Read this story at http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/rate_of_americans_killed_in_afghanistan_soars/ Continue Reading…
Read this story at http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/rate_of_americans_killed_in_afghanistan_soars/ Continue Reading…
Read this story at http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/how_to_think_about_the_taliban/ Continue Reading…
Link:
Rethinking the Taliban
Glenn Greenwald wrote recently about how reporter Michael Hastings’ new book on Afghanistan exposes some of the pathologies of national security journalism as it is commonly practiced today. But the new book , “The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America’s War in Afghanistan,” also contains lots of interesting reporting on the recent history of the war, particularly the period between 2009 and 2010 when Gen. Stanley McChrystal was in charge. McChrystal, of course, resigned in June 2010 after the publication of a Rolling Stone article by Hastings that contained sundry damaging material, including quotes from McChrystal aides mocking the White House. I spoke to Hastings about the American relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the effort to arm Afghan militias around the country, and recent reports of negotiations with the Taliban. Continue Reading…
Go here to read the rest:
Afghanistan: “The tide of war is receding”
Read this story at http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/obamas_central_asian_human_rights_disasters/ Continue Reading…
Excerpt from:
Obama’s Central Asian human rights disaster
There’s something that I want to say about the Occupy Wall Street movement going on right now. I will say from the outset that I am a member of the Army, deployed right now, but that I do not speak for anyone but myself, and certainly not for the Army as a whole or as an institution. I am deeply encouraged by the fact that people want to stand up, publicly, against things they feel have harmed them. It’s the most fundamental right in our system of government, and it simply isn’t used often enough. But I really don’t think that standing in a public park burning effigies is going to accomplish what is wanted by that mystical 99 percent. This occurred to me earlier when someone handed me a care package sent on behalf of the “Any Soldier” program. It was thoughtful and I appreciate that total strangers would want to send me toothbrushes and Snickers bars, but it hit me that those aren’t really the things I – or any soldier – truly need. I thought I would submit a request for what we really need: a little more direction and purpose. Or, to be more precise, a better reminder of what we are fighting for. Continue Reading…
Read the original post:
What the 99 percent can give American soldiers
Susan Ferrechio Chief Congressional Correspondent Follow us @Examinerpolitic President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary told Congress on Thursday that killing Osama bin Laden has given the United States “the greatest chance since 9/11 to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda.” But Leon… washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress
Originally posted here:
Panetta expected to be confirmed as Pentagon chief
If you read or watch nothing else today, take the ten minutes needed to watch this shocking video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y&feature=player_embedded
In response to Justice Breyer’s comments that Koran-burning may be likened to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, I’d like to indulge in a bit of dime-store psychology. Typically, American hecklers will merely shout down speakers, throw pies at them, issue largely empty threats, and vandalize. True political violence is (thankfully) quite rare. Consequently, when courts condemn the “heckler’s veto,” they’re simply codifying constitutional common sense. How can your speech be free if petty disruptions can silence you? Why not use law enforcement to protect free speech? The violence from Islamic radicals, on the other hand, shocks the conscience. Thousands rioting? Dozens dying? Beheadings? Torture? This level of violence is terrifying. It’s orders of magnitude beyond heckling. The manageable heckler’s veto becomes the unmanageable beheader’s veto, and judges have trouble formulating a response that protects speech and human life. But here’s the sad reality: The violence exists no matter what we do (or don’t) say. When thousands rioted in Kashmir — ostensibly because of Terry Jones — and 18 men died , can anyone argue that the region would have been peaceful but for the threatened Koran-burning? Islamic terror has existed through virtually every American administration since Truman. It is our very existence that inflames Islamic radicals, not any given act by even the crankiest citizens in our 300 million–strong community. Bill Clinton had Yassir Arafat in the White House more than any other foreign leader, and radicals bombed the World Trade Center, bombed our embassies, attacked the USS Cole , and hatched the 9/11 plot. George W. Bush went out of his way to portray Islam as a religion of peace, and Hamas, Hezbollah, the Mahdi militia, Fatah, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban launched violent campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza, Indonesia, Britain, Spain, the West Bank, and Lebanon. Barack Obama “changed the tone” in Cairo, and we still face the same radicals with the same intentions while fending off attempted bombings in Times Square and in the air over Detroit. If we can’t possibly appease the enemy, why even contemplate giving up our freedoms? If heads will roll even if Korans are handled with kid gloves ( literally ), why preemptively surrender a core part of our constitutional identity? No court ruling can stop Islamic terror, but court rulings can limit our liberty. Let’s leave our constitutional doctrine alone and trust our military to protect our lives. David French
Read more:
The Beheader’s Veto
It’s not the economy, it’s the war, stupid! I’m talkin’ to you, Democrats in the House and Senate. Scores of you are about to lose your jobs, while the rest forfeit coveted committee chairmanships because you don’t realize the way to avoid defeat is to appeal to your base with an anti-war message. No smoke and mirrors in the next seven weeks will convince Republican, independent, and conservative-leaning centrists—the motivated voters of 2010—that President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats have a plan to restore home equity and retirement savings, stimulate investment, and reduce unemployment. Those are functions of the business cycle, impacted by the irrational exuberance that fueled the illusion that real estate and stock values could rise forever. Tea Partiers may irrationally blame Democrats for most of that pain, but they’re certain big government—especially ObamaPelosiCare—is making things worse. The left-liberal political consultant-driven neo-populism, which Democrats have been trying to sell to a dwindling number of the Industrial Era (it’s over!) “working class” voters for decades, is folly. Waging class warfare against “the rich”—foolishly defined as anyone earning over $250,000—will do next to nothing to inspire the Democratic base, while refusing to extend the George W. Bush administration’s tax cuts only stokes the election day fury of Tea Party activists. Every election is about energizing the base while winning over independents. But mid-terms, particularly for the House, have more to do with firing up loyalists, because most districts have been gerrymandered as Democrat or Republican. The Democratic base is in despair and inclined to stay home, just as it did in 1994 after HillaryCare gave Newt Gingrich the opening he needed to energize Clinton-haters and cultural and economic conservatives. We usually see reelection rates over 90 percent for incumbents. This is due to Baker v. Carr (1962) demanding equal population districts, computers making it possible to configure districts block-by-block to determine partisan outcomes, and politicians waging year-round campaigns with taxpayer-financed staffs. So, Democrats, if you can’t control the anger of Tea Party activists, who are mad as hell about losing economic security, what can you do? You can motivate your base by taking on your own president , energizing those voters who are mad as hell that the leader they elected to end a war decided to ramp another one up instead. In a matter of months, Obama succumbed to the military-industrial-congressional complex and placed thousands more young men and women in harm’s way in the corrupt non-state and graveyard of empires known as Afghanistan. The very year Obama was born, in fact, Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the threat to liberty posed by a huge standing army and the arms profiteers who fuel a perpetual state of war. Ike echoed James Madison, who helped found the Democratic Party with Thomas Jefferson, and who alerted us two centuries ago, “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” A former constitutional law professor, Obama apparently never internalized that observation by the architect of our Constitution. As they face doom, congressional Democrats need to show guts—and political intelligence—and tell their base they intend to fight like hell to end the madness in Afghanistan, and bring home the 50,000 “advisors” Obama left in Iraq. Democrats, like Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, abdicated responsibility when they made no principled case against the Iraq War in its run-up, just as the Democrats of the 1960's proved gutless by allowing President Lyndon Johnson to sacrifice thousands of young men in Southeast Asian jungles. Congressional Democrats have averted their eyes once again, remaining all but silent last year when Obama gave a George W. Bush-style war-making speech at West Point. If Democrats need polls to stiffen their spines, the Associated Press-GfK survey last month reveals 58 percent of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan, while only 38 percent support it. More significantly, the numbers of those most likely to vote based on the issue rests resoundingly with opponents, with 35 percent strongly opposing the war while only 17 percent strongly favor it. The numbers on Iraq are even more anti-war, with 65 percent opposing and only 31 percent supporting. (For the few politicians who prefer sound arguments to polls, they can cite Andy Bacevich’s excellent new book, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War .) Democrats, give your base a reason to vote this November. Not so Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can keep their jobs, but because you have a duty to oppose the “American exceptionalist” militarism that typifies the Republicans—and which has unfortunately seized the mind of still another Democratic president. A former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee, Terry Michael now teaches college journalists about politics and writes at his “libertarian Democrat” web site www.terrymichael.net .
Follow this link:
It’s Still the War, Stupid!
Today's Between the Covers podcast is with our old NRO friend James S. Robbins , author of This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive . We discuss why the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive remains controversial four decades after it happened, what role Walter Cronkite and the American media played in forging public opinion about the conflict, and what the Tet Offensive should teach us about military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. John J. Miller
See more here:
Tet Offenders