TightyRighty.net

OK – my first post by this title dealt with executive compensation, which is probably not something most people will be afraid of.  However, this post deals with national security, which should must concern all of us.

I have been home sick the last few days with the flu which is going around.  Between reading emails from work, fading in and out of consciousness since I am so worn out, running to the men’s room, etc., I have watched a fair amount of Fox News, particularly a number of the speeches at the UN by the leaders of nations.  Three things have come together to really concern me about the current state of our national security:

We live in a bad, bad world.  There is evil in the world and if we do not call it such and confront it, we will be the victims of it.  Moammar(?) Qaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmedinijad are two prime examples of very bad, bad, evil men leading bad, bad, evil countries.

We are not safe because we have not learned the lessons of 9/11.  We were supposed to have all of our law enforcement (Federal, State, City, etc) working together on terrorism matters, but it appears that is still not the case, 8 years (and 13 days later) later.  Fox News has reported:

“Police acting without the FBI’s knowledge may have inadvertently helped blow the surveillance of a terrorism suspect (Najibullah Zazi) and compromised a bomb plot investigation at a sensitive stage by questioning an imam about him, a criminal complaint suggests.

“They came to ask me about your characters,” the Muslim religious leader, Ahmad Wais Afzali, told Najibullah Zazi in a secretly recorded Sept. 11 telephone conversation. “They asked me about you guys.””

Finally, our President continues to demonstrate that he is far, far beyond naive in his understanding of foreign policy.  He has demonstrated that naivete very well is the last few weeks:

A couple of weeks ago, he threw our very strong allies, Czechoslovakia and Poland under the (Russian) bus by canceling a missile defense system the Bush administration negotiated with these countries.  Supposedly, the new defense system will be stronger, smarter and swifter, etc.  But why give in on a source of Russian irritation without getting something in return?  The Russkies have indicated some flexibility this week regarding sanctions on Iran for its nuke program, but I will believe it when I see it.  It is never better to negotiate from a position of weakness.

In his speech yesterday at the U.N.  He began with the obligatory apology, although this was generally done in a positive way – look what I have done – stopped torture, issued orders to close Gitmo, we’re ending the war in Iraq, unilaterally disarming our nukes, we have thrown the Israelis under the bus in the Palestinian conflict, etc.  He did of course remind us about “Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century”.  (Perhaps he should compare the environment of the wealthy capitalist nations like the U.S., U.K., Germany, etc. with the wealthy communist nations like China and Russia and see that capitalism is much better for the environment).  The thing he did not do is take responsibility for American exceptionalism and the undisputed fact that our leadership position is very good for the world.  It was very much that we are just another country just like every other country and we will do our share but only for stuff we all agree on.  Far be it from us to unilaterally impose our will on any other country.

But now we get to the crux of my concern.  When General Stanley McChrystal was appointed to lead our troops in Afghanistan, he was tasked with completing a 60 day review of our strategy and tactics.  He has completed his review and he is calling for a new strategy which will require more troops.  However, the President appears to be balking at the thought of more troops and there is word on the street that General McChrystal has been told not to request more troops (denied by the White House, of course).  The Washington Post is reporting the assessment states “more forces” or “mission failure.”

It seems that the White House is considering a strategy developed by the great military strategist Joe Biden, who wants to utilize less troops and more drones to root out the Taliban.  Is the same Joe Biden who opposed the surge, called it a failure and conceived a plan to divide Iraq into 3 separate autonomous regions?  Is this the same Joe Biden who has been consistently wrong on foreign policy matters for over 30 years?  The same Joe “gaffe-o-matic” Biden who has webpage dedicated to tracking his misspoken words?  Why would we think this guy who never served in the military would know better than a 33 year veteran West Point graduate?

I can not stress how important it is that we win in Afghanistan.  However, the great orator has also described the need to win in Afghanistan very elequently.   I could not agree with him more.  If we lose in Afghanistan, the terrorists have their old training ground back and they have a friendly government to issue them passports.  They also have unfettered access to wreak havoc on Pakistan.  While this Pakistan is no beacon of democracy in a dictator led region, they are somewhat sympathetic to our cause and, most importantly, they do have nukes.  If Pakistan’s government collapses, it doesn’t matter if  Iran develops nukes because this will make Deal of the Century actually look funny.

If you see either General McChrystal or General David Patraeus (architect of the successful surge strategy in Iraq and who has endorsed McChrystal’s assessment) resign in the next few weeks, you can be fairly sure that President Obama has selected the Biden strategy over the military’s strategy and you should be Afraid, be VERY, VERY Afraid!