skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Monday, Bob Woodward's controversial book, "Obama's War's", was released to the public and a few compelling themes have emerged from it. The most controversial of all is the president doubts his own Afghan strategy.
The president had his advisers read a book called, "Lessons in Disaster" by Gordon Goldstein, regarding how the U.S. began its involvement in Vietnam. What the president failed to understand in the book is that the Johnson administration officials instituted a policy that they never believed could work. We are seeing the same thing with the president's Afghan policy.
The president, like the Johnson administration, is looking at this through political lenses and not through how this affects the strategic interests of the United States. The president's political view only looks at the Afghan strategy on how it will affect the president in 2012. There is a great divide between the president's political staff and the members of the military.
The president has to be careful, because the actions he takes have to be implemented by members of the armed forces, and they deserve to know the president fully believes in the mission he is articulating. All members of the president's administration need to fully support the Afghan surge; sadly this is not the case.
Excerpts from the book show an administration divided and confused on what to do! Hardly a vote of confidence to our men and women in uniform.
Yesterday, the controversial book written by Washington journalist Bob Woodward was released to the general public. A prevailing theme has emerged from the various policy debates within the president's national security team over what course of action should the U.S. pursue in Afghanistan; which is the legacy of Vietnam.
Often throughout the book, the legacy of Vietnam has haunted this administration and references are made to a book that President Obama had his staff read, "Lessons in Disaster" by Gordon Goldstein. This chronicles the unending lessons of how the U.S. was slowly dragged into Vietnam, unfortunately it only gives part of the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
The other book the president should have had his staff read which, is the second part of the Vietnam War, the one after the Tet offensive of 1968 is, "A Better War," written by Lewis Sorley, that chronicles the successful counterinsurgency strategy instituted by General Creighton Abrams. His strategy proved successful, but a war weary public and Congress wanted nothing to do with Vietnam.
One has to be careful when analyzing history, especially politicians who often take the wrong lessons and apply them to today's events.
The much anticipated book written by famed Washington journalist Bob Woodward is set to be released to the general public today. The book goes into extensive detail regarding the formulation of the President’s Afghan surge strategy, in which more than 30,000 additional U.S. forces were dispatch to Afghanistan in an effort to stabilize the country.
Last week we had excerpts of the book released by various news affiliates who had received an advance copy of the book. Now the general public will have its opportunity to judge for themselves on how the surge strategy was formulated. Excerpts from the book show disorganization and tepid response on what should be the overall strategy of the U.S. in Afghanistan.
During the campaign the president repeatedly mentioned that he would end the war in Iraq and ramp up on the war we should have been fighting all along in Afghanistan. Unfortunately reality set in and the president has shown to be unsure of what policy to pursue, or what course of action the U.S. should follow in Afghanistan. This ambivalence has infected his entire national security staff as conflicting views have emerged and clouded what U.S. policy should be.
Instead of the media releasing excerpts from the book, the public can now make its own decision and judge the president by his merits and judgment.
Monday, the official release date of Bob Woodward's controversial book, "Obama's War's" is set to be distributed to the general public. Pundits from all walks of life who had received advanced copies of the book, released excerpts which show a president unsure of a policy he has articulated.
The real question of the release of this book is - it gives the impression that the U.S. is not fully committed to the surge of forces into Afghanistan. This only strengthens the resolve of insurgent forces and lets the Afghan people know the U.S. will abandon them once again, as was previously done when Russia pulled out in 1989.
One also has to be careful not to over analyze this book until everyone has had to the chance to dissect its full content. If the various excerpts already released prove accurate then this presents troubling problems for the president. A realistic problem for the president is not how it plays out in the political arena, but what message does it send to U.S. forces who are implementing his Afghan policy.
Right now we have a president who is conflicted over his Afghan strategy, and U.S. forces engaged in combat operations who are sacrificing their lives over a strategy the president is unsure of. Its sounding more like Hillary Clinton was right when she ran a political commercial during the campaign that mentioned, "who do you want answering the phone at 3 AM, when their is crisis in the world?"
The president had better be careful as events could get away from him.
Revelations in Bob Woodward's new book "Obama's War's", which will be reveled to the general public on September 27th, portray a dysfunctional and bickering foreign policy team over U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Exerts of the book have been released in advance of Monday's public release and it shows a deep divide between the military and political establishment of the president's foreign policy team.
One has to take care until the full book is analyzed, but if the reports emanating from various media affiliates who received advanced copies prove true, it comes at a difficult time for the president. The president and Democrats are facing a tough political climate leading up to the mid-term elections, and don't need more fuel added to the fire showing dissension in the president's handling of foreign policy, especially as it relates to Afghanistan.
The president has to be real careful how this is perceived, and it could prove disastrous and a perception the president is overwhelmed by events. Right now the president is enduring an economic shakeup on his economic team this compounding the image of chaos and dysfunction, when the need is for stability and confidence.
The next month should be interesting.
With the mid-term elections fast approaching, every action by Washington is geared toward procuring favors with the base of both political parties. Yesterday's actions was no different, as Senate Democrats slipped into the Defense authorization bill, a provision to end the controversial "don't ask - don't tell", which prohibits gay military personnel from serving openly.
Senate Republicans orchestrated a successful filibuster, both Arkansas Senate Democrats, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, to block debate on the bill. Mostly this was for procedural reasons, as few Senators objected to the procedure on how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, placed this in the Defense authorization bill.
Politics has raised its ugly head in this debate and will continue until we get closer to the mid-term elections. Supporters of the repeal are seeing their golden opportunity slip away and may not have another chance.
If the president wanted to, he simply could overturn the ban with an executive order, much like President Truman who desegregated the armed forces. Only the president can answer that question.
Its no wonder that Congress is held in low esteem by the American people. With the mid-term election looming closer by the day, members of Congress trying to appease their constituents, have inserted into the $725 billion defense authorization bill various social items. This is mere election gimmick that only heightens the disdain voters have for Congress.
The annual defense authorization bill provides a 1.4% pay raise for troops, and $725 billion for the Pentagon, including 159 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democrats have added a provision that would abolish the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and want to add the so-called Dream Act, which would provide a route for youths who are in the country illegally.
Let's have a serious debate about the various social items conveniently placed into the budget, these items should be debated on their own merits, not slipped into the defense budget. The real debate is, if Congress has the stomach for it, is supporting Secretary of Defense Roberts Gates' mission to overhaul the Pentagon budget. Unfortunately, Washington complains about the Pentagon budget but they also benefit when defense dollars come home to their states or districts.
It's time to get serious about reforming Pentagon spending and not divert funds into social issues which should be debated on their own merit. Study up and sharpen your voting pencils, it's time to send a message to Congress!
Today a great American is being laid to rest. He wasn’t famous for being a military, political or business leader. He was famous for just being an incredible father. My father was like millions of fathers across America who possessed unique traits, which seem alien to many people today. To understand my father you would first have to know the background that he came from.
My father was born in Italy to a wealthy family, but after Fascism came to his country it ruined his family. At the age of fourteen he lost both of his parents but cared for by his loving aunt. At age sixteen he went to work in the shipyards to help support his family before enlisting in the Italian navy. During World War II he served on an Italian battleship, which found him fighting in many horrendous battles in the Mediterranean, including the Battle of Taranto. This is the battle in which the Japanese studied extensively planning the attack on Pearl Harbor.
After the war, my father immigrated to the United States with very limited English, the clothes on his back and only a grade school education. Thus he began his life in America. At that time there was no language assistance. You either learned the language and adapted or you struggled with day-to-day life. However, he learned English by going to the movies and having his willingness to speak the language.
Like millions of other fathers across America, he raised his family, paid his taxes and went to Little League games. However, the most influential aspects he did was teach his children if you want something you have to earn it, nobody will give you something for nothing.
My father, with his limited education, placed a premium on education. He wanted his children to have a better life than he did. He realized education was the ticket to a better tomorrow. Therefore, his diligence in having his children educated or have a skill which would be marketable.
The values my father instilled in us was to have a strong work ethic, a concept which seems alien to some of today’s generation. But to him this proved an invaluable lesson to us as we perused our career choices.
He gave back to America by bringing his culture, determination to thrive, and teaching his children the honor of being an American. Three of his sons served the United States Military in major combat operations to include Lebanon, Grenada, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. One is still proudly serving in the United States Marines.
A great American is being laid to rest today. He symbolized the millions of fathers across the nation who instill determination, pride and family values in their children. America needs more fathers like mine!
Next week the Senate begins the battle over the $72 billion defense spending bill , which also faces many of the contentious social issues facing the nation. Included in the bill will be issues from the repeal of the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military, immigration issues, and abortions performed at Department of Defense hospitals.
Too often social issues get lumped into national security issues when they should be debated on their own merits, not part of national security. This shows how spineless Washington is. If they don;t have the courage to vote on contentious social issues as a standalone bill, they secretly place it into a spending bill where they know it will be harder to reject.
Its no wonder Americans have such low contempt for Washington! Consider this, Why is the nation spending $726 billion for defense? Does anyone in Washington even know what is in the bill? The real threat to the is nation as stated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is -the mounting federal debt! Washington has its head in the sand and would rather play partisan politics than make serious decisions about the nations security and economic well being.
The time has come for the American people to pay attention on what is being done on their behalf. We voted them in, and we can vote them out, but we have to be informed!
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, stated the greatest threat to the nations security is not global terrorism, but the growing national debt. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has launched much needed reform on how the Pentagon spends defense dollars and ushered in various changes to include canceling several Cold War era weapons systems.
It would appear the real problem is Washington has failed to understand this potential crisis and keeps spending at a record rate, with no end in sight. The crisis is the result of both Republican and Democratic administrations who failed to control spending and rein in entitlement or defense expenditures. Each administration keeps saddling the nation with ongoing spending requirements without stating how it will be paid for. The Obama administration set up a National Debt Commission that will report back in December, but unfortunately members of both parties want to exempt entitlement reform and reductions in defense.
The U.S. has to be serious about reducing the national debt, as currently foreign nations are financing our voracious appetite for spending. One only has to look at the various states across the nation to witness how large debt burden hampers economic activity.
Either we listen to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or we will witness the steady decline of the economic and military capability of the U.S.!
Both political parties battle each other to see who will eventually control Congress, and use this as a springboard for the final prize; the presidency in 2012. The Democrats enjoyed electoral success in both 2006, when they captured the Congress from Republican control, and in 2008, with President Obama's historical election - and with it total control of governing in Washington.
The landscape has changed with a sever recession that has sent unemployment higher, this coupled with businesses reluctant to hire, fearing the unknown of what will emanate from Washington. Both parties are jockeying for position, but the unfortunate problem is that both parties are only looking out for their best interests, instead of the best interests of the nation.
Both parties have failed to address the core problems facing the country and only look through partisan lenses, definitely failing America's greatest threat - the mounting federal debt. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been trying to tackle defense reductions at the Pentagon while facing mounting opposition from Congress.
Whoever ends up controlling Congress better start placing the needs of the country first, not the needs of the Democratic or Republican parties. The closer we get to November, the more contentious the battle will get. Before America votes, the American people need to ask themselves who has the better plan, and not listen to the partisan rhetoric of what we want to hear.
Even when the president announced on national television that combat operations have ended in Iraq, U.S. forces still face combat challenges. No one should have been surprised that U.S. troops still would be engaged in combat in Iraq even after the president's declaration, as there is still much work to be done.
The final chapter has yet to be written on U.S. military intervention in Iraq. The U.S. can shape that history, or we can repeat the mistakes made after U.S. pullout from Vietnam, in this case the strategic ramifications will be horrendous if we fail.
The administration has virtually washed its hands of Iraq, only speaking on the subject when it has to. Vice President Joseph Biden is the president's point person, but he has a very dubious track record on the subject, and his foreign policy expertise has been questioned over time.
The president needs to lay out a coordinated effort on the diplomatic front in resolving the disputed Iraqi election and forging a partnership with the Iraqi government, that doesn't undue or negate the gains from the surge. History is still being written and we can build on the success of the surge or we can fail with victory in our grasp.
For the first time since the Vietnam War, a living member of the military will be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Army Specialist Salvatore Giunta a 22 year old from Hiawatha, Iowa, will be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions sustained in combat in the Kunar province of Afghanistan.
Six medals have been awarded posthumously to those who have served in Iraq & Afghanistan, a small fraction given to those from previous conflicts. In comparison 246 Medals of Honor have been awarded to those who fought in Vietnam, 133 for the Korean War and 464 fro World War II.
The deed of the person must be proved by incontestable evidence of at least two eyewitnesses; it must be so outstanding that it clearly distinguishes his gallantry beyond the call of duty from lesser forms of bravery; it must involve the risk of his life; and it must be the type of deed which, if he had not done it, would not subject him to any justified criticism.
When the president awards the Congressional Medal of Honor to now SSgt Giunta, the American people will have the opportunity to witness a true hero, not the one manufactured in Hollywood, but one who desired to serve his country. The real hero's continually serve there country in far flung outposts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and around the world.
We should be thankful for all who serve!
No matter how hard Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tries to reduce the Defense Departments budget, he runs into the political realities of Washington politics; which is slash defense spending - but as long as it doesn’t affect my state or district.
Far too long the Pentagon has been used as away to bring pork back to their states or district, all under the guise of national security. This is not reflective of just one party, but both political parties, and far too often saddle the Pentagon with billions of dollars of items that are poorly constructed, or simply unnecessary weapons systems the military doesn’t want or can use.
A prime example is the C-17 Cargo aircraft, a vessel the Air Force doesn’t want or cares to use, but because it is built in Long Beach, California, the military was saddled with a $2.7 billion dollar aircraft. The argument presented is that it is always under the guise of national security, but is it really for the nations security or the senators security?
If the nation is ever going to get a handle on its mounting federal debt, Washington needs to stop playing pork barrel politics with the Defense Department, and make sure that the weapons systems given to the Pentagon are really for the nations security and not the security of the politicians in Washington.
In the strongest language possible General David Petraeus condemned the planed burning of the Koran on September 11th by a Florida church. U.S. governmental officials at the State Department, and the Pentagon, strongly voiced harsh language at this planned event as it would place American military personnel in serious danger, and could result in the deaths of U.S. troops.
At the Dove Out Reach Center, a 50-member evangelical church in Gainesville, the Rev. Terry Jones told CNN on Tuesday that he is "taking the general's words very serious" and that "we are definitely praying about it," leaving open the possibility that the event could be canceled. But he also said the plan is firm and is meant as "a warning to radical Islam" that "if you attack us we will attack you."
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, commented no matter how distasteful this may be, they have there first amendment rights to do so. A question that should be considered is what about the rights of U.S. forces to live, and are they being placed in direct danger by the irresponsible actions of Rev. Jones? We are in a war of ideas, and many in the Arab and Muslim world believe the U.S. is in a war against Islam. This only reinforces that belief! Dictatorships around the world are doing exactly what Rev. Jones is planning to do.
Any deaths of U.S. military personnel by his actions, he will have thier deaths on his hands.
With the national debt becoming a major campaign issue, the Secretary of Defense announced last month he wanted to cut $100 billion dollars from the defense budget over the next few years and eliminate a major military command. With that announcement, the political fireworks began with members of Virginia's congressional delegation and its two senators vowing to stop these cuts, as the vast majority of the reductions directly affect Virginia and jobs in that state.
The next few years you will begin to see the Defense Department announce more reductions that will directly affect other states and their communities. Will we see the same political storm over those reductions. Far to often politicians are all for reductions in the Defense Departments budget, but as soon as it affects their state and their district, they fight like a wild beast to preserve and any and all programs and weapons systems; whether the military needs it or asks for it.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, stated last month that the greatest threat facing America is the mounting federal debt, which Washington only seems to talk in partisan rhetoric, but provides nothing but lip service in solving.
The day of reckoning is coming on the debt the U.S. is facing, will Washington meet this looming crisis or not?
The president, in his address to the nation stated, "time to turn the page", referring to the war in Iraq and its divisiveness has come to an end. In his address the president fulfilled a campaign promise to the end the Iraq war and focus on the real threat, the war in Afghanistan.
The problem is that the President Obama still hasn't clarified what sort of diplomatic effort he envisions in Iraq. His current point person in Iraq has a very dubious record regarding foreign policy efforts in the region. The question we should be asking is will the U.S. still be engaged in Iraq when combat forces leave the country?
After informing the American people of the end of the Iraq war, the president shifted to Afghanistan. President Obama mentioned the troop surge and his decision to remove U.S. forces from Afghanistan is conditioned based, but unfortunately everyone in the region sees it differently. The July 31, 2011 deadline is hampering efforts, as the Afghan people are nervously remembering that we left once before and fear will leave again.
The last thing the president mentioned was the economy, but indirectly he placed blame on the previous administration, when both political parties were responsible for the decline of the U.S. economy. Both share the blame, and both still view the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in partisan eyes.
Both political parties need to stop playing partisan politics and work to solve the problems confronting America; is that too much to ask!
