28 Dec

Is Obama’s Weak Approach to War on Terror Inviting More Attacks?

                                       

Obama has not made us safer. Just the reverse!

Remember when Obama worshipping columnist Andrew Sullivan opined that electing Obama would be the best weapon in the war on terror?

Here’s a reminder:

It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

Yeah. How’d that work out!

First we had the Muslim shooting at the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas killing one soldier in June. Then, in November, the Muslim massacre at Fort Hood killing 13 soldiers and wounding 30. Now, the botched Christmas Day attack on the airliner carrying 300 people.

One might make the case that the tempo and seriousness of these attacks is on the rise.

And yet, from the beginning of the Obama Administration, they have downplayed the seriousness of the problem. Obama and company refused to call this a “war on terror.” Janet Napolitano, Sec. of Homeland Security choose to call these attacks “man caused disasters.” It’s no wonder that Mark Steyn dubbed Ms. Napolitano “Janet Incompetano” after she claimed “the system worked” in the wake of the failed underwear bomber (bomb photos here). Let’s not forget that Sec. “Incompetano” seemed to be more concerned with “rightwing extremist activity” than she was by Islamic terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans.

Obama too has had trouble calling terrorism by it’s name. After the Little Rock killing, a belated White House statement called it a “senseless act of violence.” After the Fort Hood shooting Obama referred to the attack as a “horrific outburst of violence.” Later at the memorial service at Fort Hood he only managed to call the attack a “tragedy” that killed “13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war.”

Obama “Alleged” Terror Attack?

Three days after the failed Christmas bombing, Obama finally took a break from his vacation and commented on Monday. His statement referred to an “alleged” attempt to ignite an explosive by an “isolated extremist” despite mounting evidence that the attacker was trained by an Al Queda group in Yemen led by terrorists released from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. At least Obama was able to admit that this was an “attempted act of terrorism.”

But what is the Obama Administration reaction to this “attempted act of terrorism?” It seems that instead of working to assure that no more terrorists were preparing further attacks White House officials fanned out to blame the incident on Bush. Never mind that the Obama Administration had thoroughly reviewed the Bush anti-terror policy and also, that the vital warning by the would be terrorist’s father was passed up the chain of command to Washington after the initial report on November 19th.

When Obama aides aren’t blaming Bush they are busy promulgating ridiculous new airline security regulations which take away passengers blankets and pillows and demand passengers remain in their seats with their hands visible during the last hour of flight. Why not just insist that passengers be shackled to their seats during the entire flight?

Obama Attitude a September 10th Mentality

When Obama does talk about these recent attacks he looks pained when he places them within the context of a war. He seems far more comfortable treating these attacks as criminal incidents instead of acts of war. Just as he is allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to have his day in court in New York with the world’s press there to broadcast the entire trial, Obama has granted this Nigerian terrorist wannabe the full panoply of constitutional rights of an American citizen. He’s now lawyered up and able to refuse the questioning by the FBI or CIA that might lead to the discovery of information which could prevent future attacks.

It’s clear that Obama’s evident weakness in perceiving the nature and reality of this threat have only emboldened the terrorists. After learning that one of their own was able to walk past security and onto a plane they will likely try again. No doubt they won’t be bothered by the lack of a blanket or a bathroom visit in the last hour of the flight.

Instead of seeing that iconic figure described by Andrew Sullivan above, the terrorists see a President who has continued many of his predecessors policies, but who also spends a great deal of time validating the terrorist’s propaganda against the United States by apologizing for past wrongs at every available opportunity. It isn’t just the French President who sees Obama as weak and ineffective. Everything about Obama invites the terrorists to try harder. Bush scared them, but Obama couldn’t frighten anything larger than a fly.

Has Obama’s election made America safer? Clearly the answer is NO!

More here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, December 28th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
| 436 views

31 Responses to Is Obama’s Weak Approach to War on Terror Inviting More Attacks?

  1. rockybutte says: 1

    Mike,

    You’re dealing with suicidal people who identify with a fringe element of Islam, and who expect a afterlife filled with rewards. The perps in Arkansas, Ft. Hood and in the airplane were willing to give their lives for their faith; in fact, their goal was to give their lives. They would not have been deterred by a tough-talking Christian white guy. These people were tired of life and saw death as a release from their unhappiness and as an entry to an existence with greater promise than they could hope for on earth.

    On 9/11 the 15 Saudis and their cohorts who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon were not afraid of Bush, just as they would not have been afraid of Obama or McCain. They knew they would be dead by the time Bush starting paying attention to terrorism. So, what was there to be afraid of? The radical Islamicists welcome death in Jihad.

    We have to stop blaming each other. We need to reach understandings with moderate Muslims both here and abroad. We’re not going to be able to kill or incarcerate all radical Muslims, just as we’re not going to rid our country of illegal aliens by attempting to arrest all 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 of them.

    It’s time for the grownups to take charge, and for everyone to stop trying to prove himself right and the people on the other side wrong.

    ReplyReply
  2. Mr. Irons says: 2

    Trying to have an outreached hand to a Culture that refuses external cultural help and co-opperation by crede of rules within the Koran along with Islamic Laws is like trying to get a brick wall to reply back in a consersation. The Muslim society, moderate or not, generaly will shelter and defend fellow Muslims from external aggressive groups. It is their culture and faith to, by violence if needed, to ultimately defend their peoples against alien bodies. Mis-understanding their culture and assuming they seek full co-opperation and tollerant co-habitation is folly given the directive given by their Holy Book is to force all to conversion of Islam or to die. Their Prophet was a bloody warrior first, and a holy man second and nothing in modern day politics can wash away that much blood stained on the sword.

    ReplyReply
  3. Donald Bly says: 3

    Too many Americans make the mistake of calling these people “fringe” or “extremist”, they are not, they are fundamentalists. The Quaran has as a basic tenent the establishment of a world wide Caliphate.

    The Yemeni Observer reports that “last Tuesday, a new political party calling itself “Hizbu Tahrir” (Liberation Party) was declared in Sana’a when it held its first conference in Sana’a. The party is focusing on the creation of an Islamic orthodox caliphate-style state.”

    The Caliph was the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and religious leader of the Muslim community. Caliphs headed the great Islamic empires. After a long period of decline, the caliphate was abolished by the secular Turkish government in 1924. Muslim radicals worldwide have declared their intention to revive it and to wage offensive jihad against the non-Muslim world under its banner.

    Hizb-ut-Tahrir is the international movement which, while ostensibly renouncing terror, openly declares its intention to:

    1. Restore a worldwide Caliphate, uniting the world under Islamic rule;
    2. Ban all faiths apart from Islam, Judaism and Christianity (the Qur’an’s “People of the Book”; members of other religions are not listed as “People of the Book” in the Qur’an, and thus are not allowed to practice their faiths even with the restricted freedom accorded to Jews and Christians);
    3. Regulate all religious practice according to Sharia law;
    4. “Give all non-Muslim states a choice between either joining the Caliphate under Sharia law, or paying a tax to the Caliphate. Failure to pay the tax would be punished by military attacks.”

    In Yemen, “at the beginning of the meeting, a recorded speech, three minutes in length was read by the Emir of the party in Palestine, Ata Abu Arashta, he said that ‘a Caliph of the Muslims, a real Emir of Jihad is opening this conference.’ He went on ‘we are near the establishment of a Caliphate’ insisting that all indications especially ‘massacres against Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sudan and other countries’ are a harbinger of the Islamic Caliphate.

    “A member of the leadership of the Yemen branch, Nasir Abdu Allahbi told Yemen Observer ‘the party is seeking the creation of a Caliphate and the enforcement of Allah’s legislature ‘Sharia’a’.”

    How could a party that is thus demonstrably anti-democratic participate in the electoral process? “The party, he said, took advantage of the participatory politics system to declare its existence spurred on by the fact that the party ‘has become international’ holding general conferences in the U.K, Sudan and Uzbekistan and gaining ground in Europe.”

    What about terror? “The party doesn’t preach terror, noted Allahbi. A party insider made it clear ‘Erhab (literally terror) as viewed by the party has two forms; cowing of infidels, a commendable form of Erhab, and terror against Muslims by high-way robbery for example, a heinous crime as the name “terror” suggests.’”

    Oh. So the “cowing of infidels” is ok — just not the targeting of Muslims.

    Meanwhile, the new party’s intentions to oppose any republican government are clear. “‘For the party, both the republican and democratic systems of ruling are ungodly’, according to Allahbi. ‘They are never linked with Islam.’ The party doesn’t seek to participate in ruling since ‘sharing power with the unjust regimes means sharing injustice with them.’ ‘The Arab and Muslim rulers are not applying Allah’s legislature “Sharia’a”.’

    “As for the participation of the party in the Yemeni political landscape and the contrast between the beliefs of the party and the Yemeni constitution, Allahbi says ‘our ideas differ from the texts of the constitution. Nonetheless, we will try to avoid the hurdles and get licenses from the Parties Affairs Committee in order to carry out our politics and free campaigning to the general public.

    “‘The party will take part in the next elections provided that a set of conditions, which we will specify in time, are met.’ The leaders of Hizbu Tahrir are anonymous until ‘we squeak through’ ‘for the time being,’ said the conference spokesman of the party. He acknowledged that there is ‘a media blackout about the worldwide activities of the party’ which is seeking to create an Islamic state by total [non-violent] change of Muslim and Arab regimes.”

    I’m unclear as to why the Yemeni Observer thought it necessary or accurate to insert the words “non-violent” into that quote.

    From http://www.jihadwatch.org

    What we have with groups like the one mentioned above is the organization of muslims into political groups to fullfill the doctrine found in the Quaran. PERIOD.

    ReplyReply
  4. Skookum says: 4

    Trying to deal with homicidal maniacs by offering Constitutional protections and glorious days in court will make Obama and his witless followers feel good about themselves as they strut around on stage and make speeches about compassion, human dignity, the evil Bush and holding out an extended hand of friendship; yet the security of America and its people is being eroded daily by the impotent whining of our Marxist Fraud in Chief, who is seen in the mind of the barbarian killer as the epitome of weakness and silliness.

    Soon we will be losing hundreds of American lives to these unfortunate incidents of murder and mayhem that are encouraged by Obama’s incompetence and capitulation to the Muslim World and its homicidal maniacs. Perhaps we can have a representation of Obama’s phony Nobel Peace prize and Napolitano’s famous quote “The system worked.” inscribed upon the granite tombstones of Obama’s victims: in that way the families of victims will know whose incompetence is responsible for the deaths of innocents.

    ReplyReply
  5. Davey says: 5

    We will never deal with “The War on Terror” sufficiently as long as we have an adminstration on The Hill that insists on reducing terroristic acts of war to the level of robbing the neighborhood 7-11.

    ReplyReply
  6. John Cooper says: 6

    What does everyone think of my theory that Obama is working up a ‘Wag the Dog’ scenario to stop his poll numbers from swirling down the bowl? My (alleged) reasoning:

    We have the increase in terror activity that Mike noted.

    We have the United Nations passing the “Goldberg Resolution” on Nov. 5th accusing Israel of war crimes.

    We have street riots in Iran and government officials making plans to escape. (See: Published Document States Khamenei Is Planning to Escape to Russia)

    We have the price of oil creeping up over the last two weeks.

    We have Israel calling high-level ambassadors from around the world for a five-day conference (which, for some reason, hasn’t been noted by the media anywhere that I can find).

    We have a President who won’t lift a finger to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

    We have an executive branch telegraphing that they won’t come to the aid of Israel if war breaks out.

    …and of course we have a President who fancies himself the ruler of the known universe.

    Some of this information doesn’t jibe, but it seems to me that Obama could use a bully little ‘event’ in the Middle East so he could ride in on his white horseunicorn to save the day and take the focus away from the miserable failure that his administration has become.

    ReplyReply
  7. savage24 says: 7

    I see todays news says that Obama vows to keep the US safe. Talk is cheap it takes money to buy whiskey. The only way I see him doing this is declare the US a Islamic nation. He sdoesn’t have enough backbone for anything else. The “useful idiots” have saddled us with an idiot.

    ReplyReply
  8. KingShamus says: 8

    Whatever Excitable Andy is for…you should be against. It’s like Newton’s fifth law of motion or some crap.

    ReplyReply
  9. Rob in Katy says: 9

    I grow tired of hearing about this “fringe element” of Islam. I notice that when someone here murders in the name of God they are condemned 1) almost instantly and 2) by most religions 3) there is universal condemnation around the water cooler the next day. I never see this from the Muslim groups, never hear this from the Muslims at the cooler, hence I conclude that overall, they are quite content with Americans and innocents being blown up. I just find it more difficult everyday to believe that there is a “fringe” element.

    *I think the “fringe” are the ones that actually denounce the terrorist acts.

    ReplyReply
  10. Aleric says: 10

    @Rocky

    That mentality is why Bush was not effective in dealing with the wingnuts on the left and the Media who crucified him at every chance. If he had taken a stronger stance and stood up to most of the insulting and petty attacks on his administration we would not have PEBO sitting in the WH now. Hell if he had releaed Dick Cheney and Carl Rove on the Press and the Left the detractors would have been chewed up and spit out.

    ReplyReply
  11. TammyL says: 11

    Whereas I somewhat agree with Rockybutt on the demonizing each other, I do disagree with him on other things. He is right. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and that is one of our weaknesses. Too buzy pointing the finger at each other. However I do disagree with Rocky Butt in that the level of incidence of terrorism goes down with strong deterrents and leadership. Terrorists are for the most part calculating individuals who seek power for themselves and their cause. Yes, the idiots who strap bombs to themselves will do so for any cause. They are looking for meaning in their lives, but these people ARE NOT the leaders in their movements. They are the “pawns, the tools” that the leadership use and move. They are the mindless footsoldiers who follow orders. Period. Our leadership will not affect their decisions.

    However our leadership and its strength will give pause to their leadership, the people who recruited them, and played their footsoldiers. Why? For this leadership doesn’t see itself as suicidal. Suicides are the tools for the idiots, but not for them. You don’t see Osama bin Ladin or the leadership for Hezbollah strapping on bombs to their bodies, do you? No. And there is a good reason for that. They see themselves as indispensible to the cause and the leadership. If they really believed in the fantastic rewards awaiting them in Islamic heaven, they would have taken the reward for themselves.

    No instead they see a bigger prize. They are hoping to create a revolution within the Islamic world and cause enough chaos in history so that they will rise to power. They seek power for themselves. And like all military leaders who seek power, they study their enemies and they strike when he is weakest and they stay put while he is strong hoping to preserve their footsoldiers for a more opportune time.

    And by having a strong leadership who acts as a deterrent and forces them in a conservation mode, we buy ourselves time to try and find another solution. And the longer we force them to wait and hold back, the more frustrated they get and the weaker they become.

    So I believe that Obamas weakness is actually encouraging the rise of more militantism within the Islam world and that becomes more dangerous for us all, unless you like wearing a burkha.

    ReplyReply
  12. Read the 10 Commandments! They aren’t the 10 “Suggestions”. What part of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” do these 7th Century murderous savages not understand.

    And hell yes, I do believe in profiling!

    The only way to deal with a bully is to repeatedly kick him in the cojones until he gets the idea!

    ReplyReply
  13. Patvann says: 13

    Nicely said, Tammy.

    ReplyReply
  14. billhedrick says: 14

    Quite simply unless you are quick to condemn and not excuse someone who commits terroristic acts while espousing your position, you are perceptionally agreeing with act. When an abortion clinic is bombed by a nut claiming to be pro-life the pro-life has to be first in line to condemn the act and not make excuses. And happily it has been. When a jihadi shouts “allah akbar” and shoots up or blows up a gathering of innocents, the muslim imans must be the first to condemn it and not excuse it. Unhappily this has not happened.

    ReplyReply
  15. Jeff says: 15

    I think we are approaching a critical juncture where the Islamists see an opportunity to try and “bring down” the US Government. By bring down I don’t mean Obama gets impeached, I mean cause the US Government to overeact to an attack by pulling back from Afghan or Iraq or Yehman. I am certain as they are that Obama will never actually escallate hostilities.

    They see him as a fighter on the ropes, looking for an excuse to throw in the towel (see Spain for an example). They may be thinking that 1 or 2 good punches may bring out the towel.

    In Obama’s world view he believes that being passive and continuing to step back from the fight reduces the attack from our enemies. He’s trying to play rope a dope but with one glaring weakness. Once you bring your opponent in close and let them throw shots at you you must be willing and able to “bring the thunder” …

    Nothing in Obama words, actions or past says he is capable of making a decision like that, nothing …

    We are realizing that we elected a Milli Vanilli President with no talent for leadership. He is neither inspirational nor seen as a steady hand at the tiller of state.

    ReplyReply
  16. Jeff says: 17

    what does it take to convert a moderate Muslim into a radical Muslim ?

    the opportunity to deploy a weapon at a target in range …

    ReplyReply
  17. Pingback: Tweets that mention Is Obama’s Weak Approach to War on Terror Inviting More Attacks? -- Topsy.com

  18. Pingback: AntiObamaBlog.com » Obama’s statement on the Christmas Day jihadi attack; Perfunctory, hasty, and bloodless

  19. Pingback: What do you do with problem called Janet?

  20. Steve In Tulsa says: 19

    Just a few months ago Holder annouced his case against the CIA and Yo Mama announced that henceforth the FBI would do all the ‘terrorism’ investigations.

    Since the CIA could not have been involved then how could the failure be ‘policies in place for years’?

    See you at the fourteenth hole!

    ReplyReply
  21. Pingback: Political correctness and ‘lying to ourselves’ arms terrorists like terrorists themselves can’t « The Western Experience

  22. KingShamus says: 20

    what does it take to convert a moderate Muslim into a radical Muslim ?

    the opportunity to deploy a weapon at a target in range

    Sad, but a lot of the time it sure as hell seems like that’s the case.

    ReplyReply
  23. rockybutte says: 21

    Radical Islamicists focused on the disaffected foreign Muslim students in Germany in 2000 & 2001 to find those that would carry out their mission: hit the USA where it hurts. They concentrated on those that were most in need of guidance and purpose. You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to ID lost and needy youth. Islam is effective in arranging brotherhood for adherents in search of connection with other lost and lonely souls.

    Worldwide, Al Qaeda and their running dogs are recruiting and nurturing youths at the fringes to carry out their nefarious intent. Recruiters may pop up in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Britain, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc., ad nauseam.

    At the root of all of this are the deep-pockets of Saudi Arabia, including members of the royal House of Saud. They paid for the spread of Wahabi/Salafi Islam, bankrolled Osama in Afghanistan, and funded the madrasahs in Pakistan and Afghanistan which spawned the Taliban. 15 Saudis horrified our nation on 9/11. Saudi Arabia was one of 3 countries, along with the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

    Why do we let these guys stay in power?

    Many middle-class Muslim families throughout the world are most interested in a peaceful life, co-existence with the west and the emergence of a world in which their children prosper.

    Those in the west who characterize Muslims as one homogeneous mass of hate and venom are condemning all of us to a future of conflict and terror. Now is the time to enlist the aid of those who can affect the course of Islam.

    ReplyReply
  24. Missy says: 22

    Is Obama’s weak approach to the man caused disaster inviting more attacks? Is the Pope Catholic? Could it get any worse? Yes, yes and yes:

    After the Obama supported behind closed door healthcare negotiations, he decides to take a break from golf and he:

    created by executive order Tuesday a National Declassification Center to oversee efforts to make once-secret government documents public.

    His senior director of records and access management at the National Security Council writes:

    “While the Government must be able to prevent the public disclosure of information that would compromise the national security, a democratic government accountable to the people must be as transparent as possible and must not withhold information for self-serving reasons or simply to avoid embarrassment,” Leary wrote.

    Something just jumps out in this article in the very last paragraph:

    In the executive order, Obama instructs the government not to keep secrets forever, eliminates the ability of intelligence officials to veto declassification decisions, and requires agencies to conduct reviews of their classification procedures.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/12/obama-orders-creation-of-decla.html?hpid=news-col-blog

    I’m thinking this is aimed mostly at what transpired in the previous administration because this administration obviously isn’t keeping secrets, at least when it involves the WOT oops, man caused disaster. The Obama Admin sends a “shout out” to all those Yemeni al Qeada types…get ready to duck and hide! and exposes Yemeni officials in one fell swoop here:

    Officials: U.S., Yemen reviewing targets for possible strike

    The U.S. and Yemen are now looking at fresh targets in Yemen for a potential retaliation strike, two senior U.S. officials told CNN Tuesday, in the aftermath of the botched Christmas Day attack on an airliner that al Qaeda in Yemen claims it organized.

    The officials asked not to be not be identified because of the sensitive nature of the information. They both stressed the effort is aimed at being ready with options for the White House if President Obama orders a retaliatory strike. The effort is to see whether targets can be specifically linked to the airliner incident and its planning.

    U.S. special operations forces and intelligence agencies, and their Yemeni counterparts, are working to identify potential al Qaeda targets in Yemen, one of the officials said. This is part of a new classified agreement with the Yemeni government that the two countries will work together and that the U.S. will remain publicly silent on its role in providing intelligence and weapons to conduct strikes.

    Officially the U.S. has not said it conducted previous airstrikes in Yemen, but officials are privately saying the Yemeni military could not have carried out the strikes on its own.

    By all accounts, the agreement would allow the U.S. to fly cruise missiles, fighter jets or unmanned armed drones against targets in Yemen with the consent of that government.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/29/us.yemen.strike.targets/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29

    And, please make sure we don’t get any of those al Qeada types that weren’t involved in the air liner incident.

    ReplyReply
  25. MrObson says: 23

    The current situation with muslim terrorists is not unlike the KKK in the 60s.

    The KKK was a small radical group. Most Southerners (I am a proud Mississippian) rejected the violence but often knew who was in the KKK and who had committed violent acts. Yet misplaced allegiance to their neighbors instead of to justice caused the good people to refuse to turn in the bad ones. And worse, the violent persons were welcomed family and civic gatherings.

    The media and Hollywood began to attack the South as a whole. Even today years after any KKK violence, the stereotype of ignorant and uneducated Southerner is in full force. The idea was that the ‘good people’ have something to lose. With their reputation and livelihoods in jeopardy, they took a harder look at this terrorism and began to turn in or shun bad friends and relatives.

    Today, instead of condemning terrorist attacks, the good muslims use each new attack as an opportunity to demand protection from vigilantes and the media takes great pains to create the image of the good muslim with no responsibility for terrorism. This creates little incentive for the non-terrorists to take the very difficult step of turning in or shunning their neighbors and family members.

    Imagine if the media of the 60s had made such an effort to say that the vast majority of Southerners were well educated, peace and equality loving people? Would they have considered turning in family??? Would we have ever achieve the civil rights gains?

    Calling out all muslims might not be as effective as calling out Southerners. After all Southerners believe in democracy and the general principal of equality (I know, some had difficulty in applying that to all races). But allowing the good muslims a ‘get out of jail free’ card is worse than ineffective.

    ReplyReply
  26. Rob in Houston says: 24

    MrObson, I think you hit the nail on the head. Until the “good” group feels the pain of us getting killed, they are not going to start pointing out who the bad guys are in there group. It needs to become uncomforatable for them, just as it did for the South. They need to be singled out, they need to be scrutanized, they need to be profiled to hell and back. When they get tired of it, they will leave or they will start defending their neighbors – and I would be happy with either outcome.

    ReplyReply
  27. Missy says: 25

    @rockybutte:

    You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to ID lost and needy youth.

    Maybe not a brain surgeon, but it would take a staff many times larger than the radicals, al Qeada, and running dogs combined out there preaching, funding and influencing that needy youth. Until then I guess we will have to continue with winning hearts and minds, as our professionals, like Generals Petraeous and Odierno, etc. suggest and are doing. Also, I doubt the current cuts in defense will be transferred over to social workers.

    Why do we let these guys stay in power?

    You better hope the Saudis in power stay in power because the members of the Saudi Royals that aren’t in power are the ones you just described.

    ReplyReply
  28. Defensive warfare sucks! The U.S. is now on the strategic defensive. Withdrawal from Iraq is lowering the level of combat our enemy has to endure against our military. Even with the ‘surge’ in Afghanistan, our enemy has an overall lower level of attrition.

    I will bet that President Obama has the U.S. out of Afghanistan by the election cycle in 2012. This way he can say that he ended both wars in his first term.

    Our enemies will be able to redeploy and allocate resources and dictate where and when the war will be fought. Our civilian forces will not be able to defeat this enemy. This should become more obvious over the next few years. The argument that we are fighting over there (Iraq and Afghanistan) to prevent the fighting from coming here is going to be shown to be more accurate than many had thought.

    ReplyReply
  29. Pingback: Brutally Honest

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>