saddam Huessein from power.  Instead of accepting the short term pain suggested by his Secretary of Defense, Geoge H. Dubya chose the long term pain advocated by his Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Cheifs.  History will note that George H. Dubya had the opportunity to save his son from the toughest decision of the Son's Presidency.

3. Eastern Europe -- In 1991 George H. Dubya made the worst speech of his Presidency.  While Reagan's policies continued to work, George H Dubya seemed content to "manage the situation" rather than driving the final stake through the heart of the evil empire.

Against that Background, it's amazing anyone anyone in Europe trusted the second President Bush after the First.  Considering the opportunities his father missed, the cooperation George Dubya got from Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Slovakia, and Hungary were diplomatic triumphs from our alleged "diplomacy challenged" 43rd President.

The Presidency isn't a popularity contest, it's a courage contest.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

43 and History

I can't believe I pulled this off:

I was out tonight and I ran into my cousin's girlfriend at a bar.  She and her friends were going out of their way to praise 44 and bash 43.  When I demonstrated my lack of comfort with such suppositions, my cousins' gf said "don't worry about it, he loves George Bush."

One of the random chicks asked me: "How can you love George Bush?"

I asked: "Does National Security Mean Anything to You?"

She shot back: "What does George Bush have to do with National Security?"

I said: "George W. Bush was a highly imperfect President.  That said, he was and is a fine man who both kept this country safe AND liberated 50 million people from two of the worst tyrannies in human history."

She said: "We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, how is that a liberation?"

I don't remember exactly what I said at that point except that I pointed out how I would rather live under chaos than live under the Taliban or Saddam.  On top of that, I made a huge deal out of the fact that Iraqi's voluntarily elected a whole bunch of pro-American candidates two weeks ago.  Suffice to say, she was awed by George W. Bush's historical legacy once it was properly explained.

Money quote: "I hate you for making me love and respect George W. Bush."

Foreign Policy: What Obama Must Do

One of the biggest items of “change” that President-elect Barack Obama ran on was in the department of foreign policy. It was one of the major reasons that he was able to engineer an upset of Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries and clinch the nomination. However, when faced with the realities of a dangerous world, one that was dangerous before George W. Bush took office, “change” may seemingly have to take a back seat in order to defeat Islamofacist terrorism.

First, Obama must make the commitment to winning in Iraq. During the campaign, Obama ran on a promise to end the war in Iraq. However, his plan for a 16-month troop withdrawal may hit a snag: How history will remember him in regards to winning an important theater in the first war for America’s existence since the Revolution.

If Obama commits to winning the war before pulling all of the troops (he can still hold his pledge on not having permanent bases despite the desires of the Iraqi government), history will think of John McCain as the whistleblower, George W. Bush as the implementer, and Barack Obama as the closer and victor. It’s a political win-win-win all around the board. It would also have historians forget that Obama was willing to concede defeat in the middle of the success of the surge.

Also, the American public is hearing little about what’s going on in Iraq today. Since the start of October, there have been a total of 17 U.S. troops killed over a 40 day period for an average of just under 0.43 troops per day dead. To top this off, there has only been one month this year (June) where the body count was greater than the number of days in the month. Prior to that stretch, the only months that had a monthly body count less than the number of days in the same respective month were in February 2004 and December 2007.

The other is for Obama to fulfill his complete campaign promise to pull all the troops within 16 months, or by the end of May 2010. This could be risky for his majorities in Congress should Iraq descend in to chaos. Already, Israel is about set to elect Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel thanks to the election of Obama on Tuesday. Netanyahu will likely have to take over as the leading head of state in the war on terror if Obama decides to withdraw any troops that are necessary for victory and appease rogue dictators who are supporting Islamofacist terrorists.

A withdrawal also empowers Iran and Syria who would align with the Shiite majority in Iraq and fight the Sunnis who will be backed by Jordan and Saudi Arabia. This would be problematic and a catastrophic failure of the Obama administration because Syria and Iran have been building up their military for an invasion of Israel, but would get the parting gift of Iraq. Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be unable to fight because Jordan has made peace with Israel and Saudi Arabia depends on the United States to protect them as it has since just before Desert Storm.

Pulling out of Iraq sends the mixed signal to forces fighting the United States in Afghanistan by saying “We don’t believe that this ‘surge’ worked in Iraq, but we’re going to implement it here against you anyway.” There would be an emboldening of the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan if the United States doesn’t commit to winning in Iraq alongside that of a troop surge in Afghanistan to root out insurgent forces once and for all.

Second, Obama must decommit himself from meeting with rogue dictators ranging from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il (it is still up in the air as to whether or not he’s alive), Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar Assad, and Cuba’s Raul Castro. It cannot happen because it would set up a disaster akin to what John F. Kennedy had after he met with Nikita Khrushchev.

The meeting resulted with the Soviet construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Neither of these were successfully concluded by the Kennedy White House. In the case of the Berlin Wall, it stood until 1989 when it was torn down as both Berlin and Germany were reunited. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis, Fidel Castro feared an invasion by American military forces that would oust him from power if the missiles were not taken back. Khrushchev acquiesced on the Cuban missiles.

Third, President-elect Obama must not condemn any actions taken by Israel in defense of their country. This was a problem of his that emerged when the Russians invaded Georgia this past summer. In his first response, Obama called on Georgia to “exercise restraint” in the defense of their country. This was absolutely laughable and showed his ignorance and naivety on foreign policy matters.

If Iran is accelerating towards a nuclear bomb and the Israelis have credible intelligence that indicates this, it would be wise to let Israel deal with the problem and take out Iran’s nuclear program with air strikes of their own. Should Netanyahu decide as Prime Minister (and he will win election in February) to bomb Iran, Obama would be wise to not condemn the actions of an ally against a mutual enemy. It is neither politically wise for him to do so nor would it be strategically wise in a worldwide war against Islamofacist terrorism.

Finally, Obama needs to come to the realization (and the intelligence briefings better do the trick) to make Obama realize that the enemy of Islamofacist terrorism is an even graver enemy than that what the Soviet Union could have ever been. That realization has to come about from the methods, tactics, and aspirations of Islamofacist terrorists versus that of the former Soviet Union.

The Soviet proliferation and expansion was initially as a result of their territorial gains and reconstruction of Eastern Europe from World War II. From 1945 to 1989, the Soviets had puppet Communist governments in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria as well as recapturing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and absorbing them into the Soviet Union itself.

One of the greatest methods that the Soviets used was spreading military technology and money around to nations, especially Arab ones, in order to gain influence and to back them against Israel who was being backed by the United States and Western Europe. They also sought to further influence nationals from other nations by spreading Communist teachings and ideology.

Meanwhile, the Islamofacist approaches of countries like Syria and Iran as well as terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda results in a goal of complete subjugation to strict Islamic teachings and law. Their means are the use of intimidation by killing civilians with bombs and to pursue greater and more deadlier attacks throughout countries that don’t subscribe to or support their ideology.

If Obama decides that he is going to scale back the War on Terror and attempt to use a type of détente with terrorism like that of what Nixon, Ford, and Carter did with the Soviet Union, there will be many more major losses coming over the next four years. The end result of détente with the Soviets was their invasion of Afghanistan which was responded to with the Moscow Olympics boycott, the dumbest of all foreign policy decisions made since in the last 30 years.

There can never be coexistence with terrorism and President-elect Obama must come in to office on day one with that realization. Either we stop it and destroy its capabilities or we allow them to intimidate and dictate the future of freedom and liberty with subjugation under what many in the post-modernity West would consider barbaric.

Should Obama push for a kind of coexistence with those who have a goal to kill or subjugate us to their radical and barbaric philosophies of hate, he will be even more naïve than what America’s enemies are being led to believe.

 

Syndicate content