America Settles a Score

When you mess with the big dog you will get bit – even if it takes him some time to find the right opportunity.

In this particular case it took nearly a decade for our country to track down and administer what most would regard as belated justice to a crafty and elusive mass murderer who planned the act of war that took the lives of over 3,000 innocent civilians.

The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of a Navy Seal Team has already begun to show positive results.  The Saudi Interior Ministry today reported that Khaled al Qahtani, a senior al Qaeda member who was high on Riyadh’s most wanted list, has turned himself in to them.  And the successful hunt for and killing of bin Laden sends a long overdue message to the rest of the world (terrorists in particular) that the United States is fully capable of exacting revenge on those who attempt to destroy us.  So much for the “helpless, pitiful giant” label that some have been so eager to bestow upon our nation.

There is a lot of credit to share on this one.

First, to the truly excellent performance of the Seals involved in the “boots on the ground” segment.

Second, the President and his staff are to be commended for making the monumental decision to terminate the career of the world’s most wanted man.  And equally important was their success in keeping this operation a secret throughout its entire lengthy planning and preparation stages.

Third, kudos to the large numbers of support personnel from different branches of the military who planned, directed and supported a true team effort.  Everyone from pilots to logistics specialists, to the construction personnel who created in Afghanistan a mockup of the villa in which bin Laden was reported to be hiding deserve a heartfelt, “Well done!”.

Fourth, the entire U.S. intelligence community deserves special recognition for their untiring pursuit of the information that would give our troops the opportunity to deliver the payback.

And let us not forget the Bush Administration, which initially set the wheels in motion and kept the effort going that would eventually produce the opportunity for vengeance.

There are those, of course, who decry the “savagery” of America’s attack and wail that every attempt should have been made to bring back Osama bin Laden for trial rather than “executing” him.  One of Maine’s Congressional Representatives (House Member Chellie Pingree) expressed confusion as to why bin Laden’s body had been buried at sea.  That such action prevented the possibility of the establishment of a shrine to be a beacon for the world’s collection of terrorists apparently did not occur to this clueless nincompoop – let alone that Muslim custom that the body should be buried with the head facing toward Mecca was thusly circumvented.

There will undoubtedly be many more details to be provided for the media to endlessly expound upon over the days and weeks to come.  It is one of the major events of this year and should provide endless attraction for a worldwide audience.

But for me, there is simply one irrefutable fact.  One of the most deadly, destructive, potent conduits of evil in the world is gone.

And that is just reason for ongoing celebration.

Poor Choices = Bad Results

I freely admit to being a “geezer”.  I’m on the brink of my seventh decade on the right side of dirt.  Looking around at the increasing chaos throughout the world and the many problems here at home certainly bolsters one of my most steadfast beliefs: the choices anyone makes have a major impact on their life – and the lives of others.

For those of us who are fortunate enough to have close family, it is sometimes hard to watch people make the same mistake over and over again.  Life consists of a stream of experiences, from which lessons can hopefully be learned and future choices can be made with the goal of not having to interminably endure negative results resulting from poor selection.

Much is often made of knowledge obtained from the “best” sources, provided through subservient obeisance before the alters of pedagogic pronouncement.  In our modern age, when much of what is proffered as “knowledge” is frequently encumbered by a “teacher’s” love affair with socialistic dogma, the revered “intellectual authority” and “academic freedom” which were once the pride of the universities have been overcome by the enforced impingement of current societal trends.

Unless the learning process is integrated with experience and practice, leading to (with luck) wisdom, information by itself hardly guarantees a successful and productive life.

Without the opportunity to learn from a broad menu of experiences – including both success and failure – one is limited in the ability to not just obtain knowledge, but also how to employ the information usefully.

If the young are fortunate, they have a number of mentors to interact with, different avenues to explore, and opportunities to experiment in life without necessarily making a disastrous choice and being destroyed by the consequences.

I have been fumbling about here, attempting to construct a pertinent allegory that might help explain why America, once looked to as the arguable leader of the free world, now seems to be adrift and confused – in both our foreign and domestic policies.

Partially, perhaps, because of a dearth of leadership at the highest levels and the corruption of our political system along with a sustained, deliberate undermining of our societal strengths.  Is it not clear by now that our current President is woefully inadequate for the position that he so lustfully sought?  Or that those who elected him were so devastatingly eager to benefit from “hope and change” that they fell completely under the spell of a talented snake oil salesman whose true agenda has nothing to do with preserving mankind’s most significant experiment in self-government?

To an extent.

But the evolving chaos in the Middle East can assuredly be linked to a desire on the part of certain elements to take advantage of what is perceived to be an ongoing weakening of the American world hegemony, personified by an inexperienced, weak, vain, and foolish man who aspired to and was rewarded with ascendancy to heights that he would ordinarily never have attained.

We are being severely tested, as a nation, and it is not by sheer coincidence.  Revolution, in its varying forms, is occurring both at home and abroad with a unified aim of bringing down the existing governmental structure and replacing it with a system detrimental to freedom.  Those engineering the turmoil are devoted to their cause and clever in masking their intent, but their goals all have common components.

These tactics are not new, nor have they arrived precipitously.  I have seen them before during my life and they are available for review to those who take the time to research them.

As a parent, I have the best interests of my immediate family at heart – and as a member of my extended family, the same applies.  Following that dictum, I sometimes offer counsel and perspective based on my experiences (both successes and failures).  As a citizen, I follow the same path, powered by the same motivations.

To all, I suggest that it is prudent to practice awareness of the damage that poor decisions can produce.  And for God’s sake, if you find yourself in a deepening hole stop digging and look for a different approach that provides a better solution.

Afghanistan Is Not Lost

True ….. the Afghans know exactly where they are.

I know; that is facetious.

Actually, my intent is to direct attention to that ongoing, long-term operation against the Taliban and their al-Qaeda partners in crime (9/11 for those who might need their memory refreshed).

My cause is greatly bolstered by the efforts of journalist and author Bing West through a magnificent article titled “With the Warriors” that is featured in the March 7, 2011 edition of National Review and with his first book on the war in Afghanistan, titled “The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out of Afghanistan” (Random House, 336 pp., $28).

Mr. West has been accurately described as “no more intrepid war correspondent today” and bringing “a unique set of qualifications to the table by reviewer MacKubin Thomas Owens.  Certainly, as an infantry veteran of Vietnam who participated in such Marine counterinsurgency programs as the Combined Action Program he has a strong affinity and admiration for the “grunts” whose life he shared.  Also, his positions as a former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration and a professor at the Naval War College during the late 1970′s provide him with a breadth of understanding of both policy and strategy at the national level.  This impressive resume gives him an aura of authenticity equaled only by Lt. Col. Oliver North when it comes to reporting the actions and effect of the troops on the ground.

Both of these warriors/reporters offer a considerably different picture of what is going on in Afghanistan (and Iraq) than one would deduct from the reports circulated by the mass media – hardly any surprise there.

Mr. West is unrestrained in his praise for the troops, but after seven visits to Afghanistan he delivers a message that is on the down side of optimistic.  He openly states that the U.S. cannot afford to lose this war, but will not be able to win the fight the way it is currently being fought.  He identifies a problem resulting from a combination of two factors; (1) U.S. current policy is grounded in the belief that it can “midwife the creation of a democratic state in Afghanistan” through the establishment of a strong democratic state,  headed by Hamid Karzai and designed to control 31 million uneducated and fractious tribesmen – and (2) a faulty strategy.

This strategy, embraced by our military leaders, derides the notion that insurgencies can be won by killing the enemy, but instead deliberately hamstrings our soldiers with the requirement that they become “nation builders” as well as war fighters, thereby turning our military forces into a huge and unwieldy Peace Corps conducting innumerable tea-drinking meetings with village elders and distributing billions of dollars for nation-building projects.

This approach may have worked in Iraq, West says, but “an insurgency … depends on local conditions, not upon pronouncements from on high”.  Current U.S. policy, a modernized version of the “COIN” (counterinsurgency) doctrine, was implemented initially in the Philippines (1940′s) and then further developed in Malaya and Algeria (1950′s) and Vietnam in the 1960′s.  The final rendition, emerging from “lessons learned” in Southeast Asia, stressed services and protection of the population while downgrading the importance of killing or capturing the enemy.  This “new COIN” was touted as the deciding factor in Iraq when the Sunni sheiks were persuaded to reject al-Qaeda and side with “the strongest tribe”, the Americans, against the “aliens” who were in their midst.

West points out that in Afghanistan the Taliban are members of the country’s largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns, and for the Americans and the government in Kabul to tell them that “we are here to protect you from the Taliban” is akin to “the British telling Catholics in Ulster that they were there to protect them from the IRA”.  Thus the time-honored techniques of the venerable COIN concept practiced for decades – the “two-way social contract” based on the belief that protecting the population and giving them money for economic development will convince them to turn against the insurgents – has not been successful in winning the allegiance of the Afghan tribes.

Admittedly, there are no simple solutions to the Afghan situation, despite the heroic efforts of the grunts and special forces troopers who strive to implement dogma-induced contradictory goals.  West still puts his faith in the Combined Action Program in which he participated that combined Marine rifle squads with Vietnamese “popular forces” militias, whose operational purpose was to destroy and deny sanctuary to the Viet Cong.  He points to the recent success of a 400-man Afghan battalion advised by a U.S. special forces team and augmented with a Marine Corps rifle platoon, an engineer detachment, and fire support coordinators with mortar, artillery, and air strikes, whose purpose is to take the fight to the enemy

Bing West is a brave, determined and very capable journalist and strategist and if you really want to know what needs to be done to win in Afghanistan read what he has to say.

Here It Comes

If there is anyone out there who is still wondering what rule under Obama will provide, the past week’s events here and abroad should paint a diamond-bright picture.

In Wisconsin, and also beginning in neighboring Illinois, we have a collection of union thugs, radicals, and self-serving “public servants” attempting to subvert the will of the people through disruptive, in some cases illegal, certainly unethical, and intimidating tactics.  Ignoring the fact that they have union representatives whose purpose is to negotiate terms of employment and benefits, some members of the Wisconsin education establishment have even threatened state politicians by demonstrating outside their private residences – creating traffic obstacles, presenting  a threat to innocent families and neighbors and disdaining private property rights, all without intervention by law enforcement.  Thuggery at its most obnoxious.

FDR was prescient when he expressed strong reservations against allowing public service unions to be formed.  How I would love to see (ala Ronald Reagan’s response to striking air traffic controllers) the teachers and other public workers who are using “sick leave” to demonstrate facing a choice of either returning to work within twenty-four hours or being fired for unethical behavior and breach of contract.

It is now obvious which side our so-called President is aligned with.  Obama and other Democrats constantly remind us of their devotion to the welfare of the public and then make it perfectly clear that their support is actually reserved for the small group of Americans who belong to unions or are members of special interest groups who provided funds for their election.  Disdain and contempt for the rule of law has become a trademark for the Obama Administration and their co-conspirators on the Progressive Left.

Even worse, the current resident of the White House continues to demonstrate his affinity for dictators and other assorted autocrats through his toadying, fawning behavior toward such notables as Hugo Chavez, various aggressive Muslim potentates, the Chinese, and the North Koreans while maintaining a wimpish facade in failing to protect the lives and rights of Americans both at home and abroad.

The most egregious example is the utterly flaccid response to the hijacking of an American yacht by Somali pirates and the abduction and eventual murder of those on board while the White House helplessly dithered despite the immediate availability of U.S. military assets who might have prevented the atrocious outcome of the incident.  There is now American blood on the hands of this President.

The degradation of America’s image throughout the world continues and with this latest incident, plus escalating violence throughout the Middle East, “open season” on U.S. citizens is now a reality.  The stumbling and bumbling of Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. “Justice” Department, and the Administration in general opens wide the door to the collapse of the rule of law here in our country and general societal disruption here and in many other countries.

At a time when strength in leadership, a return to ethical behavior, and a strict and equal enforcement of our laws are a must for the reconstruction of our previous strong society, we are instead faced with the prospect of growing anarchy in response to attempts by responsible leaders and an increasingly concerned public to gain control of an imploding society.

But the response of our current President is to aid, abet and enable these destructive components.

Makes one wonder, eh?

We had best be ready for a period of turmoil and danger.

While the World Watches

Events in Egypt continue to provide the high drama that captivates the news media.  Yesterday’s events, highlighted by Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak “agreeing” to leave Cairo and turn over the reins of the government to Vice President Omar Suleiman (while retaining his Presidency) has accomplished nothing more than to fan the flames of protest.

Suleiman’s military background and his lengthy involvement as head of Egyptian intelligence services hardly serve to convince the demonstrators that their insistence on a change in regime policies will be effected.  Indeed, this most recent evasive development engineered by Egyptian leadership has exponentially increased the size and fervor of the masses clogging the streets and squares of Egypt’s major population centers.

The Associated Press reports that, “Showing deepening dismay, President Barack Obama is questioning whether Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s promised transfer of power has any credibility or meaning. As a defiant Mubarak stayed in office, Obama challenged the autocratic Egyptian government to explain its path toward democracy to its people and the world.”

As usual, Mr. Obama is losing his cool when faced with a situation in which his rhetorical pronouncements are ignored by foreign leaders motivated by their own agendas.

To be fair, I believe it is likely that nothing this President does in this instance will have much effect on foreign actions.  What he (and his Cabinet) should be doing is making preparations on how to deal with what may well be the longed-for (on the part of more dogmatic Muslim world) emergence of the new Middle East Caliphate.

The current Administration would be well-served to look closely at the example of Iran following the deposing of the Shah and the ascension of the theocratic state.  The people of Iran joined in rising against what was regarded as tyrannical rule, planning to take the first steps toward a more democratic society.  What resulted was rule under the theocracy of the ayatollahs, which set Iranian society on a backward path to a 7th-century rigid ruling structure whose current aims show clear signs of a nuclear-assisted urge to gain regional prominence.

Should Egypt wind up with a fractional coalition form of government, strongly influenced by the growing power of The Muslim Brotherhood, Iran’s opportunities for dominance could expand.

At this point, no one seems to have a handle on how this major regional disruption will turn out, least of all our State Department, the CIA (under the disastrous stewardship of the unqualified Leon Panetta), and of course the White House.

At the very least all foreign aid ($1.5 billion plus at this point to Egypt’s military alone) should be suspended.  Not as an attempt to influence the outcome of the uprising, but simply to make at least one step in preparation for what may become a long and difficult period in our relations with the Middle East.

It is not our place to dictate the outcome of Egypt’s turmoil, but this is not the time for America to show weakness.

Revolutions and Evolutions

The events in Egypt over the last couple of weeks have dominated the news, which is undoubtedly is appreciated by the Obama administration since it takes the heat off the actions of the Keystone Cops, circus-type atmosphere that emanates from Washington these days.  Even though the President has kind of, sort of, perhaps, weighed in on the Egyptian situation it is increasingly obvious that when it comes to foreign affairs this administration is both clueless and feckless – not to mention the tone-deaf approach to America’s vital domestic problems.

It is unlikely that Egypt will turn out to be an American-type democracy.  Our country’s original intent was to escape the oppression of colonialism (which the Middle East has mostly completed, although China is attempting to make inroads) and we accomplished that without reverting to kings, tyrants, or despots.  The future of the Middle East is instead likely to come under the thrall of theocracy, which should insure constant turmoil for decades, if not centuries.

Revolution is the first step; evolution, if good fortunes prevail, can be the continuing result.  Flexibility is a vital component.  Much of western civilization relies on some variant of democracy to allow continuing change (evolution) without the wrenching and violent conflicts (revolution) that so characterize other forms of governing and control.

So, despite the tendency to glamorize the proponents of change here in the United States by applying the term “revolution” to such entities as the Tea Party, the Progressive movement, etc., our changes better fit the format of evolution, provided by the flexibility that only a system based upon God-given freedoms can provide.

Recent elections buttress this concept.  The promise of “change” that highlighted Obama’s campaign is indeed taking place (if perhaps not exactly in the form that he envisioned).

I have been insisting for some time that if one wants to view the fruits of the application of Liberal/Progressive policies here in America, then they have no further to look than my own state of Maine.

For well over thirty years, the Maine Legislature was controlled by Democrats.  For over half of that time a Democrat held the post of Governor.  Angus King masqueraded as an Independent, but was indeed a Democrat in spirit and action.  John McKernan was weak when it came to conservative vales.  A true Independent, one-term Chief Executive Gov. James Longley (1975-1979), was conservative to the bone and earned the virulent hatred of anyone dependent upon the state for their income.  It was not surprising that his successor, John Brennen, remained in office for a full two terms and that during that time state-spending burgeoned.

A state with a population of barely 1.3 million is currently burdened with a crushing annual budget of more than $3 billion.  One out of three Maine citizens receives some sort of assistance from the state.  In a few of the less-populated counties, nearly fifty per cent of the jobs are provided by state, municipal and federal governments and the unemployment rate is still in excess of 20%.  Taxes and fees are among the highest, per capita, in the nation while Maine ranks near the very top in “unfriendly to business” ratings.  Maine captures the top spot for the highest average age and the majority of our young people seeking to improve their lives leave Maine at the earliest opportunity.  Maine’s financial future is clouded due to unsavory practices that have resulted unfunded liabilities in the areas of health care costs and pensions for state workers.

Maine, for the first time in decades, has elected a Republican Governor (Paul LePage) and also a Republican-dominated Legislature.  After only one month in office for the new appointees, it is far too early to tell if such an upheaval will be enough to make the necessary improvements.  Still, the process of (somewhat) orderly evolution is continuing.

It is an uncomfortable truth that there are other, much more heavily populated states including California, New York, Illinois and Michigan that have overspent themselves into the same situation.

This is a clear picture of the future of America and the welfare state, if our domestic policies are not brought under the constraints of fiscal and social conservatism.  We are fortunate that our dalliance with revolution has been relatively brief and our nation does not depend upon stone-throwing, building-burning, mob-rule tactics, but instead evolves through the guidelines structuring our Representative Republic.

But make no mistake: there are those, “both foreign and domestic”, who would willingly fan the destructive flames of hardcore revolution in the name of “progress”.

 

Is Egypt on the Brink?

For the last few days the demonstrations have been spreading and the mobs growing.  Today, the U.S. government is taking steps to advise American citizens to avoid travel to that troubled country and to leave immediately if they are there for any reason.

Considering that the Muslim Brotherhood has its roots in Egypt and a number of other radical groups have flourished there, I find it difficult not to believe that the current unrest has no connections to radical Islam.  I would predict at this point that the Mubarak government will soon fall and, as in the past in countries such as Palestine, Lebanon, etc., a coalition dominated by members of radical Islamic groups will soon emerge.

What the world is presently observing is the culmination of years of careful and subtle undermining of a totalitarian regime by Islamic fundamentalist groups, who, for their own purposes, are now fanning the flames of an uprising masquerading as a democratic revolution against tyranny.  The irony is that once Mubarak is deposed a worse tyranny will be installed and the fundamentalists will add another country to the list of the conquered.

This outcome will meet little resistance from Europe, who has their own growing problems with the results of their open immigration policy toward followers of Islam, nor from the United States, whose titular head has abdicated the historic position of leader of the free world and resorted to an apologist for and a submissive attitude to the growing Islamic juggernaut.

This is not a good scenario for Middle East stability, nor for the best interests of all Western nations, but I view it as inevitable.