skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The final chapter has yet to be written in Iraq, but tonight President Obama will address the nation letting the American people know that he kept a campaign promise of removing U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
Everyone has an opinion on the Iraq intervention, pundits and policy makers will debate this for years to come, but history will render the final judgment. The U.S. can win the war but lose the peace, as Iraq struggles to establish a functioning government.
The president will address the nation on how the last combat troops have left the country, but will he mention what role the 50,000 U.S. troops who remain will play? How will the U.S. participate in establishing a functioning government in Iraq?
Too much is at stake for the U.S. to just abandon Iraq at this critical juncture. The U.S. needs to stay engaged in the process. Currently the president has his Vice President as the point person on Iraq, but has this arrangement achieved meaningful results.?
The president can use all the flowery rhetoric he wants in his speech tonight, but he has to be fully engaged in the process, just like he needs to be engaged in Afghanistan. Interest is high regarding what the president says tonight!
Tomorrow, President Obama will address the nation live from the Oval Office, stating that he last combat troops have officially ended active combat operations. This address will be keeping with a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq and bring U.S. forces home.
Iraq right now is going through a transition without a fully functioning government, five months after it held elections and amid squabbling among participants on who should lead Iraq. America will still have about 50,000 troops in Iraq until next summer to advise and train Iraqi security forces before all troops will be out of the country.
The current administration, for all its rhetoric, has pretty much washed its hands of any involvement in Iraq. Iraq is currently a sovereign nation and has the right to dictate its own direction, but at the same time the U.S. can help mediate the dispute between the different competing factions. There is still too much at stake just to say, "well this is for the Iraqi's to decide." The U.S. must continue to be engaged in the process or all our efforts will be for naught!
It took many years after the Korean war ended for South Korea to establish a functioning democracy. If the U.S. just walks away at this crucial period, it would have won the war only to lose the peace, allowing other nations such as Iran and Syria to fill the vacuum. If this happens the U.S. will surely come to regret it!
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullin, speaking to Detroit Economic Club, urged members of the business community to hire a veteran returning form the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Too often veterans face a different environment when they begin the transition into the civilian workforce. Many employers have no idea what military life is like as they themselves have never served. Many times unrealistic or naive understandings of what military life is like permeates in the business community.
Often employers believe in the Hollywood image of the military that places a preeminent ability to follow orders blindly, and the inability to work outside that close ordered structure.
Various times I have been asked in interviews, "You know this isn't the military where you scream orders and everyone follows you." It's ironic that in Israel they embrace the military culture, but in America you have to explain to everyone what life is like in the armed forces. In the book "Start Up Nation", written by Dan Senor and Saul Singer, the nation of Israel understands what ones service in the military can bring to a company and they seek those who have served.
I find it odd we support our men and women who protect our freedom, but almost in the same breathe fail to understand the unique qualities that they can bring to any organization.
If the nation would open their eyes to see the caliber of those serving in the armed forces today they would be pleasantly surprised!
For only the second time since taking office, the president will give a nationally televised address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night. President Obama will inform the American people that the deadline he set forth, once becoming president, will be accomplished when the last combat troops leave Iraq. The U.S. will leave about 50,000 U.S. forces in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces, and they will leave in the summer of 2011.
The president has pretty much been silent on Iraq since taking office, only commenting periodically, and when he did consistently blamed the previous administration for the war. History will judge President Bush for his actions, but history will also judge President Obama in how he handled the diplomatic aspects of the war.
Too often we blame President Bush for the war in Iraq, but everyone seems to forget that both parties voted for the war, which includes the current Vice President, and Secretary of State, while both were senators from New York and Delaware. One needs to stop looking at this war through partisan lens and go back to what members of both parties were saying before the vote that authorized the use of force in Iraq. You may be surprised about who said what!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's time we stop the partisan foreign policy that has engulfed Washington, and start having a foreign policy that reflects what is best for this nation!
General James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated yesterday that President Obama's July 2011 deadline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan was "probably giving our enemy sustenance."
The statement by General Conway should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the war in Afghanistan. When President Obama announced his troop surge into Afghanistan in December 2009 at the West Point Military Academy, he placed the withdrawal date to appease his liberal base.
The president was speaking to many different audiences that night and the one audience he was speaking to was his liberal base, who are against any troop surge into Afghanistan, and want the troops to come home now!
Partisan politics has again seeped into defense strategy! During the presidency of George W. Bush, Democrats consistently included then Senator Obama, who railed against the president for taking his eye of the ball and focused on Iraq instead of Afghanistan. Now that one of their own is president they have changed their tune.
How ironic that President Obama, who was against President Bush and General Petraeus surge strategy in Iraq, has now embraced his strategy in Afghanistan. It's time both Republicans and Democrats stop the partisanship in regard to U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and fight this war! The troops deserve better!
Over the weekend Russian and Iranian engineers started loading fuel into the Russian built nuclear power plant in the Southern Iranian port city of Bushehr, which should be complete by September.
The startup of the Bushehr nuclear plant is feeding worries about Iran's nuclear agenda and talk about whether sanctions are failing, which has become a serious below to the Obama administrations re-engagement with America's adversaries.
Once President Obama assumed the presidency, he articulated his administration would break with the past of ending confrontations with adversaries of the United States, if they unclench their fist we will begin a dialogue of trust and understanding.
In trying to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions we have seen sanctions imposed in name only. The Russians continue to assist the Iranians in its nuclear quest while the Chinese still continue to do business, and each day Iran is closer to becoming a nuclear state.
The president seriously has to reevaluate his Iran policy and stop blaming the past administration, who may of not been liked, but at least was respected in the Middle East for his hard line policies. This administration is seen as weak in minds of the leaders in Iran. Too often the president makes idle promises that simply are hollow words with no teeth.
The president has to be careful, his actions or lack thereof, could bring the situation with Iran spiraling out of control, with Israel taking military action to protect their safety. If that happens, a regional war is inevitable.
Vice President Joseph Biden delivered a speech before a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Indianapolis which is a prelude to when the president addresses the nation next week on Iraq before the last combat troops leave on August 31st.
Many in the United States and especially Congress just want to forget Iraq and move to other issues, leaving Iraq as the forgotten war. Unfortunately Iraq has strategic national security interests for this country and if left unresolved will be a strategic liability for the United States.
Right now Iraq has failed to coalesce around one leader five months after their election. The U.S. can't impose its will on on Iraq, but the U.S. can help them achieve governmental organization with one that proves Sunni and Shi'ite can govern together. The U.S. must be engaged in the process, the problem the administration and Congress have pretty much washed their hands of Iraq and would rather blame the previous administration then work to achieve stability.
There is till much to do in Iraq before we can claim success, but the U.S. still has to be engaged in the process. When the president addresses the nation he has to be straight with the American people on what is at stake not blame what has happened in the past, instead focus on the future.
The partisan politics of Iraq strategy has to end if we are to be successful!
The last few days the media have been reporting how the last combat brigade has left Iraq and entered Kuwait, thus signaling the end of combat operations in Iraq. To some, the long nightmare of the U.S. intervention is coming to a close, and by next year all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq.
The debate has begun-should we have even commenced military operations in the first place-and, was this war orchestrated by the Bush administration using false assumptions? History will be the final judge of U.S. involvement as the final chapter has yet to be written on what will be the outcome, while Iraq is still debating the organization of their government after having their elections just months ago.
Before partisan spin doctors debate the Iraq war, one first must look back at the debate and analyze the actions of members of both parties, not just one! Both parties voted for the war and both parties will have to answer to history for their actions!
It is unfortunate that the president has said very little about Iraq and really kept a hands off approach to Iraq, almost washing his hands of the whole situation. Again, history will be the final judge of U.S. military intervention in Iraq; but remember, the real winner in Iraqi is the U.S. military! There extraordinary efforts brought Iraq back from the brink, and now allow a nation to choose its own destiny.
Too bad no one will give them the credit they deserve!
The last U.S. combat brigade crossed into Kuwait, officially bringing an end to the active combat phase of the war. Seven and half years after military operations overthrew the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, and forever etched into the history books which would define the presidency of President George W. Bush.
History will be the final judge if this military intervention was necessary, or predicated on false assumptions by President Bush; right now the final chapter has yet to be written.
Before anyone passes judgment or looks through partisan lenses on U.S. intervention, one first has to take themselves back into time to the actions and statements of political leaders during this period. Remember both Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and countless other Democrats voted for the war. Read the statements of those who voted for the war, then later condemned the war stating they were mislead.
Read what they said before they voted for the war. One only has to look at the war through objective lenses and not through partisan glasses. History will be the final judge!
Battle lines are being drawn in Virginia over the proposed defense cuts that were announced last week by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Members of both the House and Senate in Virginia are vowing to fight the cuts to the defense budget as it impacts the economy in the state.
You will begin seeing this battle take place across the country in the next few years as the defense budget is reduced, but unfortunately members of both the House and the Senate have used the Defense Department as a cash cow bringing back to their states and districts inflow of cash, all under the guise of protecting the national security of the United States.
Both political parties use this excuse to enrich themselves, all the while escalating runaway spending at the Defense Department. Americans have to realize the real threat to the security of the U.S. is not from terror groups, but the monumental federal debt which is crippling the economic security of this nation. If left unchecked will continue to erode the economic future of America.
Across the the country, governments of all levels have used public funding for their own partisan agenda, and we now we are paying for this extravagant spending binge.
The bill is now coming due!
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced yesterday in an interview that some time in 2011 he would retire as Secretary of Defense. Secretary Gates is the only holdover from the Bush Administration to serve in the Obama Administration, which allowed a continuity of policy leadership at a critical time while the U.S. is fighting two wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secretary Gates' leadership helped allow for the stabilization of Iraq as he, along with Gen. Petraeus, instituted the Surge Strategy which brought Iraq back from the brink of chaos.
Currently the secretary is trying to reshape the Pentagon by reforming its budgetary process and move away from Cold War defense strategies while focusing on threats that the U.S. is more likely to face in the coming years.
His tenure at the Pentagon has begun to develop a new shape and direction, but also one that has led many to question the new direction.
The question is who will replace the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? The president has time to wait, but at the same time his base support among liberals is highly questionable, who have been critical of his Afghan strategy. His base wants the end of combat operations and the troops brought home.
The president has to make a crucial decision at a critical time, and whatever decision he makes will have repercussion for the U.S. defense policy. We will have to wait and see!
The campaign has begun to convince the American public that continued presence in Afghanistan is worth the effort, despite the various setbacks and challenges which confront U.S. forces.
General David Petraeus, who has recently been interviewed on various national media affiliates, has repeated the mantra against any hasty withdrawal which would under mine regional stability and allow Al-Qaeda a return to Afghanistan to conduct terror attacks against the west and the United States.
On Sunday's NBC's "Meet The Press'" Gen. Petraeus left open the possibility and would recommend against the withdrawal of U.S. forces, depending on how the war was proceeding.
This will be an intense political battle which will get more partisan, leading up to December when the Afghan assessment of the surge is released, and to the July 31, 2011 when U.S. forces are to begin drawing down in Afghanistan.
The real problem is the president has to use his rhetorical skills and consistently explain to the American people why the U.S. needs to stay in Afghanistan, and the implication to the region and beyond if we withdraw prematurely. President Obama has to stop listening to his base who are against military operations in Afghanistan and want the troops to begin coming home.
Right now both political parties are playing partisan politics with the war, only looking to this fall's mid-term and presidential election of 2012. The armed forces deserve better from our elected officials!
Let's hope they understand the consequences of their actions, but I am not betting on it!
When the Secretary of Defense announced budget cuts, he knew hew would be taking political heat from Congress, but now is getting resistance from senior level generals and admirals who are opposed to reducing their numbers.
The military for decades has been top heavy and only continues to get worse. Today, there are 40 four-star generals and admirals--one more than in 1971, during the Vietnam War, even though then number of active-duty troops has shrunk by almost half. The number of active-duty generals and admirals of all rank, meanwhile, has increased by about 13 percent since 1996.
The planned cut backs in the upper ranks have hit like a tsunami at the Pentagon and civilian leadership. The time of unlimited budgets has ended! The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has repeatedly commented that the national debt is a grave national security threat.
The monumental debt incurred by the United States if left unchecked will impede the security situation of this nation. The Defense Department is not immune from budget realignment and if we don't start now Congress will begin to make the cut for us. Congressman Barney Franks of Massachusetts is advocating reducing the Pentagon budget by a trillion dollars over ten years, and if we don't decide where the reductions come from then it will be forced upon us.
We can fight the reductions but it would only starve off the inevitable. Defense reductions are coming! The real culprit of over spending at the Pentagon is Congress itself. Until they get a handle on spending and not treat the Defense Department as a cash cow for their states or districts, the country will continue to pay the price.
The Defense Department needs an overhaul on how it spends the taxpayer's money; now is the time to do it!
Last December President Obama announced his new Afghan counterinsurgency strategy to great fanfare when he stated that he would be sending an additional 30,000 U.S. forces into Afghanistan. The greatest sticking point which has hampered U.S. efforts ever since which appealed to his liberal base, was U.S. forces would be begin drawing down in July 2011.
Military officials, led by General David. Petraeus, have slowly been building a case which minimizes the planned withdrawal. Various military experts in counterinsurgency have been letting administration officials know that they will need time to complete their work.
Counterinsurgency is a slow and laborious undertaking and can't be placed on a time schedule to appease the political whims of partisan politics in Washington. The president has to understand once he set that arbitrary date he made it hard for the U.S. to accomplish it's mission.
The Afghans remember history, and they remember the U.S. abandoned them after the Russians pulled out in 1989, leaving them to the violent chaos that ensued after which brought the violent Taliban into power.
Now they are seeing the same thing replicate itself all over again. Why would they support us now knowing we are leaving in less than a year. The date set by the president has given a propaganda coup to the Taliban who only have to wait us out.
The success of the surge in Iraq was based on no withdrawal and that the U.S. would see it through. Ironically the president was against the Iraq surge and against Gen. Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. Now he called upon the General to implement his same surge in Afghanistan.
Ironic how fortunes turn!
Battle lines are being drawn over the announcement that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' proposed cuts of a major military command and other staff. Various members of Virginia's congressional delegation, that includes both its senators and house members, are vowing to fight these cuts as they believe it will harm the nations national security.
The announcement was the first major step by Gates to find $100 billion in savings over the next five years. Gates says the money is needed elsewhere within the Defense Department to repair a force ravaged by years of war and to prepare troops for the next fight. "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of savings and restraint," he said at a press conference.
The biggest obstacle for the Defense Secretary will be convincing a reluctant Congress who look only at what is best for their district or states. In the past many in Congress have fought cuts and maintained weapons programs that the Defense Department didn't ask for or needed.
California's two U.S. senators both fought to keep funding for the C-17 cargo aircraft that the Air Force didn't want or need, but was forced to keep at the cost of $2.7 billion dollars. The cargo plane is built in Long Beach, California; both Senators cited national security and economic reasons.
Again you will hear the talk of why we must not cut the Pentagon budget as it will harm the nations security, but one only has to listen to the words of Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he states, "I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt".
Washington had better listen!
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced on Monday that the Pentagon will cut thousands of jobs, which includes a large number of contractors and a major military command that will be eliminated around the Norfolk, Virginia area. All this in an effort to streamline its operations and to prevent further cuts to defense spending in the years ahead.
Defense Secretary will propose the elimination of the Joint Forces Command, which employs about 2,800 military and civilian personnel as well as 3,300 contractors, most of them in southeastern Virginia. He also said he will terminate two other Pentagon agencies, impose a 10 percent cut in intelligence advisory contracts and slim down what he called a "top-heavy hierarchy" by thinning the ranks of admirals and generals by at least 50 positions.
The initiatives Gates detailed are part of his previously announced effort to save $100 billion over five years by trimming overhead and shrinking bureaucracy so that more money can be spent on troops and weapons.
This is long overdue as the Department of Defense needed some controls in its spending appetite, but the real issue will be weather or not Congress will go along with reducing spending at the Pentagon. Too often members of both parties use the Department of Defense as a cash cow that brings home the dollars to their states and districts. It remains to be seen if Secretary Gates' proposal will becomes a reality, or if Washington will serve up another disappointment.
Over the weekend, the Taliban in Afghanistan killed 10 aid workers, including six Americans who were providing medical support to the Afghan people. The doctors, nurses and technicians were on an expedition to deliver eye care in a remote area of Afghanistan before they were killed.
According to Afghan witnesses who had escaped, they were lined up by men in red beards and summarily executed with AK-47s. Led by American doctor Tom Little, of Delmar, New York, the group had been working for the International Assistance Mission, a Christian outfit that has operated in Afghanistan since 1966 but does no proselytizing.
The murders are a window on the threat that thousands of Afghans face every day if they dare to cooperate with the Afghan government. The assassinations and disfigurements (cutting off ears or arms) are a war tactic, designed to make it harder for the government to collect intelligence and deliver services to win over the population. The attacks on aid workers are likewise intended to isolate Afghans from Western assistance that could improve their lives.
To those who oppose the war, this should signal a reminder on how badly the war is going, but it also has far deeper meaning. What the future holds for Afghanistan should the Taliban regain power after the U.S. withdraws. What happens to all the young girls who have been attending school, what happens to all the females should we leave before stabilizing the country. It’s easy to criticize our efforts when we live in peace, but no one speaks of what will happen to the Afghan people under the Taliban. It should give us cause to think!
The Justice Department has unsealed federal indictments charging 14 people with terror related charges in Minnesota, Alabama, and California linking them to the radical Islamist al-Shabab organization in Somalia.
The radical Islamist group al-Shabab with links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network who were responsible for the terror attack in Kampala, Uganda last month killing an estimated 74 people who were watching the World Cup soccer final.
The federal indictments unsealed Thursday accuse the 14 individuals with providing money, personnel and services to al-Shabab. The accused were indicted Thursday of raising money for al-Shabab through door-to-door solicitations and teleconferences in Somali communities in Minneapolis, Rochester and other locations in the United States and Canada.
In recent years, al-Shabab has attempted to recruit dozens of young Somali Americans whose families fled to the United States to escape the fighting that has gripped their homeland, a failed state on the Horn of Africa. One of those recruits, a Somali American from Seattle, reportedly drove a truck bomb into an AMISOM base in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, in September 2009, killing 21 peacekeepers and himself.
Just because we have a new administration, just because we are focused on the economy, doesn't mean that terrorism has gone away. We have to be vigilant on protecting this country, the first time we let our guard down we will pay a price for it.
Today, President Obama will make remarks to the Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta regarding planned U.S. drawdown of forces from Iraq, which effectively ends American combat operation in Iraq as of August 31, 2010. Over the next few weeks the president plans to make similar events drawing attention of the transition in Iraq.
The war in Iraq has been extremely controversial when it was launched in 2003, by then President Bush, and it's status has not changed since. History will be the guide on how the U.S. became involved in this controversial war. Opinions have been heated and contentious, but as the public makes up their minds on whether this was in the interest of our national security, or just a misguided adventure by the Bush Administration.
President Obama stated he has been critical of the war from the beginning, but his national security team all voted for the war. Vice President Joseph Biden, who has been in the Senate since 1972 and touted as a foreign policy expert, voted against the first Gulf War, voted for the Iraq war, and now has been a vocal critic ever since. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also voted for the war as well as other prominent Democrats, including 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry.
Both sides have played, and continue to play partisan politics as it comes to the war in Iraq, and we are seeing the same situation repeat itself in Afghanistan. One only needs to go back in time and read the statements and remarks by many in Congress leading up to the authorization to use force in Iraq. The same situation continues to repeat itself in Afghanistan! As we continue towards this election, can we possibly expect to see some consistency, and possibly patriotic moral conviction in the political arena, or will we continue to see the same wishie-washie pattern of partisan political lip service?
