The US/CIA experience in Vietnam should give us plenty of evidence that there are more advantages to running COIN operations in today’s global war on terror than in conducting conventional warfare option. It is even more evident that if we were to plan and execute a sound ‘pacification’ plan in Iraq or Afghanistan, then there must be some elements of COIN at play to help balance out how we mitigate growing insurgent operations. They are smarter and faster at learning U.S. order of battle so how we fight is not a big secret. In Vietnam the same problem was encountered by the CIA as the North Vietnamese already had extensive documentation of CIA doctrine in conducting air drops, employing stay-behind units, etc. without the benefit of helping that country make changes from within. Obviously, the CIA was fairly confident it could continue to make drops and lose team after team yet they did not factor in the possibility their teams had been compromised time after time. Maybe sheer dumb luck made some missions successful and still, they were failures for a long-term solution. First, the CIA did not know the North Vietnamese had been consistently studying its methodology and quickly executing countermeasures and mostly obtained this information from the Chinese. Second, incursions carried out into a closed society must accompany a much more comprehensive plan. Once on the ground, units would have to depend on their limited training and then if they landed close enough to populated areas they were instructed to stay low for short periods of time gathering information. But then there was no plan in how to approach locals other than maybe clerics or family members and that alone always posed a great risk to the team members, thus really not accomplishing much but to get them killed or captured and tried.

There was little consideration for exploiting political and ideological angles within the population; at least just not right away. Eventually this reality would manifest itself fully. The suggestion by the CIA to President Kennedy was to engage the population with these psychological techniques, to create the illusion that there was a nascent revolutionary movement at play within North Vietnam and create the threat from within. This approach would have been a proper complement to paramilitary operations, since that could have been the second stage; to actually carry out clandestine operations, sabotage, and a direct attack on the government machine.

There was some of this work involved in the post-invasion stability operations in Japan and Germany, and these are two success stories that need to be studied more. When the allies moved in looked around and started to guide these countries into a post-war, they already had a plan, the intelligence base to tell them where to begin securing the population (borders) supervising local police and basically keeping track of everything the locals did before a turn-over could take place.

So how do we carry out these incursions and do we conduct part sabotage/assassination (just as the Israelis did) while we conduct aggressive PSYOPS campaigns? Even disinformation and propaganda efforts must carry a purpose and that is to engender in the local population the need to fight for their future. Initially the CIA’s intention was to help the Vietnamese become independent from any foreign intervention in the end and this is the basis for stability operations. The employment of irregular forces (indigenous) is of great importance because they have a vested interest in not only fighting an insurgency such as Iraq, but also to gradually wean themselves from foreign intervention, which is the main purpose of introducing stability operations (nation-building). This has not always been a well carried out concept, as we seem to engage countries with cultures totally different from ours and often we fail to recognize that those differences will affect the outcome of any conflict and how that culture will survive post-conflict/invasion.

The absence of the rule of law is the first factor that must be either established or maintained if already present in the targeted environment. Efforts of pacification were disrupted constantly by the VCI by threatening those people and agencies working on re-building the country with military attacks. Though the allies were able to fight the VCI successfully and provide protection for these activities imagine any NGO working in the field or that matter civil affairs unit while under fire. The first thing that should be provided to the non-combatant population is security. They either get it from their government with foreign assistance or they fall under the rule of insurgent groups and historically the populations do not well at all. That was a critical development in Algeria where the French government allowed more than one political fringe group to develop and begin conducting counterintelligence operations separate from government support then had to try and control more than one group with civilians at greatest risk who were ultimately main victims of hostilities. The French allowed Algerian populations to be stripped of their identities in order to make counterintelligence efforts more difficult and people were chased away from their homes by all factions so there was no security for them.

The Iraq parallel

We’ve tried this endeavor before and had been successful which I wonder if much thought was given to the application of the principles involved in stability operations in addition to the rule of law is the continuity of governance, this includes social and government services, local services, trash pickup, electrical power, potable water, police, border/population control, etc. The greatest examples are post-invasion Germany and Japan. In both cases military police were deployed to conduct law enforcement operations while there was a controlled environment of the population and local government that enabled social growth and the beginning of rebuilding their infrastructure. This could not be done if hostilities were still a consideration, from either conventional or insurgent forces. In the case of Iraq those elements of security and of continuity of governance were absent, combat forces thrust into the realm of law enforcement duties were lacking in training and experience; the difference between fighting a shooting war and maintaining law and order have had a long-term impact on life here. Reconstruction efforts can easily slow down or stop in the presence of violence, whether from insurgent activity or rampant criminality or a combination of both. This has been the case in Iraq.

The VCI also operated openly in populated areas unlike insurgents in Iraq, who opt for a more covert approach but then in some areas they do make themselves known throughout neighborhoods. Iraq insurgents don’t show the highly organized military organization as did the VCI in that the Iraqis did not form a shadow government to run counter to the local government but then there was none to speak of for a while so I guess the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) at first tried to establish a fresh government once Saddam’s regime elements were removed causing a chaotic situation which grew out of control.

I wonder, and would like to get some feedback on this, if some of you who have worked in this field directly could clarify how coalition forces could have gained more ground here by utilizing a COIN approach after the invasion and early enough in the game. Before the mass exodus of government personnel, the sacking of businesses and attacks on police stations and police elements – and I do consider the fact that the potential for those attacks was unfortunately ignored as a possibility – would have been more advantageous because the people of Iraq, though living in authoritarian but controlled environment, would have been more keen on participating in their own liberation afterwards. COIN can easily influence positive or negative political and social change in a country and an effective tool to aid in establishing the stability process.

A combined approach

I don’t want to complain without offering some sort of theoretical plan just as a mental exercise. I could see introducing COIN operations during conventional hostilities to help build an intelligence foundation we could use once things de-escalate enough to begin the stability phase. I’m not saying that using elite units to carry out sabotage missions while others carry out pure SPYOPS within the population could not work. First, we have to link up with the locals and build the necessary networks and we know from experience that native forces and other government structures will have to come into play because the nature of nation building is to return that country to an improved state of peace.

By removing the threat to security in this effort we’re increasing our success rate, of course, this cannot be edged in stone as the nature of warfare is ever changing and not every threat to our operations can be mitigated ahead of time. Perhaps there should be a series of scenarios, preferably worst case scenarios already worked out to aid in the introduction of NGOs as well as a trained and capable constabulary waiting to deploy. Combat troops should have some exposure to law enforcement training but that is not their main purpose and only a civilian constabulary should be in place to assist with these duties.

In essence, had we employed of COIN action before the loss of law and order as it stood before the invasion, the overall environment might have been more accommodating to a continuation of routine life in Iraq while helping them re-build. It’s just a theory but COIN would have been more effective in pushing the Iraqis into wanting their situation to return to some level of normalcy. Just like the Northern Vietnam PSYOPS campaigns, the objective would be to create a real or illusionary revolution or political movement to get the population to be more receptive to change and to reject helping the insurgency. A strong government in place is another necessary element which did not exist in Iraq post-invasion unlike the Vietnamese who had at least strong leadership from the top and was able to rally the people to be part of the fight. This could only be done with the balanced combination of COIN and local support. I think if this is not currently the doctrine to use COIN along with all other military and clandestine resources then that could be the future of warfare; prepare them ahead of time for what’s to come – whatever many outcomes we can devise – unlike current doctrine which to me, appears to mitigate problems as they come up…little or no vision of potential issues.

Sources:

The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Governance in Iraq, Celeste Ward, United States Institute of Peace, May 2005, www.usip.org

The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Public Security in Iraq, Robert Perito, United States Institute of Peace, April 2005, www.usip.org

U.S. Police in Peace and Stability Operations, Robert Perito, United States Institute of Peace, August 2007, www.usip.org

Another decade ends and another decade begins. The march of time just keeps on ticking and tocking. Looking back at this decade requires a lot of pain, suffering, and sunglasses. There were some bright spots, some low spots, and some really low spots. But what will the 2000s be remembered for? Here is a list of the ten most memorable events of the decade so far. After all, things do change along with our perception of them. Who knows, in ten years, these could all change and our view of the decade along with it.

10. The Economic Meltdown – brought on by a lack of regulation, extended debt, high gas prices, and variable interest rates, the economy of the US, and most of the world, almost went in the dumpster in the fall of 2008. Huge bailouts have stemmed the tide for the time being, but many consumers and savers are still wary.

9. Social Networking - Blogs, Twitter, Facebook have changd how we perceive the news and get the news. in 2009 alone, the riots in Iran and Michael Jackson’s death showed that the world is more connected than previously thought.

8. Google – Who knew a little search engine would become one of the world’s fastest growing companies in less than ten years. It’s new phone and diversification have brought Google to behemoth proportions.

7. iPod/iPhone/Apple – No other cultural event changed the daily lives of people more than Apple products. Starting with the iPod, then the iPhone, Apple has been on a roll since a month after the iPod debuted in the fall of 2001.

6. Patriot Act – In rural America, the Patriot Act doesn’t get much play. However in urban America, it was everywhere. From libraries to government buildings to transportation systems to traffic security cameras to sporting events, the heightened sense of security pervaded the landscape of the American city.

5. Afghanistan – Eight and a half years later and there is no end in sight. Still no Osama and now Dick Cheney is commenting on Obama’s lack of leadership on the war. What was Dick doing for eight years? Oh, that’s right, he was shooting people in the face here at home. Anyway, as 30,00o more troops arrive in the coming months, new tactics and strategies to deploy these soldiers are needed as the Taliban and Al Qaeda are resurgent not only in Afghanistan but as well as in Pakistan.

4. Iraq – However, with Iraq, the end is in sight. American troops will most likely start coming home this summer with Iraq maintaining it’s own security thereafter. For the first 4 years of the conflict, that didn’t look like it was going to happen. Mismanagement of the war from the Pentagon to the White House to the State Department sullied all the goodwill the US had gained after September 11. Luckily, General David Patreus brought in a new strategy in 2005 and a surge and helped to lower the violence.

3. A Black President – 250 years of slavery – 100 years of segregation. A man of African descent is elected President of the United States and he doesn’t get the top spot? It must have been a really bad decade.

2. September 11 – In most decades, a terrorist attack on the United States would have been number one. In the US, this is the number one event of the last ten years. The events following both united and divided a nation. From the War in Afghanistan to the War in Iraq, everything came back to this point in time. Some justifiably, others not.

1. Tsunami – in 2004, over 230,000 people were killed when a tsunami hit Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and other Indian Ocean nations. The lack of a warning system,like that in the Pacific, doomed most of the victims. While having a short term severe economic impact on the region, the psychological and environmental damage still continues. This once in a lifetime natural disaster changed how we look at the power of the sea and how we truly are at the whim of mother nature.

All in all, it was not the best decade. As I enter my sixth decade on this rock, the 2000s would have to rank at the bottom of those decades as they pertain to the state of the world. Who knows, in time, these events will slide up or down depending on what happens in the next decade.

Other events considered…
The 2000 US Presidential Election, Hurricane Katrina, Landing in the Hudson, Blagojevich, The Detroit Bailout, Health Care  Debate, The Sarah Palin Phenomena, The Politics of Hate and Fear, The Red Sox Win the World Series, Michael Phelps 8 Gold Medals, Iran, Halo,  Wii, Enron, Blackouts, Human Genome, Climate and Weather, Digital TV, High Definition TV, Texas Hold ‘Em, Death of Newspapers, News as Entertainment, Obama Nobel Peace Prize, Rubber Band Wristbands, Harry Potter Novels, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and the sudden death of Michael Jackson.

Send me yours…and Happy New Year!

Much is made of the “withdrawal” date in Afghanistan throughout political conversations.    Seems each side airs their opinion on Meet the Press or the Nightly News or the papers with am ind numbing frequency.  Predictably, as politics in this country has become, each side of the congressional aisle comes together to oppose unifying American ideals in favor of partisan agendas and special interests suited to their political parties.

While I had tremendous respect for President George W. Bush I did disagree with him on one, actually many, facets of his war strategy.  One major one is the draw down date.

While we must accomplish victory in both war theaters we must also be realistic about how the countries will look once we’re gone.  If we’ve seen anything over the last eight years it’s been that the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq are either unwilling or unable to establish a self sustaining government without support from the United States.  Frankly, what incentive do these governments have to establish a valid government if the United States is always there to protect and serve.  In my opinion, a deadline is needed so action will take place.  While the following analogy is simplistic in nature it’s value and applicability to the current situation is no less pertinent.

No matter how many times I instruct Hays to get ready to leave the house he’s never ready until the last minute, even if he has 30 minutes to prepare.  Like all kids across the country as they ready to leave the house he’s repeatedly instructed to get ready; “get your shoes on, brush your teeth, put your shirt on, etc.”  No matter how much I yell he sits watching TV or playing in his room.  It’s not until I say “Hays I’m walking out the door” that he finally completes the tasks needed to leave the house.  Why?  He doesn’t feel it’s urgent until he knows I’m about to leave.  Same is true in our war theaters.  The governments, as they exist now, will not feel urgency to legitimize until they feel the heat of the US Armed Forces walking out the door.

Make no mistake, we must achieve victory, which might only once the governments of Iraq & Afghanistan know we plan to leave, soon.

By Toby Harnden

There is no more solemn duty for an American commander-in-chief than the marshalling of “all elements of American power” – the phrase Obama himself used on Monday – to protect the people of the United States. In that key respect, Obama failed on Christmas Day, just as President George W. Bush failed on September 11th (though he succeeded in the seven years after that).

Yes, the buck stops in the Oval Office. Obama may have rather smugly given himself a “B+” for his 2008 performance but he gets an F for the events that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam with a PETN bomb sewn into his underpants. He said today that a “systemic failure has occurred”. Well, he’s in charge of that system.

The picture we’re getting is more and more alarming by the hour. Here are some key elements to consider:

Click below for more:
Barack Obama gets an ‘F’ for protecting Americans.

Typical liberal excuse: “Not my fault” … blame someone else. In Obama’s case, he’ll be blaming Bush for the next 3 years of failure.

Here’s some accurate commentary from The Obama File:

Obama Admits Failures, Goes Snorkeling

The Chicago Tribune reports that yesterday, after a vacationing Barack Obama conceded that both human and systemic failures of U.S. Intelligence had failed to bar a Nigerian man posing a reported security risk from boarding that Detroit-bound jetliner — a near ”catastrophic” breakdown in security — Obama left the reporters talking about his words in Hawaii — and went snorkeling.

The day before, after making his first televised comments on the matter– it was a “systemic failure” — it wasn’t Obama’s fault — he headed for the golf course — an outing interrupted by the child of a close, vacationing friend from Chicago suffering a surfboard accident.

Obama dropped his golf game an immediately and returned to the vacation house — it took him three days to respond to the Crotch-Bombers jihad.

Says something about where this guy’s priorities are.

The Telegraph’s (UK) US Editor says Obama gets an “F” for the events that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam with a PETN bomb sewn into his underpants. He said yesterday that a “systemic failure has occurred.” Well, he’s in charge of that system.

Obama, instead of defending the system, sided with critics who complained that it did not work and positioned himself as a reformer who will fix it.

Obama! The guy that’s bowing to Muslim kings; closing Gitmo; freeing terrorists and sending them to Yemen; giving other terrorists rights and lawyers; stonewalling terror investigations; claiming these are all “isolated incidents” — he’s gonna fix the system! — sure, right after he goes snorkeling.

CNN's Rick Sanchez

From the “If I Say It Enough, It Will Magically Become True” file …

Perhaps more germane than the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop?” is the ever-perplexing, “How many times does one have to say something before it becomes true?”

Admittedly, it isn’t easy adding ingredients to the stew of conventional wisdom, but once they hit the pot, it is nearly impossible to flush them out.

These days, a compliant media complex is essential in giving credence to falsehoods, frauds and other fairy tales. (See “Global Warming.”)

Mike Bates at NewsBusters reports on a delicious quote from CNN’s Rick Sanchez illustrating this point. Sanchez was speaking with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs, about terrorism.

Nasr was commenting on how much of a “hot zone” the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is. She talked about how the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was a response to what terrorists believe is ongoing United States assistance to the Yemeni government in fighting Al Qaeda and the Houthis.

Rich Sanchez, in his most matter-of-fact demeanor, seized the opportunity to reinforce his “article of faith”:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I’m trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren’t in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

So, the fact that we are now seemingly or the U.S. government seemingly now is putting an emphasis on there and that some of these folks are mad at us for putting an emphasis there, I can’t help but see that finally as the United States maybe going militarily in the right direction in this war on terror.

NASR: You’re right about al Qaeda being everywhere, Rick. It’s very true.

Let’s think about what Sanchez is saying here. (It is the default position of the vast majority of the mainstream media).

His claim is the nation of Iraq, headed by the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, was essentially a terrorist-free zone until the United States came along. Terrorism existed in every corner of the world except Iraq. Hussein was minding his own business, bothering no one, until the war mongers from the West swooped in to turn that nation into a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was a wonderland of fuzzy bunnies, swaying daisies and frolicking kittens until Uncle Sam’s baby-killing machine came a-callin’. If not for the United States, the nation of Iraq would have been free to pursue a life of peace and religious fulfillment.

The problem with the Sanchez argument is … there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was not a terrorist state. The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was a steadfast supporter of terrorist activity and a protector of terrorist groups.

Bates quotes from the Clinton State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999 report:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front(ALF), and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

Let’s not forget every Democrat who went on record declaring Hussein’s Iraq as a genuine threat:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

The invasion happened because following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Iraq was considered, at the time, by almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle, to be the greatest threat to national security as well as to peace in the Middle East and around the world. There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein was linked to a host of terrorist organizations. His nation was an undeniable sponsor of terrorism. How could any of that be ignored?

This is not to say that he or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever made such a claim. It was never the position of the Bush administration. But this was a country that violated seventeen UN resolutions. It was a country that had used weapons of mass destruction before. It was a country that repeatedly fired upon American military aircraft. It was a country that had already harbored known terrorists. On those grounds alone, an attack was completely justified.

Think of all things that didn’t work up to that point (the crown jewels of the liberal foreign policy playbook): negotiations, no-fly zones, UN sanctions, pat-a-cake, etc.

The United States no longer had the luxury of simply reacting to Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a nation deemed by both Republicans and Democrats to be a genuine threat – and rightly so. President Bush could not just sit idly by and wait. He warned Hussein. He gave Hussein opportunity after opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions. Hussein scoffed. America took action.

No Commander-In-Chief worth his weight in gold, with his nation at war, presented with the very same intelligence and evidence President Bush was, could do nothing.

President Bush was smart enough to realize that “safe haven” was not just an Afghani phenomenon.

Six years later, our success in Iraq has, indeed, made America safer.

(H/T to Weasel Zippers)

It’s always an adventure of sorts to try and make some semblance of sense out of liberal thinking. Whether one finds himself (or herself) genuinely fascinated at the childlike cognitions that underlie liberal idealism, or aggravated at the disgustingly simplistic – and often destructive – “stage-one” notions that define modern liberal thought, it is often too tedious and far too bumper-stickery to be considered seriously substantive.

Unfortunately for this country and lovers of liberty, Democrats are in power.

Therefore, modern liberal thought must be taken seriously … for now.

Liberals, for instance, were dead wrong about the War in Iraq – on every level. From the moment they decided it was politically expedient for them to be opposed to it, the wrong side of history was theirs for the keeping – a trend for libs. Despite the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of military action against Iraq, opposition to the war became their “default” position once the invasion began. (Remember, Dems weren’t opposed to Bush because of the war. They were against the war because of Bush).

Indeed, libs still nosh on the dusty nuggets that fill up their ever-stale snack platters, blaming “Bush’s War” on everything from starving children in America’s inner cities to post nasal drip.

The fact is, Democrats don’t want to remember how the post-9/11 climate in America demanded a nation as terrorist-friendly as Iraq – with a ruthless dictator constantly violating Gulf War resolutions and firing on American war planes – be taken down for repeated failures to comply to the terms of those resolutions. To this day, Dems call the Iraqi War pointless, saying Bush should never have gone in. But had a terrorist attack on America been planned from the ever-accomodating confines of Hussein’s Iraq – or if training camps for terrorists had been allowed to thrive there (like under the Taliban in Afghanistan) - given the intelligence at the time, President Bush would have been hung from the village square for doing nothing – and rightfully so.

It’s likely “Bush’s War” will continue to be the beacon of blame for every malady that will befall America in the foreseeable future. One won’t be able to swing a dead mongoose without hitting an Obamacrat finding some way to blame the current state of affairs on “Bush’s War.” From unemployment to terrorist threats, from migraine headaches to anal fissures, it will all be Bush’s fault.

It’s how they think.

It’s their “default” position.

Take, for example, this commentary from Deputy White House Press Secretary, Bill Burton, traveling with the President in Hawaii, as he “recapped” the Sunday talk shows:

Robert Gibbs and Secretary Napolitano made clear that we are pressing ahead with securing our nation against threats and our aggressive posture in the war with al Qaeda. We are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us, and have dramatically increased our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where those terrorists are.

Right on cue - the obligatory Iraq refrence.

So, if I am to understand … it was the Iraq War that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day? America’s eye was “off the ball” because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Conditions were such that if there was no invasion of Iraq, Abdulmutallab would never have been able to board that plane with explosive materials?

Yeah, okay.

But it gets better.

On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” And yet, both she and Gibbs announced that the President has asked for all procedures and policies at the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security be reviewed. Bush-era policies will, in effect, need to be dissected with a fine-tooth comb … but somehow, the system worked?

How could it have worked when it took passengers and members of the flight crew to thwart the attempted attack? And if it really did work, why the need to suddenly “review” everything?

The terrorist Abdulmutallab got on the plane, didn’t he? What worked exactly?

What are these people talking about?

Do they ever pull their heads out long enough to observe the happenings of the real world?

Again, note the instinct to laud themselves and blame everyone else. “It worked” because we are living in the Messianic Age. Whatever went wrong must be the fault of the other guy – the previous guy. Otherwise, all went quite well … even though a review of Bush-era implementations will be necessary … even though it worked … even though it will have to be looked at … even though it went like clockwork … blah, blah, blah..

Napolitano was forced to do an about-face this morning, admitting that after further review of the painfully obvious, the system actually did not work, saying, “”Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem.”

Nothing escapes her.

Meanwhile, expect the “Blame Bush” brigades to keep it up. 

As [President Obama] said in West Point, we must put aside petty politics and recapture the unity that we had after 9/11.

Enough with the “unity” blather, okay? It is this administration that, at every turn, finds some way to place the blame for every blight and blemish on George W. Bush. No matter what the issue is, poor poor Obama constantly reminds the American people that he has been saddled with a host of inherited complications, so extensive and so problematic, that he may or may not be able to rectify them.

Convenient.

That’s how you get a B+. (Or an “A,” if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger looking in).

-

I remember as a teenager the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. At the time, it served as a wake-up call to America; a slap in the face that we were seemingly at the mercy of the Arab Empire and their sea of oil. In 1972, the Munich Olympics became the scene of a brutal and senseless act of terrorism.  There were hijackings of numerous passenger airliners. In 1993, an attempt was made to destroy the World Trade Center by detonating explosives in the basement level.  The warning signs were clear, but not until the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center did the American public fully grasp the intent of the jihadists.

Try as they may, there are truths firmly established within this country that allow our nation and its citizens to thwart every attempt to undermine this country. Tolerance and acceptance.  We do not kill or imprison our fellow citizens because they practice a faith different from our own. Our religious and political leaders are free to express their views and pursue their agendas outside the walls of fortified enclosures lined with barbed wire.  Lawful citizens are free to travel at their leisure to and from any city, county, or parish– in any state.

I suppose those who hate the United States look at our society and see bias, prejudice, even hatred among our own citizens.  It’s true you can find these ugly things in America if you look hard enough–just as you could in any country on earth.  But I know if push came to shove, the citizens of this country would rally together as did the previous generation to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WWII.

No, I realize it most likely won’t come to that, thank God. The wars of the Superpowers today are fought in someone else’s backyard. And while these “lesser” countries supply the real estate to conduct our little wars, we are still supplying the money, arms, and most importantly, young lives.

I just watched a story on abc.com news about US jailers at Guantanamo Bay using music to torture the detainees there. Apparently there is quite an outrage with a long list of musicians stepping forward to demand the declassification of all materials in regard to this matter. Musicians like Michelle Branch, Tim McIlrath of Rise Against, The Indigo Girls, R.E.M., Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, Pearl Jam, and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine have all voiced their protest.

Big deal. What Saddam did to his own countrymen makes this pale in comparison. And yes, I’d love to believe that America is a great nation, whose standards should be held much higher than those of Saddam Hussein’s, but these people who are speaking out are not doing so because they think America is a great nation. If you listen to Rise Against you know they don’t think America is a great country. Don’t believe me? How about this from their song “State of the Union”

If we’re the flagship of peace and prosperity
We’re taking on water and about to fuckin’ sink
No one seems to notice, no one even blinks
The crew all left the passengers to die under the sea

Look it up and read that rest of that song. They’re not proud of their country.

We are the angry and the desperate,
The hungry, and the cold,
We are the ones who kept quiet,
And always did what we were told.

All you have to do with Rage Against The Machine is look at their name. But then examine their CD titles. The first was self-titled. Then we have Evil Empire, The Battle of Los Angeles, and finally Renegade.
RATM is so hardcore that they have songs titled Bombtrack, Killing In The Name, Take The Power Back, Settle For Nothing, Bullet In The Head,Township Rebellion, How I Could Just Kill A Man, Street Fighting Man, and Fuck The Police, yet they are at the same time oh so sensitive to the terrorists who want nothing more than to destroy this country.

And what is it that our government did to these poor souls? What hideous torture did we unleash on them? We played music! Apparently the music was played repetitively and loudly, but that’s all it was. We made them listen to songs. Maybe it wasn’t nice, but war isn’t nice. There aren’t any ways of dealing with terrorists and their sympathizers that are nice. It’s dirty business keeping America safe, but it’s necessary. Do you really think that when Osama Bin Laden struck on September 11, 2001 that he was intending to stop there? Do you really not understand that our war on terrorism, has in fact accomplished a lot? Sure it may never end. But have there been any more major attacks on US soil? No! There have not! And that is not because the jihadists were finished. It’s because we’ve hounded them and suppressed them. Not completely as evidenced by the fact that Osama is on the lam, but we’ve done it well enough to keep them from striking on our soil.

So give our boys at Gitmo a break! Do you think they like their job over there? Do you think that’s what they expected to find when they seized their chance to “see the world”? It’s a tough job and they’re dealing with tough people. Their response is to get tough. For the most part they haven’t done so without violence, which is to their credit. You won’t find  “Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened” or “Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls” at Gitmo. What our boys did to “torture” the enemy was play loud music. I just don’t have a problem with them doing that. If you want to take on the fight against torture, watch a Fedayeen Saddam torture. I’m sure you will be inspired. I will not post a link to such a video here. I do think that there is a time and place and a reason to view such videos. This may be the time and you may have a good reason. But this blog won’t be the place.

McClatchy: Lenders reject homeowners who apply for Obama plan

Washington Post: Kucinich panel to investigate Citigroup tax ruling

AP: US – Iraq not ‘pushed around’ by Iran

McClatchy: Frustrated liberals voice discontent with Obama

Politico: Harry Reid plays it close to the vest

The Hill: Thomson to be U.S.’s safest prison

AP: Nigeria’s future, president’s power in question

AP: Karzai presents new Afghan Cabinet list

AP: House OKs defense bill, rushes to finish for year

Bloomberg: ‘Buy American’ Rules to Be Strengthened in U.S. House Jobs Bill

CQPolitics: Kerry Assures Copenhagen Delegates Congress Will Pass Climate Bill

Charlotte Observer: Is Congressman’s immigration bill doomed?

QNotes: Log Cabin slams Jim DeMint for anti-gay comments

McClatchy: War bonds proposed to pay for Iraq, Afghan conflicts

NPR: African Leaders’ Climate Message Unheard at Home

NPR: Lawmakers Pressure Obama To Act On Sudan

AP: Mexico’s Calderon proposes major political reform

AFP: Seychelles getting ’sinking feeling’

Last night, I found out my Dad’s best friend is in the hospital.  Dying.

He’s an alcoholic.  Liver failure.  He’ll most likely be dead by the end of the week.  Due to the alcoholism, there is no possible way for him to get a liver transplant.  If he DOES survive, they’ll most likely do loads of dialysis to try and make him better, but it’s unlikely.

His best friend has had a tough adulthood.  A few years ago, he had a wife, two daughters, a son-in-law, and a granddaughter.

First, his son-in-law passed away in Iraq serving our country.  His daughter was just a baby…

And then, his daughter passed from breast cancer.

His wife, had brain cancer and lost her battle.

Finally, his other daughter, the mother of his granddaughter, lost her battle to breast cancer, also.

And now, he lies in a hospital bed in Western New York.  Fighting the battle to live.

Am I being selfish by stating that I hope he passes early this week, or doesn’t pass until the New Year?  I think my Mom would be completely heartbroken if he didn’t fly in, as planned, on her birthday.

A few of us recently watched a documentary entitled “Standard Operating Procedure: The Scandal was a Cover-Up.” I didn’t expect to learn many new facts from the film as I had spent quite some time reading about the abuses there when it hit the national front page and the “top story” for every news and radio broadcast. The establishment-Left decried the actions, but lost credibility in light of their murmurs being little more than partisan politics as usual. The establishment-Right admitted the actions were wrong, but quickly came up with various justifications for what amounted to horrible abuses, grave injustices, gross oversight and/or diabolical scheming that appeared to have regime-wide reach. Most conservatives, though, side with Rush Limbaugh as chalking this type of sub-human behavior and inhumane treatment of others as soldiers blowing off steam. There were many things we desperately needed, but another round of finger-pointing and passing the buck was in excess surplus.

Much to my surprise, the documentary was much, much, much better than I anticipated. Interviews with low-ranking officers (or lackeys) who ended up taking the heat for high-level treachery, high-ranking members who were misled as to the condition of the prison or the treatment of its prisoners, and civilian investigators who were there throughout the entire duration, dazed and confused as to exactly where and when military intelligence joined the Dark Side. Each with a story to tell, each with pictures to prove it.

Chronicling the events as they are timestamped in the pictures, the viewer watches the downward spiral into depravity become a torrent of mind-numbing madness and perversion. “But we were doing what we were told,” many would say. “At least we didn’t shoot anyone or cut their head off,” another may quip. The old “Officer, I know my reckless driving is almost without rival, but I think the guy in front of me was going 2 mph faster than I was.” The fact that excuses and rationalizations such as these were uttered from the “best and brightest” our the “world’s last superpower and last remaining hope for freedom” is an embarrassment of global proportions.

At one point during the film one of those being interviewed was upset that President Bush was required to apologize to the world for the misdeeds done at Abu Ghraib. But does anyone, for even one second, believe the administration knew nothing of what was going on. With “ghosts” like CIA, FBI, and foreign military and intelligence agencies using the same tactics (though with much less discretion and far fewer consequences) it is hard to believe that it was anything other than standard operating procedures. Most interesting may be the lack of any righteous indignation, no major players let go on account of their incompetent oversight or tyrannical tactics romping around under the guise of military intelligence. In actuality, many of these creeps were given advancement! Rewarding sexual depravity with a passing glance is criminal. Promoting to higher positions of power those guilty of concocting these torture procedures, the rationale for their continued use, and the justification for increased measures as both the soldiers and the cell-mates would become relatively accustomed to the wicked behavior formerly done, seeing no moral end to this site of fiat commands, unexplained memos, and never-seen-again “ghosts” who were “never there” but “always present.”

In the end, top dogs in the White House, Pentagon and military-industrial complex were let off the hook. As for the young and the restless? They had a decent sum of jail time ahead of them. But someone had to make up for the time not served by the rich and the heinous, right?

Standard Operating Procedure is an excellent movie for all who wish to see just how dangerous the US military has become, being unable to recognize an unlawful order from an unlawful order, and playing the “Saddam was worse than this” card at every turn.

If President Obama thought it best to wave an investigation into the Bush regime for crimes against the Constitution, insisting that he wish to look ahead rather than focus on what’s behind, then this video reassured the American public that such an investigation would not be seen as reckless or time-consuming. Start with the truth, and work your way on from there. Sound fair, Imperial America?

Watch trailer here: SOP
Purchase DVD and site: SOP DVD and Site

Between the health care debate, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the persistence of the recession, Congress has a lot on its plate right now. Which is why it totally makes sense that a House subcommittee spent time this Wednesday approving important legislation aimed at making college football teams switch to a playoff system.

Whaa?

The Associated Press reports that the new law “would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff.” Maybe I’m not the most qualified person to be writing about this, since I’ve read that sentence ten times and I still have no idea what it means. Even though I’m from Pittsburgh, a city that proudly calls itself “a drinking town with a football problem,” I have been to exactly one professional and one college football game in my life. I didn’t know until a few minutes ago that the “BCS” was a thing, or that Congress had any say in how college football works.

But I know one thing: Georgia Representative John Barrow, who cast a dissenting vote only after saying, “With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on,” is totally right. Even the head of whatever the BCS is, Bill Hancock, thinks that Congress “has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played.”

Maybe the House is just spending time worrying about sports because they want to try to fix something they actually can fix—inventing a better system for college football must be a lot easier than passing a health care bill that Democrats and Republicans both can agree on. Hell, college football may be the only thing both parties can agree on. But even if we can get both sides of the aisle to come together for an issue, this particular one makes our government look pretty bad, PR-wise.

Sure, it’s not like they’re sitting around reading “My Pet Goat” while the world is crashing down around them, but there’s still got to be a better way for state representatives to spend their time.

By William Blum, Consortiumnews.com, Dec 10, 2009

Editor’s Note: It is an overpowering consensus in Washington that the relative decline in Iraqi violence must be attributed to President George W. Bush’s “courageous” decision in 2007 to “surge” U.S. troop levels, a lesson that now must be repeated in Afghanistan.

This conventional wisdom has been pushed especially hard by the influential neoconservatives and the Republicans, but also has been accepted by many liberals and Democrats fearful of being viewed as out of step or not fully behind “the troops.”

However, as author William Blum at killinghope.org notes in this guest essay, there is another side to the story:

They don’t always use the word “surge,” but that’s what they mean.

Our admirable leaders and our mainstream media that love to interview them would like us to believe that escalation of the war in Afghanistan is in effect a “surge,” like the one in Iraq which, they believe, has proven so successful.

But the reality of the surge in Iraq was nothing like its promotional campaign.

Continues >>

This site, LetsSayThanks.com, allows you to send a printed postcard to the soldiers overseas. I think it’s an awesome thing and everyone should take the 5 minutes to do it.

A British parliamentarian claimed in a report published Tuesday that an Iraqi cab driver was the source of an infamous claim made by Prime Minister Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The member of Parliament, a member of the conservative British Tory Party, claims that he was told by a British intelligence official that the claim actually came from an Iraqi taxi driver, and that it was considered highly unreliable but was tacitly backed by Blair’s government in public statements anyway.

Continues >>

A tip of a Pilgrim’s hat to the late, great New York newspaper columnist Jimmy Cannon for borrowing his signature phrase: nobody asked me, but…

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS NOW DECLARED THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN “MR. OBAMA’S WAR.” Barack Obama’s West Point speech escalating the war by sending a surge of 30,000 American troops—following the 21,000 soldiers and Marines he dispatched earlier in the year—means, as CNN’s Gloria Borger noted, that Obama “owns the war.”

What hasn’t provoked much comment, however, is how unimaginative and conventional Obama’s approach to Afghanistan has been.

Obama had promised a multilateral approach to foreign policy, and yet his AfPak strategy disappoints in how heavily it relies on American troops for the surge beginning in 2010. As James G. Neuger and Janine Zacharia of Bloomberg News reported: “Obama took office with the U.S. supplying 54 percent of the foreign troops in Afghanistan, a figure that he will push past 70 percent.”

Why didn’t Obama persuade Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and other Muslim-majority nations with troops in Afghanistan to dramatically increase their “boots on the ground”? That would have sent the welcome message to the Muslim world that Afghanistan has become a coalition effort to resist Islamic extremism.

The U.S.-forces-centric policy Obama has approved is exactly what could have been expected from John McCain had he been elected—a conventional response lacking the application of soft power and the much-vaunted Obama charisma.

Even the contribution from NATO of an additional 7,000 troops is short of the 10,000 the U.S. had requested. According to Reuters, Canada and the Netherlands may pull out nearly as many troops in the next two years as the new NATO surge level. European public sentiment runs strongly for withdrawal. Where has been Obama’s creative, unconventional response? Why didn’t he go on the road to the major European capitals—London, Paris, Bonn, Rome—and make a compelling case for his Afghanistan strategy?

Obama has talked bravely of shared commitment in international peacekeeping efforts, but the reality is that the U.S. and Great Britain will bear the brunt of the escalation in Afghanistan. Obama the Candidate criticized the Bush Administration for unilateralism in its approach to Iraq and Afghanistan—and yet when confronted with a crucial decision Obama the President offered none of the creative change his admirers insisted he would bring to foreign policy.

DID PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS ADVISORS IGNORE ADVICE ON THER STIMULUS PACKAGE THAT COULD HAVE JUMP STARTED JOB CREATION? According to a Fred Barnes column in the Weekly Standard (“Obamanomics 101“), Obama heard from Jim Owens, the head of Caterpillar, in February that the U.S. stimulus package had too little funding for roads, bridges, and other infrastructure (unlike, he told the President, China’s economic recovery plan) and would not encourage Caterpillar or others to hire workers. Obama, according to Barnes, “either hadn’t understood what Owens told him or simply refused to accept it.”

This led to an embarrassing episode at Caterpillar ’s Peoria plant, where in a speech Obama claimed that the federal stimulus would prompt Caterpillar to rehire laid off workers, something Owens quickly had to deny. It now appears that Owens was right—heavily allocating stimulus funding to save public sector employee jobs, instead of investing in infrastructure, has contributed to elevated levels of private sector unemployment.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON RESEARCHERS ASKED “WHY DO WE BOTHER WITH SEX“? It’s not as lame a question as it seems, because “it’s far more efficient for living things to reproduce solo.” (Remember, in Greek mythology Athena sprang from the forehead of Zeus!)

Experimenting with a worm species (nematode C. elegans) which has both males and hermaphrodites, the Oregon researchers showed that sexual reproduction increased the gene pool to allow for adaptation to hostile conditions. This drive to survive is key to evolution—the “joy of sex” is Nature’s way of encouraging genetic diversity.

CUBAN AGENT 202—RETIRED U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WALTER KENDALL MYERS—WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR SPYING ON THE U.S. IN NOVEMBER. Myers agreed to cooperate with authorities to gain a lighter sentence for his wife, who joined him in passing secrets to the Cubans.

Myers spied for Fidel Castro’s Communist regime for three decades, and he joins the infamous list of those in the American elite willing to betray their country on ideological grounds.

YALE FOOTBALL COACH TOM WILLIAMS DELIGHTED HARVARD FOOTBALL FANS EVERYWHERE WITH HIS BOLD BUT RISKY PLAY-CALLING in this year’s version of The Game. With the Elis clinging to a 10-7 lead, Williams elected to run a fake punt on 4th and 22 on his own 28 yard-line with some two-and-half minutes left in the game. Harvard’s defense stopped the trick play seven yards short of a first down, and capitalized with the game-winning touchdown three plays later, winning 14-7.

Dave Solomon of the New Haven Register called it an “ill-conceived decision” and added:

And as much as Tom Williams will say today that he made the right choice, we feel certain that whenever he faces a similar situation, be it next year, in 10 years or 25 years, he’ll remember the call he made at Yale on fourth-and-22 and opt for the sensible solution.

THREE CHEERS FOR HARRY CHRISTOPHERS FOR HIS INSPIRED CONDUCTING OF HANDEL’S “MESSIAH” ON THE FIRST FRIDAY IN DECEMBER. It was Boston’s Handel and Haydn Society’s 156th annual performance of Handel’s masterpiece.

THIS MONTH’S WORDS OF WISDOM COME FROM AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. (1932-1968): “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.”

Copyright © 2009 Jefferson Flanders
All rights reserved

This guy comes off as a typical, corporate shill, so the questions he poses to Chomsky are basic ones that most Americans would, if they knew who the hell he was! Some of his questions are lame and come off as a bit insulting. But, Chomsky is so damn righteous, it’s irrelevant. Check out Parts II and III, they get even better. I dig the sign language lady!

Chris

From Der Spiegel

President Barack Obama’s Tuesday speech left a bad taste in many mouths.

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the “world’s great religions.” He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was “corrupt.” The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But “America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars,” he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

More here

____________________________________________________________________

The Blog at The Weekly Standard:

Rumsfeld Responds to Obama’s speech:

The statement from Rumsfeld:

“In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.”

“I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, ‘repeated’ or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President’s assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.”

“In the interest of better understanding the President’s announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

More here

Though it’s been my contention that the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the commander-in-chief’s since the 20th of January this year when he took the oath of office, there is no denying that the surge is completely Obama’s. However, many are left wondering whether the speech last night was something that the president found in a file cabinet left over from the Bush Administration. [1] In case there is any doubt, let’s do some comparison, shall we? I have taken six quotes from the President’s speech last night and six quotes from former President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002. I have mixed them up. I’d like to see if someone can choose which quotes belong to which president.

Where do the comparisons between Bush and Obama end? Bush’s excuses for the Iraq War went from weapons of mass destruction to defeating al-Qaida to ensuring democracy for the Iraqi people. Obama’s excuses for the Afghan War have gone from defeating al-Qaida to defeating the Taliban to ensuring democracy for the Afghan people. Bush used 9/11 as a justification for war. Obama now uses 9/11 as a justification for war. Bush said that we were building a coalition of nations while asserting our responsibility to go to war for national security reasons and to defend democracy. Obama now says that we are joined by a coalition of nations while asserting “America’s authority” in going to war to avoid ”an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies” and to ensure that “other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.” Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who once campaigned against Bush’s third term, has now adapted Mr. Bush’s language and tactics for war. Where will this lead? I leave you with a few choice responses to this speech.

Slate.com – Obama’s Afghanistan speech was confusing

Der Spiegel – Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic

LA Times – Obama’s revealing Afghanistan war speech: 4,582 words and not one of them was ‘victory’

Salon.com – Yes, It’s Obama’s War Now

And for those interested, transcripts from Bush’s speech in June 2002 and Obama’s speech last night.