We Americans are still are getting to know our 44^th president.  Mr Obama, a shooting star having as thin a resume as any president-elect in recent memory, was an unknown quantity to most of us, and his campaign advisors deftly used that enigmatic quality to allow liberals and independents alike to project their own interpretations of his campaign promises onto him.  For now, we can only glean what we can from his most frequently used instrument as president:  his rhetoric in prepared speeches.  Most recently, his speeches on Afghanistan and his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize provided a glimpse into the dichotomy that is Barack Obama.....

Obama on the Hudson ....

Before an audience of future Army leaders at the ..United States Military Academy, Obama declared his strategy on the truly serious, complex, and troubling situation that is the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  If his plodding decision-making process regarding General Stanley McChrystal’s requests came across as curious given that he himself labeled Afghanistan a “war of necessity”, the articulation of that twice-revised strategy was stranger still.

Stylistically, Obama was uncharacteristically flat and uninspiring, a drastic departure for the man whose singular political trait is an ability to deliver a truly stimulative speech.  Missing was the soaring rhetoric with the Martin Luther King audible mannerisms and the warbling voice.....

Even if one concedes that particular style is reserved for crowds more apt (or able) to cheer or that it was inappropriate for the somber subject, we should remember the people whose lives were most directly affected by those uninspiring words were the ones most likely to turn them into action.   Rather than stirring resolve, an affirmation of the cause, or an imaginative strategy, they got a professorial cobbling together of 9/11 history, an economic lesson, along with a vague explanation of the strategy, devoid of details.....

Thrown in for good measure where examples of his Achille’s heels, the obligatory jabs at his predecessor and the thin-skinned obsession to respond to his critics.  While it is unfair to attribute the visual feedback of the audience to either the President’s or the cadets themselves, the placid reaction was nonetheless symbolic of the speech’s value.....

On substance, the President did come through with a bottom line of an addition of more troops, requests from our allies for more assistance, and most importantly, a commitment from the Afghan government to do its part.  And throughout, he was solemn and serious.....

But the positive sign of properly resourcing the “good war” was tempered, even undermined, by how Mr Obama delivered it.  Nowhere in the speech appeared the word victory, only the vague and politically nimble “successful” conclusions. ....

By far the most damning of this pro forma presentation was the curt announcement of adding 30,000 additional troops followed in the very next sentence by an announcement of a beginning of a pullout of American forces from Afghanistan a mere 18 months later.  Never mind that publicly announcing a withdrawal date, no matter how ambiguous or how much wiggle room it allows politically, is a violation of War 101.  But the practice of stating that something is essential to national security and in the very same breath showing just how important it is by expressing a lack of desire to reinforce it after a year and a half, is oxymoronic and sends mixed signals to soldiers, friend, and foe alike.....

It was hard to believe this was a war time president trying to explain a plan to defeat a dangerous and tenacious enemy.  It is times like this when Obama’s critics seem completely justified in questioning the wisdom of hiring a community organizer to fight a war as he seems to be much more the commander-in-theory than the commander-in-chief.....

Obama in Oslo

In contrast to the mealy-mouthed nature of the ..West Point.. speech, the Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize winner resembled the strong and proud statesman that many a conservative and moderate have been looking for in the man.....

It is a bit ironic that a politician who uses the terms “I” and “me” so liberally chose a time when it would have been wholly appropriate to do so to, instead, defer.  President Obama was atypically humble, openly conceding—as he did upon word of his selection—that he was probably not the best candidate for the award. He could have stopped there and gone on with his acceptance speech but chose to further acknowledge the seeming contradiction that the committee chose to recognize a president of a nation at war, a war incidentally for which most Europeans have little enthusiasm.....

That he used his role as commander-in-chief to elaborate on the cold realities of a cruel world to an idealistic audience –one that probably hoped the award would influence future policy—was both bold and unexpected. This is the man, after all, who has demonstrated a degree of idealism of his own and at least some reluctance to be decisive and clear when contemplating military matters.  Yet he reminded us that war exists, it will continue to exist, and, yes, sometimes it is necessary and just.

At times, Obama sounded like George W Bush, recognizing that terrorism is not a new tactic, but an old one with the ability to deliver death and suffering to thousands, if not millions of people.  And he even dared use a word associated with what soft Europeans typically consider the realm of incomplex anti-intellectual Republican presidents when he stated a simple but easily forgotten truth, “Evil does exist in the world.”....

Perhaps most surprising was Obama’s embrace of American exceptionalism. Finally. This is noteworthy considering that his overseas speeches heretofore have been apologetic of ....America....’s historical shortcomings and clearly targeted at foreign audiences, usually at the expense of his own constituency. The President gently reminded his hosts that their very existence, or at least that of their own utopian-wannabe institutions, were in large part due to the sacrifice and leadership of the country so many of them found so easy to criticize.....

Barack Obama seemed to find a new voice in Oslo.  Like at West Point, he no doubt disappointed most of his hosts.  Perhaps he is realizing he cannot please everyone, or even a majority of people.  Or, more cynically, he is cognizant of the effects of having disappointed supporters, independents, and the loyal opposition alike and needed to spend some political capital in the middle.

The President artfully and accurately described the spectrum of international relations as a matter of degree and not an either/or proposition.  Maybe soon we will see where along the line from realist to idealist he rests.  It will not be evident from carefully chosen Harvard lawyered words or rousing oratory, it will come from action—or inaction—plain and simple.  ....

Thank you…

.. ..

God, for imbuing me with life and for all my personal traits, physical and mental, good and bad

Dad, for instilling honesty in me

Ma, for imparting compassion in me

Rob for showing me how to cook for the first time

Julie for showing me that if there's hope for Rob, then maybe there is for me

Joe for taking us camping and making us laugh constantly

Lee for showing me it’s ok to be an adult

Nelly for showing me how to dress

Colonel Weaver for epitomizing leadership

Wendy for trying to show me how to dance

Darryl for introducing me to the music of Guns N Roses

Pete for my first taste of alcohol and the music that goes with it

Stacie for proving that When Harry Met Sally is right

Scott for some of the best Army training a ten year old can get

Craig for opening my eyes to true barbecue

Cindy for showing me how it is to be vulnerable

Maureen Boody, David Goss, and the late Garth Pittman for being true teachers

The Army for letting me lead infantrymen, forcing me out of my comfort zone, and seeing all walks of life and different lands

And everyone else I’ve met, am related to, or crossed paths with from whom I’ve learned something and gained an experience.

Trying masterminds of an enemy attack on our country with all the rights of American citizens simply boggles the mind.  Holder apologists will have us believe these are nothing more than common criminals, an attempt to dismiss their lofty status (while simultaneously elevating it by extending them rights they are not guaranteed). But this is not the case of a French tourist who kills his lover in a Savannah hotel room for infidelity.  Nor is it the case of an illegal Mexican immigrant planting a pipe bomb in the mailbox of the owner of the pig farm from which he just got fired.  These are extraordinary criminals.  More importantly they are enemy combatants, unlawful ones at that, with whom the United States of America is at war and, as such, deserve no better rights than a prisoner of war and arguably, lesser ones.

Some criticisms of the decision are overblown.  NYC , which has as many police officers as an Army post has soldiers and some towns have residents,  is no stranger to high profile cases requiring tight security.  The fact that KSM and others have admitted their deeds is of no consequence; as Holder points out, prosecutors do not base their decisions on the whims of the accused.  And while a public trial will no doubt reopen wounds for 9/11 families and other Americans, the grim truth is that our legal system is no more a comforter of the victims of crimes than of the committers of them.

The pitfalls of such a ludicrous decision are many. The costs associated with such a trial are huge, despite the ability of the federal and NY governments to deal with them effectively.  The proceedings run the risk of becoming a long running propaganda exhibit for Al Qaeda. Zacarias Moussaui’s civilian trial was long-winded circus what demonstrated the shortcomings of putting terrorists in federal court, not only because of the antics of the defendant but the problems with enemies captured through espionage.  Saddam Hussein’s televised trial was a farcical last gasp for the former dictator. Charles Manson’s idiocy in the courtroom in 1970 only delayed justice; an Al Qaeda lieutenant will mock and circumvent it.

A public and federal trial for KSM will not only make the OJ Simpson trial look like an episode Law & Order,  it will set a horrible precedent for both future enemies captured in the Global War on Terror –oops, Overseas Contingency Operations—and for all future enemies of America.  Islamic fundamentalists with a bent for bloodying and deforming twenty-somethings in a dance club or vaporizing children waiting for the school bus will be comforted in knowing that before they are judged by their enemy and their god, they will have the opportunity to vent their hatred of America in its very living room.

What is most curious is the alleged rationale for going forward with a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal. Never mind the inconsistency of trying lesser prisoners via tribunal but reserving federal court for the most dangerous, Holder’s action is supposedly an opportunity for the world to witness our exquisite justice system and to uphold the Constitution.  Given how even some of the world’s most civilized citizens consider our tactics against an unscrupulous enemy as lowering ourselves to their level, it might be understandable under different circumstances.  But to overcompensate for past decisions by electing to coddle current prisoners with American privilege is absurd. The obvious irony is that we are extending the rights guaranteed to American citizens to people who are not only noncitizens but monsters who are diametrically opposed to America, want nothing more than to kill her citizens (as they have already admitted to doing) and whose allies are engaging America’s defenders on the battlefield on a daily basis.

The argument is even more ridiculous when considers the possible ramifications.  If KSM is to be judged by a jury of his peers, who would these miscreants be?  One rightly wonders what would happen if he or his co-conspirators are found not guilty. Presumably, he would be released; after all, our legal system is fair and respects the rule of law, no? 

Yet President Barack Obama, whose leadership style allows him to disassociate himself with policy initiatives he advocates, had defended the decision in a curious manner.  In an interview with NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd, when asked if he could understand why some would find it offensive for KSM to be given legal privileges of an American citizen, Obama responded, “I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he is convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”  When Todd pressed him on the apparent assurance that KSM would be found guilty, Obama tried to equivocate, “Look, what I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome; I’m not prejudging” thus  contradicting what he had said 21 seconds beforehand.  Holder echoed the President’s sentiment in his testimony before Congress, suggesting that we will trump up some charges if that unlikely event occurs.

In other words, we are willing to risk national security secrets and give the icons of terrorism a megaphone in an effort to show the world how fair our system is and what gracious enemies we are, but if that system fails us,  we will revert to a kangaroo court which the original decision purports to avoid.

With rationale like this it is difficult to not be cynical.  Critics of the Obama administration would not be farfetched in wondering if part of the justification were a subtle and indirect way of putting the Bush administration and its GWOT tactics on trial.  After all, the President has never passed up an opportunity to lament the state of the nation he inherited and a vocal wing of his party seems intent on trying the decisions of the former president, vice president, their legal advisors, and the intelligence community.  Federal court, with its requirements of discovery might be their only opportunity to expose the decision-making trail and finally disclose covert interrogation methods

In the end, the decision, by deferment or by mandate, of President Obama to try KSM in NYC is a poor one.  The need to exemplify America’s rule of law is probably unnecessary and ultimately a huge gamble.  Putting KSM’s motives, ideology, and treatment as a prisoner of war on the stand is the equivalent of allowing OJ to try on the bloody gloves.  If it works, it will only confirm what we believe in our hearts and our minds. If it does not work, the end result will be in doubt and the damage will be irreparable.

In an effort to “move away from the politics of fear” as the Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano put it, the Obama administration, which is loathe to use the word terrorism, lumped such acts into a term labeled “man-made disasters.”  The Department of Health & Human Services has a definition on its website:

 Man-made disasters are events which, either intentionally or by accident cause severe threats to public health and well-being.  Because their occurrence is unpredictable, man-made disasters pose an especially challenging threat that must be dealt with through vigilance, and proper preparedness and response.

There may be no better definition for the situation AG Eric Holder, and by extension President Obama, has put us in with this fateful decision.

As the focus on the Obama administration shifts from the economy and domestic policy to pressing international concerns, we are beginning to see the type of leader Barack Obama is.  We already knew that he was intelligent and articulate, his CV prior to the election said as much.  His experience as a community organizer suggested he was a consensus-getter and not a my-way-or-the-highway man like his predecessor.  However, President Obama’s woefull lack of executive or military experience was also known, and we are beginning to see the implications thereof in his handling of foreign policy matters, especially the AfPak theater of operations.

George W Bush took a lot of heat when he declared that he was “The Decider”, a term that either emphasized his rigidity and authoritarian leadership style or his acknowledgement that the buck ultimately stopped with him, depending on one’s political persuasion.

But whatever you may think of the former president, he made decisions and lived with them.  When most of the country, including his own generals, thought that a gradual and “responsible” withdrawal from Iraq in the wake of sectarian violence and high US troop casualties might be in the best interest of US national security and prestige, Bush “went big.”  The decision to double down on the so-called Surge was scoffed at the time (Senate Majority leader Harry Reid declared it a failure before it was even fully implemented) but today it is recognized as the turning point which gave Iraq any chance of success.

Obama faces a decision point similar to Bush’s conundrum in December of 2007. While his apparent satisfaction in continuing many of Bush’s GWOT initiatives (no precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, continuation of extraordinary rendition, Predator use in Pakistan, etc, ) and a strong public commitment to victory in Afghanistan has garnered praise from both hawks and conservatives, it can be argued that his delay in rendering a decision on International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commanding general Stanley McChrystal’s request for more resources in what he described as a “serious” situation, makes him appear distracted and hesitant.

Like Bush, he should not be hurried into a decision but unlike Bush he does not have the track record of making tough foreign policy decisions. One the one hand, we should be glad the commander-in-chief is reassessing policy in Afghanistan and we should not be overly concerned with his infrequent contact with McChrystal, as the chain-of-command must be maintained (if anything we should be glad he has not adopted micromanagement as a leadership device a la LBJ with Khe Sahn and bombing of North Vietnam or Jimmy Carter with Operation Eagle Claw in Iran).

On the other hand, there seems to be a lack of urgency in the administration’s decision making process.  While the President is well suited to handle business while traveling –as he did in his bid to speak on behalf of his home town for the Olympics—his ad hoc short meeting with McChrystal seemed forced, either a chance to reign in his outspoken commander or a political move to counter the appearance that he was not speaking with his top military man in Afghanistan enough; either way, it did not come across as a serious debate about strategy.

That there appears to be a rift, real or imagined, between the commander on the ground and the certain parts of administration is unremarkable and expected. That it is coming out publicly with vague echoes of McArthur’s clash with Truman is troublesome.  If the President cannot maintain order in his War Room, can we expect a deliberate and ruthless prosecution of a war on an elusive and ghost-like enemy? 

While the decision to either add more resources or simply make do (or even withdraw, something the President has ruled out) is no doubt an incredibly complex and tough one with no easy win-win options, especially with mounting pressure from both sides of the aisle, it is not altogether as agonizing as has been portrayed.  After all, then- candidate Obama and many critics of the Bush administration had repeatedly declared Afghanistan the “good war” and consistently called for more resources vis-a-vis operations in Iraq.  And it was President Obama in March of this year who described a comprehensive new strategy, complete with a new commander (McChrystal no less) to implement it, underscored by calling Afghanistan a “war of necessity”.  Given that assessment, one would deduce that an urgent request for more troops (albeit it not the crux of McChrystal’s desired strategy shift) would be expedited through the chain of command for a relatively quick and timely decision given soldiers in the field fighting and dying, even if the President curiously implied there was no plan in his cart-before-the-horse analogy.

But what has changed measurably since those speeches? Three things:  (1) Afghanistan had a presidential election that is tainted with corruption (2) McChrystal’s assessment asked for a dramatic shift in strategy necessitating more resources and (3) and poll numbers revealed that most Americans are weary of war in Afghanistan even if they recognize the importance of the effort.  But Obama cited Afghan corruption as an identified problem in his 27 March speech and McChrystal is simply fulfilling his bosses’ requirement to continuously reassess and refine an established strategy which Obama himself outlined.  In reality, only public opinion has changed which gives some credence to the suggestion that either Obama does not believe his own rhetoric or is getting weak in the knees when it comes to major decisions required of a commander-in-chief.

Afghanistan presents a clear but complex dilemma for the President and the country:  pull out and save American strength for more pressing national interests while risking a return to the pre-9/11 status quo and a blow to American integrity and prestige for decades to come, or remain and expend more resources in hopes of transforming a 13^th century collection of tribes into a 21^st century nation with the goal of a stabilized AfPak region.  As George Patton said, a good plan, violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.  It is time for the President to shake off the comforting attire of the campaigner and assert himself as the chief executive.  Sound bites, blue ribbon panels, town hall meetings, and national security advisors do not win wars, commanders-in-chief making difficult decisions, without the benefit of clairvoyance, and usually in the face of popular opinion, do.

They say that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.  It would appear that playing the race card has become the last refuge of the desperate.  This is a sham and a shame because the charge of racism is the most powerful and stigma-laden label one can apply, personally and politically, today

Case #1, Maureen Dowd, the Pulitzer-prize winning columnist for the New York Times.  Unfamiliar with her body of work, I have mentioned her before on similar terms for race baiting in her, frankly, laughable commentary (White Man’s Last Stand).    Her recent column regarding Representative Joe Wilson’s undisciplined, disrespectful, uncivil, and inappropriate jeer at the President of the United States during a live, joint session of Congress invoked the same sentiment.  Perhaps she is a provocateur for the Left as Anne Coulter is on the Right, but her Boy, Oh, Boy column is beyond the pale.

In that column, Dowd immediately reminds us that the Republican slice of Congress is not the perfect statistical representation of the country when she frames the now-famous still photo of Wilson, mouth open and finger pointing in accusation, surrounded by his colleagues (all of whom are white men) as indicative of the problems of that party.  In this instance she is right.  Undoubtedly, the Republican Party is accurately described as a bunch of “old white guys” if one limits oneself to the criteria age, race, and sex.  However, Dowd fails to mention that Congress as a whole is, rightly or wrongly, underrepresented by women and racial minorities. So suggesting that Democrats are much better in this regard is like saying I am much better at golf than my neighbor because I shot a 102 and he shot a 114.

From then on Dowd goes downhill, fast.  She makes the transition from fact to fiction in the blink of an eye when she states, “But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”  No, not fair, Ms Dowd, clearly not fair. “Boy” was unspoken in that it was never uttered. Never.  As in, pulled out of thin air.  As in fiction. As in, ironically, a lie.

She then presumes to know what is in Wilson’s head and heart when she supposes that Wilson, “…clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president…”  Clearly?  Did she interview him? Did he state as much after the speech on a hot mic or in a moment of candor? No, instead, Dowd takes exactly five pieces of information to make the transition from fiction writer to mind reader and priestess.   Wilson is Caucasian from South Carolina, is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, voted to keep South Carolina’s flag, and denounced Strom Thurmond’s love child.  From this she implies Wilson is the epitome of opposition to a Obama, a racist power structure unable to deal with having a black president.

By that reasoning, President Obama, with a Muslim dad, born overseas,  who associated with an admitted terrorist, a slum lord, and an extremist minister, and went to Harvard must be a corrupt, America-hating Communist Muslim racist, right? Wrong.  Both are absurd inferences from select circumstantial evidence (again, ironically, Dowd even mentions these scurrilous accusations in her piece apparently unaware she had committed the same sin.)

Case #2, former President Jimmy Carter.  Carter has long gone from the fine ex-president using his personal time and resources to help all those he wanted to during his presidency to resembling a noisy gong.  Whereas he held back little in openly criticizing a standing president (traditionally a no-no) when he now has taken aback by others who do so.  Carter, in an interview with NBC News believes that, “…an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man…”  As a Southerner, he no doubt has special insight into the cultural climate and tradition of racial tension in the South (indeed he claims as much).  Perhaps the sight of overly white working class crowds at tea parties is unsettling (even Bill O’Reilly wondered why they were overwhelmingly white) to a sensitive liberal Southerner, but his analysis, from the excerpts we have at least, ignores evidence to the contrary. 

President Carter seems to forget Obama actually won the 2008 presidential campaign (in doing so winning more whites than the last two Democratic candidates) and had very high approval ratings for the first few months of his presidency.  He seems to have forgotten the oppositional animus leveled at both Bush and Clinton, two moderates who nonetheless managed to generate acute partisanship for both political and personal reasons.  Incredulous as it may seem, Carter, of all people, seems to forget that all presidents’ popularity suffers when the economic outlook of the country is poor. 

Though the full interview may flesh out his reasoning, he seems to follow the sentiment pouring out of the Democratic Party in light of the Wilson outburst: criticism of Barack Obama is probably the result of racism.  Apparently, those who think this cannot even consider that a man who ran as a moderate, and won over the much desired independent swing voters, may have alienated those very voters with his lavish spending, big government traditional liberal outlook, and audacious-but-ambiguous transformative proposals, all in a time when we are being told that we are in the greatest recession since the Great Depression.  Or on a more personal level, is it possible that, despite an addictive smile, gift for communicating and an undeniable charm, perhaps some have been turned off by a man who hesitated to give vocal support to seekers of democracy in rigid theocracy overseas but clumsily weighed in on a local police issue in a Boston suburb? 

As we all know, racism exists, and it shall forever exist as long as humans have the ability to manifest bias and prejudice in their interpersonal relationships.  To claim or imply that it is the motivator for the majority of criticism, as both Carter and Dowd have, is to be either completely ignorant of reality in the United States in the year 2009 or so skeptical, so paranoid, so pessimistic about one’s fellow man that functioning in such a shallow and flawed country must be such a daily drudgery that only the stoutest of us can endure without considering emigrating away.

Or maybe there is a middle ground. Perhaps the accusation of racism is just a throwaway argument which is as utilitarian as the cries of “witch” in Puritan New England or “Communist” in the Cold War.  Like the accusation of rape, it requires no proof initially, immediately classifies the accuser as a victim, and leaves a stain on the accused that is hard to remove, regardless of accuracy.  When disproven the accuser can simply shrug and say “Maybe I was wrong.” without fear of punishment while the guiltless are left scraping together their reputation. 

In this sense it is a reckless and intensely unfair incrimination which belies the insecurity and bankrupt arguments of those who would wield it.  But every time the race card is dealt, it loses its power just a little bit. While this is not comforting to those on the receiving end, it serves as a potential red flag, a clear indication that things are not going well for a movement.  Just as winning football teams do not complain about the refs when they win, those holding the policy high ground would not openly accuse their  opponents of racism without a good deal of undisputable empirical evidence.  The red flags of Dowd and Carter may indeed be the white flags of left-leaning domestic policy whose argument has been lost in the court of public opinion.

George Will’s recent column, Time To Get Out of Afghanistan is at the same time long on facts, as one would expect of Mr Will, but short of foresight.  Will reminds us what a monumental task it is to tackle one of the planet’s least decipherable nation states yet neglects to mention the consequences of leaving Afghanistan to a fate that could easily lead it to resembling the isolated terrorist-harboring fundamentalist country which led us to invade it eight years ago.

No one questions that success, however defined, is a huge challenge in a place like Afghanistan.  It boasts some of toughest mountainous terrain in the world, ideal for guerilla warfare.  As a modern state it is relatively young and impoverished, with almost no tradition of a centralized government or democracy.  Its ethnically diverse people cling to ancient traditions and a rigid tribal mentality, heavily influenced by Islam brought to them by their Arab and Persian neighbors to the south.  

Conventional armies of modern times have certainly had a tough go at it, as the experiences of the British and Soviets have proven. But the cliché that Afghanistan is a place where “empires go to die” is misleading at best and actually untrue.  The English intervention in Afghanistan was actually a series of wars over eighty years, all the while it was involved militarily in several other places around the globe. The Soviets suffered average casualties (between 2 and 5% killed in action) over a nine-year period and withdrew in good order.  Moreover, the Afghans have been conquered several times in their ancient history, by the likes of the Macedonians, Mongols, and Persians.

That the United States and her NATO allies are holding the line in Afghanistan with a decidedly lack of 100% effort is a positive sign which should not be overlooked.  Currently a little over 100,000 foreign troops (with an attendant entourage of intelligence agents, nongovernment agencies, and contractors) train and fight in Afghanistan, more than half of which wear an American uniform. Contrast this with the Vietnam War, which at its peak had over half a million US service members in theater alone.

 That the US has not been able to put all troops in what some call the Global War on Terror’s “Good War” is a function of complex national security choices. Keep in mind that the two-front war, while never desired, has been actual American strategic policy since the Clinton post-Cold War era. The concept of Win-Hold-Win is being rigorously put through the paces in the Middle East and Central Asia.  What its creators did not factor heavily into the equation was the possibility of two protracted occupations/counterinsurgencies which, by their nature, are time intensive and heavily dependent upon the reserve components of the US military.  It is understandable given the prelude conflicts from Grenada to Panama to Somalia to the Gulf War which fully imposed the Powell Doctrine (or Weinberger Doctrine, if you will) in localized battles which lasted weeks or even days.

Will’s opinion on the ultra light footprint enhanced by our continued technological superiority as a good fallback plan ignores modern realities.

1.  Intelligence is usually better if human-driven, rather than signal (i.e. satellite) driven and this requires men interacting with other men in the theater of operations.

2.  Special operations forces need sound and secure bases from which to operate most effectively, as their newest “truth” spells out: Most  special operations require non-SOF assistance.

3. Proponents of a reliance on drones forget that the “accidental guerilla” phenomenon happens precisely because of collateral damage from unmanned and even manned aircraft.

4.  We can cite any modern war to see the limitation of airpower, from current operations to the first Gulf War to even Vietnam and World War II.  Even the war in Kosovo, which advocates of air power point to when asserting that air power alone can win a war, showed that bombing from 20,000 feet, while minimizing friendly casualties, creates enormous problems with the proper identification of military targets.

5. Finally, he declares Pakistan “a nation that really matters” while ignoring the obvious that any chance of influencing events in that country, besieged by the Pashtun-heavy Taliban which straddles both countries, would require operating bases in Afghanistan.

Counterinsurgency requires many things, patience and unconventional thinking being two of the more important.  Bush and Rumsfeld warned us this would be a long hard slog and it is certainly living up to all expectations.

No doubt the American public is war weary. As a people, historically we –contrary to modern external presumptions—are on the passive side but once in a conflict, prefer short nasty fights to long drawn out ones. Whereas short, brutal conventional fights like our own civil war and both world wars seem the norm, insurgencies like our involvement in Central America, the Philippines, and Vietnam are more common.  When speaking of the GWOT, too many times we make reference to WWII, a poor example for any number of reasons.  A more apt comparison are the American Indian wars, in which this nation continuously, over several decades, fought a dispersed, adaptable nonstate warrior society who used guerilla tactics. 

As with Iraq, no one really knows what will happen when coalition forces leave. Just as many wrote off the corrupt South Vietnamese government and its lackluster army which fought bravely as conventional North Vietnamese troops crept closer to its capital, people forget that the Soviet puppet government in Afghanistan, which people assumed would collapse the minute their Communist allies departed, held onto power several more years. It was only the rise of the Taliban when Afghanistan took an evolutionary step backward and embraced the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

Barack Obama has a difficult choice.  He can make the hard call to cut our losses, declaring Al Qaeda an insignificant impediment to the American way of life and inconsequential to top national security endeavors. He can cite and honor the sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers and federal employees who quickly rid the Afghans of a medieval cult of warlords and ignited the spark of self determination and gave those war-weary people 21^st century opportunities.  He can do so gradually or precipitously, resting and recuperating a military which is firing on all pistons but is one or two crises away from a breakdown. He can take George Will’s tack.

Or, President Obama can make the harder choice. He can shift assets from Iraq to Afghanistan, with or without the help of our European partners who, with exceptions, clearly have no stomach for the fight.  He can resist the left wingers of his party and do the unthinkable, recommit America to Afghanistan and actually grow the military, which is still operating on a “peace dividend” budget despite the fact that we have been at war since almost the beginning of the millennium.

He can do all of this while the immediate recovery of the economy is foremost in people’s minds and GWOT is fourth of fifth in importance to most Americans, a decision no leader really wants to make.  Get out and save a few lives and few dollars now and hope that Islamic fundamentalists somehow see this as an act of strength. Or we can risk those lives and commit more treasure to stay and finish what Al Qaeda started, in hopes of ensuring that the circumstances that permitted the training and safe passage of such a shadowy and fanatical organization is not repeated again in another decade with attacks not involving jet planes next time, but dirty bombs.  For once, I hope the President ignores George Will’s advice.

The hypocrisy of political parties is never so evident as it is when they speak out about something that they once condemned or did themselves.  The recent surge of emotion and political interest at legislators’ town hall meetings, normally a boring gathering of a handful of constituents, is a shining example of the switch in attitudes in both the Republican and Democrat parties.

When anti-war protesters disrupted speeches or Congressional testimony, Republicans, by and large, cast them as either whackos or professional agitators who were being financed and encouraged to organizations who seem to exist solely to oppose George W Bush or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.   Currently, many Republicans welcome the chants and protests as signs of discontent over President Obama’s  spending and policy visions.

  (Note: Personally, I apply a bit of nuance to differentiating those protesting war and those protesting a political figure.  It is well within the rights of citizens to do either, regardless of the constructive impact of either.  I part ways a bit on protesting wars.  I prefer that robust discussion and debate happen prior to a nation and her army get committed to the most destructive and debilitating of tasks.  To do so with troops in the field is not treasonous, but those who do so must realize that their actions do impact the morale of soldiers, regardless of how much they claim to support them.  It is the equivalent of booing at a sporting event. The individual athlete may or may not be affected by it but it is certainly less encouraging than being cheered.)

Likewise, Democrats who not long ago not only encouraged dissent but frequently called it the highest form of patriotism, citing Howard Zinn’s (or Thomas Jefferson, if you prefer).  As the faces of those who protested changed, many leading Democrats have labeled town hall participants (as they did the Tea Party attendants) as malcontents, rubes, gun-toting nutjobs or criticized conservative group’s efforts to organize them, apparently forgetting how much liberal organizations did much the same thing during the Bush years.

Here is my take.

 Participants in town hall meetings should be courteous and civil. Passion is fine as long as it does not reflect poorly on the speaker, thus undermining his point or cause, nor should it disrupt the event or inhibit others from speaking.   Booing and cheering and making speeches is for sports crowds and debaters.  Concerned citizens should adopt what I was told in the Army when giving briefings: be brief, be brilliant, be gone.

Personally, I would not bring a firearm to a demonstration, much less one that was near a presidential event, but I can see the merit of someone making a political point by exercising his right to carry one openly.  While guns can induce fear in some, the trepidation it causes is not so much a commentary on the owner as it is on those who are so unfamiliar with firearms.  We rightly criticize people who fear people who are ethnically different than them and do not understand and we should also criticize those who are so opposed to an device about which they know very little about.

Republicans should be very careful about how much they get into bed with unruly town hall participants.  While their frustration level is indicative of legitimate gripes with Congress’ spending habits and pending bills, shrill voices and uninformed voices will add little to the debate and will ultimately be put in an unfavorable light by the visual media.

As for Democrats, they are on thin ice denouncing the rowdy crowds. Not only do they come off as hypocrites but they run the risk of misinterpreting that chorus of discontent as the vocal few.  While some are no doubt professional activists or individuals far outside the mainstream,  I think they are indicative of a growing concern over massive spending during the worst possible time to conduct such spending.   Democrats should realize that many of these people who are taking time out of their lives to attend a political event (itself somewhat, shall we say, un-American) are probably the people that will make the difference in the next Congressional and presidential elections.

 Finally, for the administration I would only advise the President to take heed of what is going on in these town halls.  Acknowledge that the very fact that people are turning out in large numbers for these events is a sign that people are troubled.  Complaining about misinformation is legitimate but a waste of time. In all the speeches and town halls, President Obama has done very little to define what is ultimately a complex problem.  And it is not necessarily his fault just for the fact that there is no true “Obama Health Care” because it is a Frankenstein of sorts, a conglomeration of disparate and enormous bills in two Houses.  How does one inform about and define something which does not really exist?

 I am reminded of comments of both one of my college economics professors and my favorite math teachers in high school.  The former reminded us that, “The market is never wrong.”  You can complain until you are blue in the face that a product is good, or should sell well, or has a certain value but it is all pissing in the wind.  Either the timing is wrong, the product is wrong or the marketing is wrong but the market is not the problem.  Mr Goss, my math teacher frequently said, in a slyly self deprecating way, “If the student has failed to learn, the teacher has failed to teach.”

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

“Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too.”

 "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.

Why interviewers ask authors where we can find their book.  Do they ask actors where we can see their movie?  Do they ask auto manufacturers where we can buy their cars?

Why airlines still have to explain how to use a seatbelt

HD radio

Why people say incidences when they mean incidents.

 incidentèincidents     incidenceèincidences

Why the thought of chewing on tinfoil makes my teeth hurt

Why I can walk on a 6” wide curb that is 4” off the ground but I would feel queasy about walking on a 10’ section of wall 200’ off the ground

Why it’s so common for characters in movies to “get some air” or splash water on their face.  I have never heard anyone utter the former and I’ve never felt the urge to do the latter.

The lure of Twitter

St Louis drivers who feel perfectly at home puttering around 10 mph below the speed limit, but when they see a yellow light they suddenly hit the gas

Corn dogs

That somebody approved those Cialis commercials

The fascination with American Idol

Sotomayor: Rebut, Then Confirm

WASHINGTON -- Sonia Sotomayor has a classic American story. So does Frank Ricci.

Ricci is a New Haven firefighter stationed seven blocks from where Sotomayor went to law school (Yale). Raised in blue-collar Wallingford, Conn., Ricci struggled as a C and D student in public schools ill-prepared to address his serious learning disabilities. Nonetheless he persevered, becoming a junior firefighter and Connecticut's youngest certified EMT.

After studying fire science at a community college, he became a New Haven "truckie," the guy who puts up ladders and breaks holes in burning buildings. When his department announced exams for promotions, he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day, and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material.

He placed sixth on the lieutenant's exam, which qualified him for promotion. Except that the exams were thrown out by the city, and all promotions denied, because no blacks had scored high enough to be promoted. Ricci (with 19 others) sued.

That's where these two American stories intersect. Sotomayor was a member of the three-member circuit court panel that upheld the dismissal of his case, thus denying Ricci his promotion.

This summary ruling deeply disturbed fellow members of Sotomayor's court, including Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) who, writing for five others, criticized the unusual, initially unpublished, single-paragraph dismissal for ignoring the serious constitutional issues at stake.

Two things are sure to happen this summer: The Supreme Court will overturn Sotomayor's panel's ruling. And, barring some huge hidden scandal, Sotomayor will be elevated to that same Supreme Court.

What should a principled conservative do? Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views. No magazine gossip from anonymous court clerks. No "temperament" insinuations. Nothing ad hominem. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy.

On the Ricci case. And on her statements about the inherent differences between groups, and the superior wisdom she believes her Latina physiology, culture and background grant her over a white male judge. They perfectly reflect the Democrats' enthrallment with identity politics, which assigns free citizens to ethnic and racial groups possessing a hierarchy of wisdom and entitled to a hierarchy of claims upon society.

Sotomayor shares President Obama's vision of empathy as lying at the heart of judicial decision-making -- sympathetic concern for litigants' background and current circumstances, and for how any judicial decision would affect their lives.

Since the 2008 election, people have been asking what conservatism stands for. Well, if nothing else, it stands unequivocally against justice as empathy -- and unequivocally for the principle of blind justice.

Empathy is a vital virtue to be exercised in private life -- through charity, respect and lovingkindness -- and in the legislative life of a society where the consequences of any law matter greatly, which is why income taxes are progressive and safety nets built for the poor and disadvantaged.

But all that stops at the courthouse door. Figuratively and literally, justice wears a blindfold. It cannot be a respecter of persons. Everyone must stand equally before the law, black or white, rich or poor, advantaged or not.

Obama and Sotomayor draw on the "richness of her experiences" and concern for judicial results to favor one American story, one disadvantaged background, over another. The refutation lies in the very oath Sotomayor must take when she ascends to the Supreme Court: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. ... So help me God."

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling "facially race-neutral."

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

Over the weekend, I have heard two United States senators—people who should know better—wish TV news personalities a “Happy Memorial Day”.  While it would be petty to make too much of this, I do not think that it is a stretch to say that, probably due to the move to make most federal holidays into three-day weekends, Memorial Day’s significance has lost its meaning somewhere along the way.

Armed Forces Day is a day for the various branches of the military to collectively celebrate their traditions and contributions to the nation.

Veterans Day, formerly Armistice Day, is an observance recognizing those who have served their country in time of war, although the scope has informally been expanded to include the broadest definition of the word veteran: anyone serving or having served in the military.

Memorial Day is quite different and specific.  It is not a tip of the hat to those who have worn the uniform or to those who have fought, and even been wounded, for their country.  Memorial Day is, in essence, a day of mourning, a chance to honor those who were lowered into the cauldron of war never to return, having given the last full measure, the ultimate sacrifice. 

Individually and in summation, their premature yet noble deaths have perpetuated, most directly and visibly, the continuation of the survival of our nation and its idealistic values, ensuring the brightest hope for our world for years to come. Thomas Jefferson eloquently acknowledged the awful truth that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

So I would wish you and yours have an enjoyable and safe weekend.  At some moment, I would encourage you to think about and thank those who have laid down their lives in service to their country, as well as the families they left behind. 

Though I do not currently wear the uniform, I think it is appropriate to lower my head, raise my glass, and reflect upon those souls, “To our fallen comrades.”

Sometimes I’m not sure if my parents realize how lucky they are.  For most of our childhood, my little brother and I were little angels. Even as high school kids in a boring Massachusetts town, we maintained our sainthood for a many years.

Sure, there was the time we decided to pelt passing cars with snowballs.  Being kids, and therefore lacking a single ounce of common sense, we decided to do so from our own yard, the only home on that side of the country road for a quarter mile. Brilliant eh?

And then there was the time I loaned my BB gun to a kid.  I only found out he was a Lee Malvo in the making when I saw a police car in our yard one day—the first and only time one has graced our property for business reasons.  As Bill-Luck would have it, turns out the psycho was shooting the little kids in his neighborhood and sang like a canary when caught.  I heard he died of a drug overdose about five years ago.  I can pick ‘em huh?

Yep, we were destined for heaven until we were introduced to reuinner of many a good little boy—Mr Alcohol.  My brother started later than most of his peers and I actually waited until college, but that simply meant I was the sober witness who aided and abetted plenty of stupid actions, despite my Boo-Boo-like protests….”I dunno, Yogi.”

It was Mr Alcohol who suggested my brother’s not-yet-of-age friends go drunk golfing at the course we used to sneak on as kids.  At least they had an excuse; judgment is one of the first things to go.  I was the dumbass who decided to tag along to ensure we could rent a cart. 

Yeah, one cart for three people seemed smart, economical at least.  Until the pull cart which we towed behind us like an artillery piece flipped over, dumping the bag.  The drunken driver did not notice as he continued driving like a maniac, the bag bracket, exposed and inverted, acted like plowshare, ripping the expertly maintained fairway and leaving an ugly winding scar for fifty yards, like a blind DOT truck driver painting yellow lines on the highway.

We didn’t get nabbed until we tried to do moguls on the uneven part of one hole, the same drunk cart driver and his intoxicated bud in the front, with me hanging on for dear life to the back of the cart, spread eagle like Spiderman as the cart bounced along at top speeds over terrain it was never intended to tackle, with three fools and their gear crammed into it.

The guys who pulled us off the course were younger than me, which was insulting enough.  They confiscated our liquor and banned me for a year, but not before mocking me, condescendingly asking how we could drink the 130 degree cocktail mixture that had been sitting in the sun all day.  Hell, I didn’t even drink then. Insult to injury.

With the CIA/Speaker of the House disagreement, the President/Congress divide over closing Guantanamo, the release of some secret documents regarding enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) and the decision not to disclose others, and culminating with the near split-screen speeches by the sitting president and the former vice president today, national security has certainly supplanted the economy in the headlines, for the time being, at least. On the front edge of that national security wave which has been cresting is the status of Guantanamo Bay. The core of that issue centers very much around two much bandied about and loosely used words: terrorist and torture. 

Words certainly do have meaning and precise meaning is crucial in discussing fact, especially in a loaded word like torture, which produces visceral and emotional reactions from people.

Let us dispense with hyperbole and vague characterizations.  The facts are as follows:

1.  The Bush administration did not “shred” the Constitution.  In reacting to 9/11 Bush decided to expand the power of the executive branch in an effort to wage war more effectively, hardly a deviation from any other commander-in-chief in our past during a time of war. That he was handed much of the power to fight the war so willingly by Congress should be noted, as well as the fact that his administration (like the current one) opted to carry over policies from the previous administration.  Whether it has exceeded its authority, or whether Congress is overdue to take back some of that power is a legitimate and pertinent issue.

Furthermore, the decision to use Guantanamo, as with the decision to permit EITs, was not made lightly.  It was after considerable internal debate and consulting with legal professionals, documented in legal papers and written about in books mere years later.  It may come as a shock to some people, but attorneys earn their money by finding and exploiting ambiguity and gaps in the law and the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) behaved no differently.

2.  Guantanamo Bay is without a doubt, US territory. Any US military base or post, overseas or domestic, is considered US property. This is precisely why Senator John McCain, born on a naval installation in Panama, was eligible to be president of the United States.

Gitmo also happens to be an excellent place for holding detainees.  It is isolated, on a military base in a foreign power’s land.  Like prisoner of war camps in World War II, it is far from the battlefield and like Korea, it is on an island.  Both make for the possibilities of freedom and raids remote.

3. Water boarding both does and does not work and may or may not be torture.  Though the administration is reluctant to release documents proving it works, statements of various intelligence officials, as well as the former VP Dick Cheney, claimed it has indeed saved countless lives.  Many also acknowledge it can result in false positives, however.

At quick glance, water boarding seems to violate the spirit of the Geneva Conventions on torture.  But educated and experienced people can look at that definition and determine that it is not in conflict with the letter of the convention.

4.  Not every detainee in Gitmo is a terrorist or killer.  Some are indeed high-level officials in Al Qaeda. Some are Afghan tribal leaders, who may or may not have been part of the Taliban, unfortunate enough to have been fingered for wrongdoing by rival clans incentivized by American information bounties. Some detainees were locals who assisted AQ and the Taliban but never directly took action against Americans. And some were active enemy combatants, men who engaged coalition forces and were captured.

Separating out these prisoners would be painful but necessary.  Suspects and unfortunate scapegoats should be put in one pool and be handled with a whole different set of rules, more aligned with international and US law. 

Enemy leaders and combatants would best be served by military tribunals, which Bush started and Obama elected to reconsider.

For enemy combatants, it is a “choose your poison” situation, except they do not get to choose.  They can be tried under military tribunal and take whatever punishment is handed down.  Or they can be treated, in effect, like legitimate prisoners of war and be held until hostilities cease.  Whenever that is.  A year? Five years? Fifty years?

The high value prisoners like Zabaydah and KSM are a different animal.  That they were captured using clandestine techniques and information would make use of the court system both impractical and detrimental to national security. That they were the most frequent recipients of EITs would also render the use of the justice system problematic.  Yet, in the unlikely event they were acquitted, no president in his right mind would let them simply go free.

As for Guantanamo Bay, the decision is relatively black and white.  If you close it, you are closing an expensive and effective prison for some of America’s most dangerous enemies.  Yet it remains a propaganda defeat because of the stigma, correctly or not, it was a place that systematically abused prisoners of war.

If you close it, you must find where to put the individuals there. Release them and we can bet at least 17% (and those are the ones we know about).would return to kill Americans.  Europe has already shown a reluctance to take many on (ironic since some of the heaviest criticism is out of Old Europe).  And nobody wants a prison in their backyard, much less a prison with a terrorist in it.

As President Obama stated today, surely our maximum security prisons can hold these men.  But John Gotti and Jeffrey Dahmer did not have a worldwide organization who would be eager to kill innocent civilians and blow up skyscrapers, never mind prison guards and chain link fences, in an effort to spring them.

The issue of waterboarding is all but moot.  Given Obama’s recent flip-flopping on security measures, however, it is worth keeping in mind.  Also, it is not without precedent that we, as Americans, accept a lesser form of evil and shun the greater. In the 1980s, we had a policy of publicly proclaiming we would never use chemical weapons first (they were not outlawed until 1993), an assurance we did not make with nuclear weapons.

Even the most rigid opponent must admit that intent should be a consideration in determining its use. Torturing someone out of sheer sadism is certainly worse than for punishment, as Saddam’s sons and the Khmer Rouge did.  Most would agree that trying to obtain information (i.e. the ticking time bomb scenario) is more acceptable than the previous two.  If you do not think so, consider that American special operations and pilots regularly go through survival, evasion, resistance and escape (SERE) training, of which water boarding is a part. In the though processes of those most ardently opposed to water boarding, every living president, including Mr Obama, would be subject to war crimes trials.

In any case, water boarding is rare.  As Anne Coulter pointed out, more journalists have been waterboarded than terrorists and they seem to have recovered nicely.  Even advocates do not endorse it zealously, just as no one cheers for abortions.  Like pro-lifers, many feel waterboarding should safe, legal and rare.   

EITs in general, should at least be left on the table.  To broadcast to the enemy exactly what you are and are not willing to do, is nothing less than tying one’s arm behind one’s back.  The Army Field Manual was meant to be used by soldiers dealing with prisoners of war.  It was not intended to be used by intelligence agents handling known or likely terrorists.

The negative impact the authorized use of EITs has on our international standing is typically overstated.  While it had undermined our efforts with allies and moderate Muslims, it puts us on no worse standing with our enemies.  Rather than improving recruiting efforts, it is more likely the opposite is true: making our limitations transparent and limiting our techniques will do more harm overall and make recruiting fence-sitting jihadists that much easier.  So, if we go to war with Canada, our troops may suffer more but if in any other circumstance, American POWs can be expected to be maltreated regardless of international treaties.  Just ask the families of the handful of soldiers captured in Iraq or POWs who have been held by the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese, all signatories to the Geneva Convention.

Ultimately, we must look at both Guantanamo and EIT on a cost-benefit basis.

 We can close the base, improving our popularity by reinforcing US values, but create a new problem of where to hold enemy combatants.  Or we can keep the effective prison open and suffer whatever judgments our allies may hold for us.

Likewise, with IETs, we can limit ourselves to standard US practices of dealing with traditional enemies and hope the decision does not come back to bite us, or we can bend the rules slightly for an enemy that plays by none, and risk becoming the monsters we fight.