Posted by: Mike ||
12/25/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Please add to this my wish for the Peace that passeth all understanding to be with each and every Rantburger and all other men of goodwill now and in the coming year. God bless you, each and every one.
Congressman Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, introduced a resolution this week calling for withdrawal of an unspecified number of troops from Iraq in order to build U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Smith told me:
"There's absolutely no equivocation, at every level of the military or from any observer looking at it, that we need more troops in Afghanistan. When I was there, there was no doubt they need more troops and there's no doubt that one reason they can't get them is they have all the eggs in the Iraq basket. You will not see an increase in troops in Afghanistan if you don't get a decrease in Iraq. You simply don't have the resources."
Smith got a chance to ask military leaders about Afghanistan last week during a hearing before the Armed Services Committee. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that the U.S. military's focus was "rightly and firmly in Iraq."
"It is simply a matter of resources, of capacity. In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must."
Smith said that for every dollar the U.S. spends in Iraq, it spends less than 28 cents in Afghanistan. There are clearly problems in Afghanistan. (And more on that in a moment.) But I'm sure no one will be surprised that part of the motivation for the resolution -- co-sponsored by Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Missouri -- is rhetorical. Says Smith:
"More than anything I want to try to shift the debate. The president has seized the debate for the moment by saying the surge has worked in Iraq so we can't leave."
Smith said debate about whether the surge is working is largely academic.
"If you gave me $165 billion, 160,000 U.S. troops and all kinds of military assets, I'll make a difference in just about any country you can point out on a map. The question is, is that the right place for us to be? Keep in mind, if al Qaeda is the enemy here, if we're really trying to defeat an enemy that is a grave threat to us, they are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is right next door. That is where we have to hit them."
The disparity between the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries roughly the same size, makes no sense, Smith said.
"I am not of the opinion that Iraq is six times more important to our national interest than Afghanistan."
("The gods of irony are apparently watching Congress these days," writes Reid Wilson at RealClearPolitics. "The measure has been designated House Resolution 911.")
So what is the situation in Afghanistan? Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared before the Armed Services Committee and summed it up by saying there was "reason for optimism tempered by caution. Our progress in Afghanistan is real but fragile."
On the progress side, Gates told the committee that more Afghans have access to health care with construction of hundreds of clinics and hospitals. Under the Taliban, fewer than one million children were in school. Now there are more than five million. There is a central bank and unified currency. More than four million Afghan refugees have returned to their country.
And here's the bad news, which sounds a bit worse than fragile:
"The police force continues to struggle due to corruption and illiteracy. Also hindering the government from extending its authority and influence across the country are the insurgent and Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, and weapons and financing coming from Iran. Cross-border insurgency contributes to the continuing violence.
"As you know, in 2007 the number of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan increased. The insurgents have resorted more and more to suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices similar
to those found in Iraq. ...
"The drug trade in Afghanistan threatens the foundations of this young government. Poppy cultivation has been rising overall, despite an internationally backed counter-narcotics effort."
Smith said he had not yet taken the resolution to House leadership. When Congress returns from recess he will look for more co-sponsors for the resolution.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
12/25/2007 11:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
So many foreign policy "geniuses" in that congress. Those liberal arts degrees and law degrees make a military tactics expert almost overnight.
Heck, if they keep it up and continue to step over the executive branch, may as well get rid of the pentagon, the generals, the president, and let congress run it all since they are so "competent" in such matters.
#2
This might be a good idea, if for the wrong reasons. That is, redeploying personnel to Afghanistan if they are no longer needed in Iraq would allow them to stay in theater instead of sending them to Europe or the US. While Afghanistan may not need them directly, they would strongly impact both Iran and Pakistan.
Iran would then have two "major" fronts to worry about, that is, US ground forces in two countries instead of ground forces in one and an airbase in the other.
Plus Afghanistan could be policed up and repaired faster, and its border with Pakistan secured more, so that the Pak army could "hammer into anvil" its own problems.
We could severely crunch the opium production and secure the Pushtun South so that it is less troublesome.
Management of the Pushtun could be much like how General Crook managed the Apaches, cutting those not loyal to the central government off from the Taliban and drug gangs into what would amount to reservations.
Senatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost the air of inevitability that once surrounded her campaign for the Democratic nomination. It remains to be seen whether she's willing to lose her soul in her quest for the presidency. Only a month ago, her main rival, Sen. Barack Obama, was dismissed as a "lightweight" by the political establishment.
He hasn't gained any weight since then, but Madame Clinton has lost some.
Now he has a slight lead over Senator Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire and is believed to have a good chance of winning South Carolina. Magic Johnson's recent endorsement aside, the advantage Senator Clinton once enjoyed over Senator Obama among African-Americans has disappeared.
"O'Bama's starting to hurt us with the race constituency. We need a Negro."
"How about Magic Johnson?"
"Good idea, if he can be persuaded. See what we have on him."
He's even cut into her support from women.
"We're hurting with women, too. We'll need one of them."
"How about your mother?"
"I'm sure we have something on her. She should come around easy enough."
The Clinton campaign has reacted to this change in fortune by going into what can only be described as panic mode. Using political surrogates, campaign apparatchiks, and an increasingly indignant former president, the senator's nomination drive has engaged in a level of innuendo remarkable in its sleaziness.
Days after the firing of a campaign worker who passed along e-mail suggesting Senator Obama was a Manchurian candidate, Billy Shaheen, the co-chair of the Clinton New Hampshire campaign, said Senator Obama would be vulnerable to Republican attack because of his admitted drug use as a teenager. Mr. Shaheen resigned and Senator Clinton apologized.
Shortly after that, former President Bill Clinton questioned Senator Obama's credentials to be president after praising his "tremendous political skills. " In that vein, former Sen. Bob Kerry of Nebraska cited Senator Obama's "Islamic" name and background in Indonesia as a valuable asset to the United States. It was a disingenuous and back-handed compliment, for which Senator Kerry has apologized. But it wasn't as tacky as the comment by former United Nations ambassador Andrew Young, who told a predominantly black audience that Bill Clinton was "blacker" than Senator Obama and that he undoubtedly had "had" more black women.
Has any presidential campaign ever been more stuck in the fourth grade than this one?
Senator Obama has responded to the Clinton smears with a poise that belies his so-called inexperience. The race for the Democratic nomination promises to be a long and ugly one if the former front-runner feels she can win with tactics that make her look more petulant than presidential.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/25/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Prys die Here, we still enjoy a degree of free speech. Please, please, please....we must hear more from them. Let the likes of Andrew Young, Senator Kerry, Majic Johnson, Billy Shaheen, and Slick Willie ramble on.
#3
It remains to be seen whether she's willing to lose her soul in her quest for the presidency.
That part has been long gone ere this.
The Clinton campaign has reacted to this change in fortune by going into what can only be described as panic mode. Using political surrogates, campaign apparatchiks, and an increasingly indignant former president, the senator's nomination drive has engaged in a level of innuendo remarkable in its sleaziness.
QED
Has any presidential campaign ever been more stuck in the fourth grade than this one?
Liberman was the last adult in the entire party power structure.
Senator Obama has responded to the Clinton smears with a poise that belies his so-called inexperience. The race for the Democratic nomination promises to be a long and ugly one if the former front-runner feels she can win with tactics that make her look more petulant than presidential.
#5
"I didn't raise myself up from the depths of hell and take human form just to lose to some man with a good slogan" - a blond female US Senator in the penultimate episode of Angel season 5.
Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 ||
12/25/2007 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I wasn't thinking of sex, AA. (Certainlynot with Her Heinous!)
I was thinking of someone who sucks the life out of everything she touches - in a vain effort to have some of her own.
But I understand your reaction - squeal away. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/25/2007 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Because her negatives are so high, it might be an interesting ploy to announce her VP this early. Usaully that would be horse-traded at a later date, but if she piles up a lot of losses early she might not be viable at the said later date.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/25/2007 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
not sure anyone looking at the recent poll's would want to be named as her VP candidate right now. Even Richardson who's been fastened, remora-like, to her backside in hopes of being her VP, has been distancing himself recently. The HRC is taking on water and the crew is panicking
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/25/2007 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Senatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost the air of inevitability that once surrounded her campaign for the Democratic nomination. It remains to be seen whether she's willing to lose her soul in her quest for the presidency. Only a month ago, her main rival, Sen. Barack Obama, was dismissed as a "lightweight" by the political establishment. 
