Recently in National Defense Category

"ENEMY CAMP"?

Chris Matthews of MSNBC was disturbed that President Obama did not get much of an enthusiastic response from the West Point cadets Obama chose to give his Afghan speech to. How did Matthews characterize those training to defend our country?

It's time for Matthews to hang it up.

|

OBAMA'S AFGHAN SPEECH WAS "JUST PLAIN NUTS"

Former Army intelligence operative Ralph Peters blasts Obama's Afghanistan speech as setting troops up to fail with his exit deadline. "If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante?"

What is Obama saying to his various listeners:

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

Read it all.

|

OBAMA'S TIMID, INEFFECTUAL AFGHANISTAN SPEECH

What was missing from Obama's Afghanistan speech tonight? How about "victory" and "win"?

Within the hour three accurate assesssments appeared online:

Sarah Palin responds to Obama's speech via Facebook:

Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice.

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.

This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”

We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

Professor Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution weighed in:

That was such a strange speech. Deploring partisanship while serially trashing Bush at each new talking point. Sending more troops, but talking more about when they will come home rather than what they will do to the enemy. There was nothing much new in the speech, yet apparently it took the president months to decide whether even to give it.

Ostensibly the talk was to be on Afghanistan; instead, the second half mostly consisted of the usual hope-and-change platitudes.

Peter Brookes stated the obvious:

Despite the rhetorical flourishes, it's pretty clear President Obama has one foot out the door on Afghanistan. His heart just isn't in it. Unfortunately, I won't be the only one to notice that, either here — or overseas.

He's basically given our troop plus-up as little as a year — by the time they get there in the summer of 2010 - before he starts to drawdown U.S. forces in mid-2011.

Not only will an artificial timetable for withdrawal encourage the Taliban and al-Qaeda, but does President Obama really expect the already-skittish allies and coalition partners to pony up more forces under those conditions? (He's at least 10,000 troops short for General McChrystal's baseline strategy.)

This is no way to win a war.

The emphasis should not be on Afghanistan taking up its own defense. The main purpose to be in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) is to protect this country and its citizens from those who Obama wrongly calls "extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents." On 9/11 and on many occasions in many centuries "extremists" were doing what the Koran and Mohammed command.

|

MARK STEYN: THE REAL LESSON OF FORT HOOD

Is Mark Steyn the only sane person writing about jihadism who will bluntly describe the insanity he sees and hears in this diversity and multiculturally plagued society?

Who else has the spine to call Army Chief of Staff General Casey "brain-addled" for his incredibly appalling, morally bankrupt statement that if Fort Hood turns out to be a setback for diversity it would a worse outcome that the massacre itrself?.

Mark quotes his fellow warrior in the fight for freedom of speech in Canada Ezra Levant who made this chilling observation:

Ezra Levant, my comrade in a long battle to restore freedom of speech to Canada, likes to say that the Danish cartoons crisis may one day be seen as a more critical event than 9/11. Not, obviously, in the comparative death tolls but in what each revealed about the state of Western civilization. After 9/11, we fought back, hit hard, rolled up the Afghan camps; after the cartoons, we weaseled and equivocated and appeased and signaled that we were willing to trade core Western values for a quiet life. Watching the decadence and denial on display this past week, I think in years to come Fort Hood will be seen in a similar light. What happened is not a "tragedy" but a national scandal, already fading from view.

Mark in full.


Mark Steyn: A jihadist hiding in plain sight
By MARK STEYN in the Orange County Register
2009-11-13 11:55:01
Shortly after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about how no one would ever hijack an American airliner ever again - not because of new security arrangements but because an alert citizenry was on the case: We were hip to their jive. The point appeared to be proved three months later on a U.S.-bound Air France flight. The "Shoebomber" attempted to light his footwear, and the flight attendants and passengers pounced. As the more boorish commentators could not resist pointing out, even the French guys walloped him.

But the years go by, and the mood shifts. You didn't have to be "alert" to spot Maj. Nidal Hasan. He'd spent most of the past half-decade walking around with a big neon sign on his head saying "JIHADIST. STAND WELL BACK." But we (that's to say, almost all of us; and certainly almost anyone who matters in national security and the broader political culture) are now reflexively conditioned to ignore the flashing neon sign. Like those apocryphal Victorian ladies discreetly draping the lasciviously curved legs of their pianos, if a glimpse of hard unpleasant reality peeps through we simply veil it in another layer of fluffy illusions.

Continue reading . . .

|

CELEBRATE AMERICA'S GIFT OF FREEDOM TO THE WORLD

20 years ago, the day that Ronald Reagan forecast, the Berlin Wall was torn down.

What Reagan said then. And how it came about.

And here's what was said today to commemorate this victory for freedom.

|

GERMAN MEDIA FEARS OBAMA WEAK, LACKING THE COURAGE TO LEAD IN WAR

Germany's left wing Der Spiegel carries an astonishing criticism of President Obama in today's (October 29th) online edition. HIs silence on what to do in the "AfPak" war, what former Vice President Cheney referred to as "dithering," is "irrititating" NATO allies. They see that the Taliban is increasingly taking control of the conduct of the war as the American strategic vacuum continues. What are NATO allies thinking as they wait?

[A]s Clausewitz wrote, "courage is not simply a counterweight to danger, to be used for neutralizing its effects: It is a quality on its own," and Obama's administration currently creates the impression that it has been abandoned by courage.
The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US's most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the "AfPak" region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate.
There is no doubt that hardly a day passes in Europe without criticism of US policy. This has become a trans-Atlantic ritual. But despite this ritual, Europeans are still looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.

We're waiting, Mr. President.

A stinging rebuke of American leadership failure.

10/29/2009 11:54 AM

We're Waiting, Mr. President

Obama Must Provide Better Leadership on Afghanistan
An Editorial by Claus Christian Malzahn

Afghanistan and Pakistan are being shaken by attacks, and the Taliban is dictating the course of the war. US President Obama has been silent about the situation for far too long and European countries like Germany and France are correct to demand better American leadership on the issue of Afghanistan.

Read it all . . .

|

ROMNEY: OBAMA PUTTING COUNTRY IN GRAVE DANGER

Obama has slashed defense spending at a time of growing peril. North Korea and Iran are both determined to menace the U.S. and the world with nuclear-armed missiles. China is building a modern navy to rival the U.S. at a furious pace.

Mitt Romney says the Adminisration is putting the country in grave danger.


June 1, 2009
Romney: President putting country in jeopardy
Posted: 09:07 AM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby


Romney will deliver a speech focused on missile defense on Monday.'
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Mitt Romney, eyeing a run at the presidency in 2012, is taking another step in fleshing out his foreign policy portfolio with a Monday speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation on the topic of defense spending.

According to excerpts of the speech provided to CNN, Romney will call the Obama administration's plan to trim more than $1 billion from missile defense programs a "grave miscalculation" that will put America at risk, especially given North Korea's nuclear provocations.

Romney says that Obama should push for "comprehensive, regime-crippling sanctions" against North Korea and "immediately reverse his recent decisions and strongly support completing our ballistic missile defense system."

In the speech, entitled "The Care of Freedom," Romney will also call on the administration to increase the modernization budget by $50 billion per year and to lock in total defense budgets at no less than four percent of GDP. But the military budget has been endangered, Romney argues, by the administration's domestic spending programs.

Continue reading "ROMNEY: OBAMA PUTTING COUNTRY IN GRAVE DANGER"

|
WE ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
WE STAND FOR FREEDOM AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.



Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
GREATEST THREATS TO THE U.S.
ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM
ISLAMIC TERRORISM
RADICAL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION
ISLAMIC HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
Watch
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!

News
Syndication
rdf
rss2
atom

Links
Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media

Causes:

Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Search
Chatham Info
Archives
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives
Archives

Categories