1 Mar

Obama Channels Defense Secretary Gates

                                       

Can this man even think for himself?

US presidential candidate Barack Obama began sketching his position toward Europe on the campaign trail this week. He said the US needs more support from its NATO allies in Afghanistan and implied Germany should lift its ban on combat operations in the dangerous south.

US presidential candidate Barack Obama dropped another hint about his foreign-policy thinking on Thursday, saying European governments had to pull their weight in Afghanistan and not rely so much on the United States to do the “dirty work” against Taliban fighters.

Gosh that sounds familiar….oh yeah, because it is. From last October:

The U.S. defense secretary, Robert Gates, questioned Thursday the commitment of some NATO allies to winning the war in Afghanistan, saying that the outcome there was at “real risk” because some European nations were unwilling to provide enough troops and resources to the mission.

“In Afghanistan a handful of allies are paying the price and bearing the burdens,” he said at a conference of army leaders from 38 European nations organized by the chief of U.S. Army Europe.

“The failure to meet commitments puts the Afghan mission – and with it, the credibility of NATO – at real risk,” he added in remarks that were notably critical of European governments that have been close security, political and economic partners of the United States for more than five decades.

He also said restrictions that some allies put on how and where their troops could operate in Afghanistan had unfairly burdened other coalition partners and “done real harm” to the overall war effort.

Late to the party once again Big O…

On a completely different subject you should check out The Economist’s take on his economic policies:

FOR a man who has placed “hope” at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner’s speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico.

snip.jpg

Both candidates have threatened to pull America out of NAFTA, the free-trade deal with Mexico and Canada, unless it is rewritten. Both rail against oil companies, drug companies, credit-card companies—the usual suspects. Both want more government spending and regulation to protect individuals against predatory companies. Indeed, in some ways, Mrs Clinton is worse. She appears to be sceptical of all trade deals, including the multilateral Doha round which would produce big benefits for the world’s poorest countries. Unlike Mr Obama, she has proposed a deeply unsound five-year freeze on interest payments for subprime borrowers, which would surely result in higher rates and scarcer credit for future borrowers.

snip.jpg

The sad thing is that one might reasonably have expected better from Mr Obama. He wants to improve America’s international reputation yet campaigns against NAFTA. He trumpets “the audacity of hope” yet proposes more government intervention. He might have chosen to use his silver tongue to address America’s problems in imaginative ways—for example, by making the case for reforming the distorting tax code. Instead, he wants to throw money at social problems and slap more taxes on the rich, and he is using his oratorical powers to prey on people’s fears.

Mr Obama advertises himself as something fresh, hopeful and new. But on economic matters at least he, like Mrs Clinton, has begun to look a rather ordinary old-style Democrat.

Whether on the world stage or the American stage, the man is an empty suit full of other peoples ideas or ideas that will bankrupt our country…both economically and morally.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Economy. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, March 1st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
| 31 views

8 Responses to Obama Channels Defense Secretary Gates

  1. Pingback: Pros and Cons » This is a phenomally good translation, and other Afghan news

  2. jainphx says: 1

    Obama threaten to bomb them, that will move them.

    ReplyReply
  3. Elroy Jetson says: 2

    Meet the new lib, same as the old lib.

    ReplyReply
  4. kathie says: 3

    Wait just one minute…….the Germans are going to hate us if we call them “Old Europe” so are the Spaniards, the Italians, the French are coming along. He is sounding just like Rummy. But Rummy didn’t tic off the Canadians. How is the world going to love us if we tell them to pull their own weight. Well, well, well maybe Bush just asked people to full fill their pledge! How shameful! The Dems might just discover that Bush has done one heck of a job under the circumstances not only with the GWOT but with the economy too.

    ReplyReply
  5. Kathie said:“The Dems might just discover that Bush has done one heck of a job under the circumstances not only with the GWOT but with the economy too.”

    When pigs fly!

    ReplyReply
  6. Igor R. says: 5

    The Marxist Monster has created the fiction that Afghanistan is the only true threat to the United States because that’s where Al Qaeda is and that’s the only place where everyone needs to look for it. Now he is sounding tough on that one true enemy. This dangerous narcissist is playing with the security of the US as if the only thing that matters is his election.

    ReplyReply
  7. Gregory Dittman says: 6

    Pigs do fly:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/shotlivephoto/80644079/

    Obama has no economic history on Europe. He can’t ask for troops that don’t exist. Europe has put so much effort into their socialism that they can’t afford to have a military. For instance the Dutch have 25,000 in their military and have the money to send 2,000 for a long term commitment. Put 300 guys (total) on two ships, 1,500 in the province of Uruzgan (already deployed), maybe 300 in the former Yugoslavia and presto the Dutch are tapped out.

    The French are in several countries including securing the Lebanese Southern boarder. The French have 259,050 active troops (largest in Europe, 13th largest per number) with 36,000 (almost 14%) already on missions. They spend 2.6% of their GNP, yet it’s still the second most expensive force in the world!

    Germany has 250,000 on active duty, they spend 1.3% of their GNP. 7,551 (3%) are already on missions. In manpower, they could probably spare 27,400 to be on par with France, but somebody else will probably have to foot the bill.

    ReplyReply
  8. ChrisG says: 7

    Gregory hit the nail on the head. Most EU nations do not even have enough helo support to move their troops around for combat ops. They rely on US assets to move, supply, support and care for their troops.

    This is becoming an issue as US helos are returned to depots for overhauls and upgrades. NATO also relys on US air transports (C5/C17/C130/Sherpa) for resupply.

    In addition, most of the EU nations, by not spending enough to maintain their militaries and relying on the US and UK for the bulk of their support, will be hard pressed to expand their forces. This is especially true considering the lion’s share of their government budgets go to wasteful, and VERY expensive socialist programs.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>