Sitting in the Atlanta airport listening to music on a warm summer day, I do not feel completely at ease; I cannot help but feel that the United States is vulnerable to new terrorist attacks.
Though not necessarily in an imminent sense, it feels- quite unnoticeably to most- as if a creeping villain of unimaginable danger awaits in the shadows, incessantly stalking the peaceful-façade of the American dream, waiting for an opportune moment to permanently mar our serene existence; like dark storm clouds on an April day, the threat of another catastrophic assault on our homeland by al-Qaeda looms.
Many might call such comments paranoia or perhaps even Cheney-esque, yet the drudgery of such an assertion is the realization that it may indeed be accurate. There should be no doubt: our nation faces a long-term conflict against a small band of determined fundamentalists working fervently to murder as many innocent Americans as possible.
This is an enemy to which time is irrelevant.
These are the thoughts that cross my mind as mundane CNN headlines parade themselves in front of blank stares, touting both the success and grim violence of a free and democratic election in Afghanistan. Yet amidst the verbal-excesses of twenty-four hour headline news, certain questions weigh heavy on the mind, as it seems- to both laymen and expert analyst alike- that the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is unwinnable. Providing no comfort, the pages of history reverberate as an eerie reminder that the United States is battling an ephemeral enemy in a graveyard of empires.
Yet, I do not believe the United States should immediately withdrawal from Afghanistan and nor do I accept that victory [pick your definition] is impossible. Instead of offering strategic suggestions for winning the war against the Taliban , this essay is meant to make one argument: a hasty withdrawal of forces or an immediate lessening of military activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan would have direct and unacceptable ramifications for the security of the United States.
Remember, the war against the Taliban is directly linked to the battle against al-Qaeda; if the United States leaves Afghanistan too quickly, Sunni Wahabi extremists will seize control of Kabul and Kandahar and offer safe havens for al-Qaeda militants, who will in turn utilize their new breathing room to plot a second 9/11/2001. Conceding such operational freedom to those responsible for the worst-ever attack on American soil is simply an intolerable possibility.
Recognizing this, the war in Afghanistan must be pursued to some stable resolution. This will likely mean negotiating directly with elements of the Taliban willing to renounce al-Qaeda or perhaps even supporting a strong-arm leader who will bring the needed stability to develop a free-market economy in Afghanistan. For the moment, our government must continue to heed the brilliant military advice of General David Petraeus, a man with a PhD in anti-insurgency tactics responsible for an 80% drop in attacks in Iraq. After the undeniable success of the surge in Iraq , it seems prudent to await the results of similar troop increases in the Afghan theater. There may be a time in the future to cut our losses and leave Afghanistan, but that moment is not now.
As our government continues to pursue an acceptable outcome to the war against the Taliban, the United States must remain ultra-aggressive in our hunt for al-Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, namely the rural Waziristan region. American predator drone attacks and Special-Forces assassination squads must continue to hunt these radical criminals to the very ends of the Earth. For if the United States rests too easy, if our countrymen become naïve to the dangers that we face, it is possible that we will witness a day far worse than 9/11/2001.
This is an enemy not content with past successes; al-Qaeda hopes and prays to explode numerous dirty [i.e. nuclear] bombs in multiple American cities in a day. This is a patient opponent, one that has proven itself quite capable, willing to wait decades for their next triumph. As our memories of 9/11 fade along with the medias ever lessening mention of the words Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, our dissolving vigilance could result in the realization of our worst nightmares in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles.
NO ONE LIKES to be the bearer of bad news -- especially when it could threaten your multibillion-dollar health-care reform bill. And so the Obama administration did not exactly rush to publish yesterday's required mid-session update to its federal budget estimates of last February. Still, once the numbers finally emerged in the dog days of August, they retained the power to stun: Instead of a cumulative $7.1 trillion deficit over the next decade, the White House now projects a $9 trillion deficit. These figures imply average annual budget deficits greater than 4 percent of gross domestic product through fiscal 2019, a rate of debt accumulation faster than projected GDP growth. This is not a sustainable fiscal path.
The extra $1.9 trillion in red ink mainly reflects the Office of Management and Budget's adoption of more realistic -- that is, more pessimistic -- estimates of economic growth and unemployment. White House officials protest that their original, rosier numbers made sense at the time; actually, plenty of forecasters, including those at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, made more accurate calls. This situation was foreseeable and should have been acknowledged earlier.
The administration has a point when it argues, as budget director Peter Orszag did yesterday, that it inherited a terrible recession as well as a number of unpaid-for programs (prescription drugs, two wars) and tax cuts from the Bush administration. Mr. Orszag noted that more than half of the $9 trillion in projected borrowing reflects the impact of past policies. Almost two-thirds of the current fiscal year's $1.6 trillion deficit -- a postwar record 11.2 percent of GDP -- is attributable to the $700 billion financial sector bailout passed last October, and what has been spent so far under the $787 billion counter-recession stimulus package adopted in February. Both were unavoidable. Nor is this the time to slam fiscal policy into reverse; the economic recovery is too fragile.
Still, the Bush administration's irresponsibility notwithstanding, it is time to stop crying "we inherited it." The Obama administration needs its own clear, credible plan for restoring fiscal sustainability once the worst of the recession has run its course. Unless it can at least limit the growth in debt to the growth of the economy, investors will gradually lose faith in Treasury obligations, increasing the government's borrowing costs -- and turning a deficit crunch into a deficit spiral. In the worst case, unchecked debt could trigger a return to the double-digit inflation and interest rates of the late 1970s, only this time with massive U.S. obligations to foreign lenders such as China and Japan.
Mr. Orszag promised that next year's budget will include the proposed solutions that the administration has so far declined to articulate. Meanwhile, he said, it will continue pushing pay-as-you-go budget legislation. This is weak reassurance, since the administration's version of pay-go exempts the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, patches for the alternative minimum tax and physician payment reforms under Medicare -- that is, most of the policies the administration complains about inheriting. The fact is that the administration supports the continuation of the prescription drug benefits -- which Democrats also advocated -- and continuation of the Bush tax cuts for 95 percent of taxpayers.
The new deficit numbers make it even more urgent that any health-care reform not only be fully paid for and certifiably budget-neutral in the eyes of independent analysts such as the CBO but also promise meaningful reductions in the cost growth of health care. So far, none of the plans under discussion measure up. The time is fast approaching for the president and Congress to face that reality, too.
#1
Reduce the costs? Reform malpractice lawsuits. Subsidize malpractice insurance. Graduate more doctors. Make people more respoinsible for their own heatlh costs by mandating larger deductibles and co-pays. Offer catastrophic insurance, for costs over 10% of your annual income. Ya wanna be generous? OK - costs over 5% of annual income.
I can be generous and liberal, too!
Not a chance. Everyone wants free cough syrup and emergency-room care.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/26/2009 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bumper sticker this week up in the mountains..Florida car, wealthy retiree...
Health care reform was already in growing trouble before this report. These deficit projections clearly add another significant threat to its passage. The administration will now have to persuade Congress and a skeptical public that it would be financially prudent to embark upon an ambitious new entitlement program in the teeth of dangerously growing deficits.
As vital and as morally right as it is to extend health insurance to everyone in need, the public is also wise to worry about the costs of robust reform. People have long memories, and they will recall that when Medicare was passed in the mid-1960s during the LBJ years, the House Ways and Means Committee projected that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 1990; in 1990, it reportedly cost some $107 billion.
When Washington enacted prescription drug reform in the George W. Bush years, the administration put a price tag on it of $400 billion over nine years; new estimates have projected a cost of $724 billion over nine years. More recently, Massachusetts has embraced a health reform plan that is widely hailed and serves as a model for the national effort this year but it, too, has far outstripped original cost estimates.
In view of all this, President Obama has a choice. He can push forward with health reform efforts, giving short shrift to these deficit concerns. If so if he continues to insist that Washington is just too wee-weed up he will find that some of his strongest allies will become more reluctant on a big health reform bill this year.
Or he can come to grips with these grim forecasts and present to the nation a credible, comprehensive plan for reining in long-term deficits before Congress acts on health reform. The second path demands more courage and is also the one of real leadership.
#1
Mr. Gergen has not turned on Obama. Read his blog!http://gergensvoice.blogspot.com/ Get your facts straight!!! Mr.Gergen is only pointing out the facts ..facts we all need to be aware of since there is so much mis information and stories circulating. Did you listen to the CNN special last week on helth care? If you ahd you wuld not be saying he has turned on Obama. This is a very complicated situation that needs to be solved yes which Mr.Gergen has pointe doput time and time again.
1) Strike the keys on your keyboard one at a time. Works better that way.
2) Whether Mr. Gergen 'turned' on Obama is a rhetorical phrase. What matters is that he, and many others, are beginning to see that yawing deficit that the health care reform plan, and most especially the "public option", will generate. We have reason to worry.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/26/2009 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Besides, the headline attracts more readers!
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/26/2009 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I have long thought that Gergen was a mole sent to the Democrats to be a deep insider. First of all, his education tracks almost ideally to be CIA, and he was first recruited by Nixon, which would mean a "deep reliability" test by J. Edgar Hoover. Granted, Hoover missed John Dean.
But Gergen stuck with Nixon, Ford and Reagan, with H.W. Bush, who remember had been head of CIA. He was very mole conscious and would have all staffers vetted before becoming insiders.
Gergen sweet talked his way into a lateral transfer into the Democrat leadership. If they had half a brain, there is no way they would trust him any more than a live scorpion in their underwear.
There will be plenty of time to recall all of the reasons Ted Kennedy made enemies in this life, plenty of time for our traditional, "Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment." I've got the Michael Kelly collection that includes "Ted Kennedy on the Rocks," his definitive profile from the early 1990s, which showcases all the highs and all the lows. I'll go through it sometime soon to recall those sides of Kennedy that won't be showcased in the montages today, stories like that "sandwich" with Chris Dodd, but today's not the day for that.
A bit of a thought, though: Many of us have siblings, and many of us love them dearly. Many of us find the thought of losing them horrific; to lose two to assassin's bullets would drive many men mad. From some stories of Kennedy's behavior in the years immediately after, perhaps he did go a little mad, or at least sought to drown the pain with drink. Hate the man for his legislation, hate the man for his behavior, but save a little room for some sympathy, too; we would never want to walk in those shoes.
I'm guest-hosting the Hugh Hewitt show tonight, and obviously, Kennedy will come up. But we won't echo those on the other side who have rejoiced at the deaths of conservative giants. Whatever life throws at us, they'll act the way they act; we'll act the way we do.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/26/2009 12:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
I was hoping that this Ramadan will bring peace to Iraq, and that we won't spend more Ramadans under gun fires and explosions.
But, few days before Ramadan starts, Baghdad witnessed a bloody day, it was named " the bloody Wednesday" and "the red Wednesday" , it brought back old memories, of "black Wednesday "of last year..
In the morning of Wednesday, huge explosions happened if the capital, killing, injuring, and frightening the innocents .. the government didn't say the true numbers of people who died and injured, they were afraid of a "revolution" or "a panic situation" .. but from doctors we know that 1700 citizens were injured, and more than 500 died ... So pulling the troops out for Afghanistan where we now have the largest number of American troops killed in years.. How is all this working for you Obama? Strong pics at the link.
Quiet has now returned to the Gaza Strip after the weekend violence which claimed the lives of 28 people. The last of the funerals of the Jund Ansar Allah fighters killed in the suppression of the organization by Hamas authorities has taken place. This episode demonstrated the tight hold which Hamas maintains on the Gaza Strip.
The weekend's events also highlight an important but little discussed phenomenon taking place in the Strip, and to a lesser extent in the West Bank - namely, the growth of al-Qaida-style Salafi Islamism among a segment of the Palestinian population. Jund Ansar Allah did not emerge suddenly, or in a vacuum, and its defeat does not mark the final word on this matter.
Who are the Salafis? Salafiyya is an extreme trend within Sunni Islam. Salafis maintain that anyone who fails to uphold any aspect of Sharia law is no longer a Muslim, and is to be considered kufar (non-Muslim). Jihadist Salafis consider that it is incumbent upon Muslims to depose and fight all governments controlled by the kufar.
A myriad of small, armed Salafi groupings exist in the Gaza Strip, of which Jund Ansar Allah was one. These groups are part of a broader subculture, estimated to command the loyalty of at least 50,000 people, and probably many more. The Taliban style of dress adopted by supporters of Salafism is becoming increasingly familiar in Gaza.
There are two main modes of Salafi activity in Gaza - namely, al-Salafiya Da'awiya - that is, civilian Salafism, which engages in missionary work and preaching, and Al-Salafiya Jihadiya, of which al-Qaida is the most well-known global representative, and which is committed to violent action.
There is no hermetic division between these two modes. Rather, activity in the former is a gateway to later involvement in militancy, and missionary work builds the basis of support in society which is essential for successful military action.
A number of Gaza mosques are known to be controlled by the Salafis. Sheikh Al Salam Bin Taymiyah mosque in Khan Yunis, which was the center of operations for the Jund Ansar Allah group, was one of these. Abu Noor al-Makdisi, who led the Jund Ansar Allah group and died during the weekend's events, was the imam at this mosque. Other mosques linked to the Salafis include the al-Sahabah Mosque in Daraj, Gaza City, and the al-Albani Mosque in the Jabalya refugee camp.
Salafi activity is reportedly well-financed, with money coming in from the Gulf. As one source put it "millions of petrodollars are flowing in every month."
The myriad Salafi armed groupings include the Jaish al-Islam (army of Islam), al-Saif al-Haq Islamiyya (Swords of Islamic Righteousness), Jaish al-Umma (Army of the Nation) and the Jaljalat (thunder) group, formed by disaffected former Hamas fighters during the period of the cease-fire, in June 2008.
Jund Ansar Allah, which was founded in November, 2008, emerged from this milieu.
The relations of the Hamas rulers of the Strip to this Salafi sub-culture are complex. Since Hamas took power in the Strip, the Salafis have engaged in numerous acts of violence against people and institutions believed to be kufar. These have included attacks on Internet cafes, book shops, beauty parlors and institutions representing the Strip's small Christian community. Young women and men suspected of engaging in "immoral" behavior have been murdered.
The Hamas authorities officially oppose such behavior, but have done little to stop or deter it.
There is also a certain crossover between Hamas structures and the Salafis. Many members of Hamas's al-Kassam brigades are known to support Salafi ideas. These reportedly include Ahmed al-Jabari, commander of the organization, and the majority of his brigade commanders.
Hamas, however, draws the line at activity which appears to challenge its own authority or right to rule. The suppression of Jund Ansar Allah took place after its leader denounced Hamas as kufar and proclaimed the establishment of an Islamic Emirate in Gaza.
The swiftness and brutality of Hamas's subsequent action attracted attention. But it was not the first time that Gaza's rulers have made clear to the Salafis that it is worth their while to respect the limits placed on them. The al-Albani mosque in Jabalya, for example, was raided on May 17, 2008 by Hamas's Executive Force. Thirty men and women were injured in the raid. The mosque's imam had delivered a sermon that afternoon insulting and ridiculing Hamas. A key question concerning the Salafi subculture in Gaza is the extent of the presence of global al-Qaida among it. Most experts believe that the al-Qaida network is present to only a very limited extent in the Strip.
The al-Qaida idea, however, is flourishing, with a large number of the often quite primitively-armed and poorly-trained Salafi groups competing to be considered the "official franchise" of al-Qaida in Gaza.
Abu Noor al-Makdisi is dead, and the movement he built has now been dispersed by the uncontested Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip. The Salafi subculture from which his group emerged, however, is very much alive. It is likely to make its voice heard again, in the unfolding story of the Islamic Palestinian state currently under construction in Gaza.
Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel
Posted by: Fred ||
08/26/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Only some Salafis are extreme. Some who are extreme do get ticked off at Moslems who stray from the true Salafi path. Depending on the type of moslem and the type of straying, the strayer can be called,
- a hypocrite (punishment is sub lethal)
- an infidel (get back to true path over a set period of time or be killed)
- an apostate (get back to true path immediately or be killed)
- a heretic (be killed)
Posted by: lord garth ||
08/26/2009 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
HURRIYET NEWS > LEBANESE PM HARIRI: "HEZBOLLAH WILL BE PART OF NEXT GOVT", whether ISRAEL likes it or not; + FEAR OF SHIITE-SUNNI VIOLENCE IN LEBANON + US SENATOR CALLS FOR AFGHAN WITHDRAWAL PLAN [despite POTUS Bammer's troop buildup].
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.
NO ONE LIKES to be the bearer of bad news -- especially when it could threaten your multibillion-dollar health-care reform bill. And so the Obama administration did not exactly rush to publish yesterday's required mid-session update to its federal budget estimates of last February. Still, once the numbers finally emerged in the dog days of August, they retained the power to stun: Instead of a cumulative $7.1 trillion deficit over the next decade, the White House now projects a $9 trillion deficit. These figures imply average annual budget deficits greater than 4 percent of gross domestic product through fiscal 2019, a rate of debt accumulation faster than projected GDP growth. This is not a sustainable fiscal path. 
