History in Three Hard Lesson -Unlearnt

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” - Edmund Burke


The Young British Soldier By Rudyard Kipling

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

Who will be the poet of the current Afghan war? God save our (and the British and the other remaining Armies) Soldiers who continue to fight there.

The attempt to bring some degree of order in the Modern sense to Afghanistan has been abandoned by the Administration and by opinion makers on both the left and the right. And yet, we maintain a Military presence there that is scheduled to continue until at least 2014. What is the strategic objective? What are the operational goals for the next couple of years? Troops remain to support the fiction of a successful transition to Afghan control.

But, according to an article in the NY Post by Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institution  the people who are closest to the truth know that there is no truth in that:

"A 2011 Army survey found that “on average, US soldiers perceived that 50% of (the) ANA (Afghan National Army) were Islamic radicals” vulnerable to Taliban recruitment. The results were reported in an unclassified study titled, “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility.” It quotes one American soldier as saying, “A reporter attached to my platoon said that during a conversation with ANA soliders, they said that if the Taliban began to win the war, they would switch sides and join the Taliban.” "


They know the truth: The last four years and the next two have only one purpose: to avoid the obvious: Obama surrendered; and any progress that had been made will be lost within months of our eventual departure.

The Afghans know the truth too:

'“The fate of the Americans in Afghanistan will be worse than that of the Russians,” Mohammed Ismail Khan warned in 2009. The same Afghan is now vowing to drive all “foreigners” out of Afghanistan.


"More bluster from a Taliban leader? Hardly. Khan serves as Afghanistan’s energy minister, and is a key member of American ally Hamid Karzai’s cabinet."

This is Groundhog Day for the Afghan war lords.

"Khan has lethal experience launching such attacks. In March 1979, Khan, then a captain in the Afghan army, orchestrated the murder of 50 Soviet military advisers and 300 of their family members in Herat Province. He decapitated many of them and had their heads paraded on spikes through the city. "

So, the Afghan government's cabinet knows what is about to happen, and aren't even hiding their anticipation. What about the rational, Modern leaders of the Free World?

"The US military seems to be in denial about the breadth and scope of theinternal threats it faces in Afghanistan. While on the one hand it warns that the “major problem confronting the Soviets was the unreliability of the Afghan army,” it nonetheless appears Polyannish about its own prospects for partnering with the Afghan army. “U.S. forces can gain keen insights and lessons from the Soviet 10-year occupation of Afghanistan,” the Army handbook asserts. The same document goes on to claim that “in contrast” to the Soviet experience, “the United States and CF (coalition forces) have achieved great success in training and partnering with our ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) counterparts.”"

David Ignatius Gets it Half Right and Totally Wrong

I don't read the Washington Post much. If I come across a link  to an article that interests me, I read it. David Ignatius' 19 Oct post, "The foreign policy debate we should be having" piqued my interest.

What debate should we be having other than

• Why the Obama National Security establishment failed to a) deter b) detect c) prepare for d) defeat or e) accurately assess and report the al Queda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of the American ambassador and three other American citizens?
• How the administration so horribly mis-judged the outcome of the "Arab Spring" in Egypt and other countries?
• How the president's "Reset" policy in regards to Russia has empowered Vladimir Putin consolidate his control of that country's government and act in ways contrary to U.S. national interests?
• How the administrations reckless spending, supplication, and mis-judgements have emboldened China to challenge its neighbors, Japan, the Philipines, and Taiwan?
• How dithering while trying to guage the wind of the American presidential race has allowed the crises in Syria, and Iran to boil over?
• How telling an enemy the date you intend to cease hostilities against them and withdraw will not result in any outcome other than defeat.

I could go on.... but you get my point.

Ignatius' first object is to take the focus off of Obama's numerous severe foreign policy failures.

He says the foreign policy debate we should be having is about grand strategy.

He's right. But it should be in addition to, not in lieu of, the aforementioned.

Ignatius discusses an article in The Wilson Quarterly dated 1 Oct. by Michael J. Mazarr, "The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency."

Now, I admit that I have not read Mr. Mazarr's article yet. But I am addressing Mr. Ignatius' article in any case. The abstract for the article reads,

"The post-war U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming insolvent and unsustainable. If Washington continues to cling to its existing role on the premise that the international order depends upon it, the result will be increasing resistance, economic ruin, and strategic failure with consequences harming U.S. credibility, diplomacy, and military operations."

It becomes somewhat apparent why Ignatius chose to direct his readership to this particular article.

"post-war" - post- which war? the one engaged in by some 30,000 Servicemembers in Afghanistan? The one on-going in Lybia, or the one in Syria, or the one between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah? Or the one about to occur between Israel and one or more of its neighbors? Perhaps the conflict simmering between China and one of its neighbors across the the China Sea? Or perhaps the civil war being waged in Mexico between the Mexican government and the drug cartels. Only Progressives and caricature beauty pagent contestants believe that they can achieve World Peace.

But he is correct, the U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming unsustainable; because the country is rapidly becoming insolvent. I do want to read Mr. Mazarr's article to see if he addresses what happens if Washington DOES NOT continue to maintain its realization that the international order DOES depend upon the United States? I doubt that he does. I'd say we've had 4 or 5 years of pre-view. And it isn't pretty.

But I'll bet he doesn't talk about that alternative. No, and that is the second point of Ignatius' article. No. Here are the take-aways that make this a donation in kind:

"When you watch the debate Monday night, ask yourself whether the candidates are thinking strategically. Are they repeating rhetorical tropes about the United States as the “indispensable power” that can resolve any crisis? Or are they weighing commitments carefully to make sure that they can deliver what they promise?"

"Romney espouses the traditional, 21-gun-salute version, with its vision of a “shining city on a hill” and a unique calling to global leadership. And he talks about increasing the military budget as if that’s axiomatically a good thing. But he doesn’t explain how we’ll pay for this five-course meal of power, or how the country will digest it."

"My guess is that Obama, deep down, favors a more restrained version of American power, but he rarely says so in public."

So, beginning with the false alternative; if you are for a diminishment of U.S. power, prestige and influence you are "thinking strategically." If not, then you are "repeating rhetorical tropes" and will bring the nation to wrack and ruin if you are elected president.

And, in case any WaPo readers didn't already know it, it is axiomatic that Romney isn't thinking strategically because he sees the necessity for a militarily and diplomatically strong United States. Obama will be able to deliver what he promises, because he promises so much less - even when he promises no less than Romney.

Michael Kinsley, no blood and guts chickenhawk neo-Con he, wrote a few months back that when looking at budgets and revenues, you bought the national security you needed and bought the domestic programs you could afford. I would recommend that article to Mssrs. Ignatius and Mazaar.

So, now that we are down here however many inches from the top of this post, where does Ignatius get it right? He is right that the U.S. cannot resolve every crisis. Policy makers must weigh commitments carefully.

Ignatius compares the U.S. to Britain when its attempt to manage its global empire exceeded its ability to do so. Through the long lens of History, one wonders why Britain fought a war in Afghanistan. One may wonder why we are still fighting one there.

Ancient Rome fought a border war with the Parthians (Mesopotamia) for over 250 years during the declining years of the Empire.

The more some things change, the more they stay the same...

It's interesting that Ignatius calls Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon "cold-blooded" at the same time he cold-bloodly recommends that the U.S. pull out of the world and forfeit the capabilities to engage for strategic or humanitarian reasons. He peremptorily abandons future Lebanons to their fate. And future Americans to less freedom, less prosperity and less security.

The entire government must live within its means. Historically, federal tax revenues average no more than 20% of GDP, regardless of tax rates. Our federal expenditures should normally be less than 20% of GDP. That is the only sustainable fiscal policy.

Expenditures for Defense have historically averaged around 4-5% of GDP, rising during periods of war. Russia plans to increase its defense spending to 3.7% of GDP over the next 2-3 years. Who really knows what China's is. But even spending 6% of GDP on Defense would still leave 14% of a $15T GDP to spend on domestic priorities. That should work. Then we look at the world realistically.

The nature of American's is to help those who need help. We can't change our nature. But we have to recognize that our strength does have limitations, that it is illegitimate for the government to act contrary to the country's security, that we will have to make choices based upon our values AND our interests. For one example, Joseph Kony is doing horrible things in Uganda. Uganda is a friendly country in Africa. Our values lead us to help. Our relationship with Uganda makes it in our interest to help. Kony poses no near-term threat to U.S. interests in the region. There is some chance that U.S. assistance could defeat Kony, improve ties with an important nation on an important continent and in the longer term, delay the spread of militant Islam. I would be willing but reluctant to risk American lives or very much treasure there - if we had the treasure to risk. On the other hand, China is doing horrible things in Tibet. Our values lead us to want to help. The geographic location of Tibet and the super power status of China makes military action impossible. Don't even pretend. A rigorous application of classical Just War Theory can clarify the considerations and help to avoid bad decisions. But there is no mathematical formula that will spit out the right decisions.

Every decision that must find the best possible balance between American values, American interests, and America's capabilities is a difficult one. Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be not up to the task. Contrary to what David Ignatius would like you to believe, Mitt Romney is better suited to make those difficult decisions.

Voter ID Duplicity Part 2

The Financial Times weighs in on the validity of US elections:

Voter ID laws could sway US elections

"Millions of US voters could be turned away at the ballot box in this November’s presidential election as new rules impose tough requirements for identification that observers say could lead to minorities and young people – traditionally more likely to vote Democrat – being excluded."

Of course, on the other hand, millions of ineligible voters - traditionally more likely to vote Democrat - may vote in this November's presidential election as new rules designed to ensure the integrity of US elections are challenged in court and overturned or stayed by political judges.

How many? Millions? How does Anna Fifield know its millions?

She was told - just like Harry Reid was told that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years - by a reliable source.

"“There is certainly the potential for very serious outcomes,” said Keesha Gaskins of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, which estimates as many as 5m voters across the country might be affected by the rules. "

Hans A. von Spakovsky comments in National Review Online regarding a related article for Politico:
"Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.
"Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”

"Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.


"As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006."

"Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties."


Here's one of my favorites from the FT article: "Pennsylvania’s new rules are being challenged by three elderly women – including one who first voted for Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1940s – who say they will not be able to vote in November under the changes."
1. How are these poor old ladies going to get into the court building for their own hearing - without picture ID?
2. It seems they are elderly enough to draw Social Security - which at least one of them voted for, back in the day - they had to show ID, I'm guessing, to sign up for benefits and to open the checking account into which their benefits are deposited.



Photo: USAID/Julie Fossler
An elections worker checks a voter's ID card during Afghanistan's 2009 presidential and provincial council elections.



That's my absolute favorite. While one arm of the Leviathan - the (in)Justice Department - claims it is an unreasonable burden for Americans to show ID to vote, another arm (or should I say tentacle) brags on its web site that citizens of that advanced democracy, Afghanistan, are required to show picture ID in order to vote.

Detroit, apparently, is less able to provide for verification of its citzens than Kandahar...

Lex Talonis: A head for an eye and a jaw for a tooth

I don't know the details of the Koran burning in Afghanistan. From what I read, American Soldiers found defaced Korans in an internment facility that appeared to be used to spread radical Jihadist hate and perhaps coordinate resistance among the detainees. The Soldiers burned the Korans.

A few facts:

Soldiers had burned Bibles previously that were illegally in the country

The Korans had been defaced by Muslims

The proper way to dispose of certain items of veneration or respect in the West is by burning. Unservicable flags is an example.

This article indicates that the Korans were burned 'in a burn pit,' which leads me to believe they were burned along with other trash. If so, that was probably a serious Info Ops mistake. I think the effect of destroying the defaced holy books in a more reverent way would have been wise.

I don't think it would have prevented the violence. The burning is merely a convenient excuse for shooting and rioting and making the Americans look foolish.

Sadly, our leadership is aiding and abetting.

Now that six Soldiers have been killed in retaliation for burning a few books defaced by Muslim detainees, perhaps its time to realize that Christian (or, worse, Secular) charity and kindness will not work.

Time to go Old Testament on these people. Lex Talonis, or the Abramic, Mosaic law of retribution: an eye for an eye is something the Taliban and their fellow travellers understand very well.

They have not arrested the perpetrators of the first murder. Arrest my butt! I would hope that they have a pretty good idea of the networks in the area. Don Corleone would know what to do. Lorenzo Medici would know what to do. Joshua would know what to do.

Go do it. Kill the bosses. Kill their associates. Kill them in their sleep. Kill them in the broad daylight. Let them know that if the cockroaches stick their heads out they will be squashed.

Then crap or get off the pot. If we aren't going to go out and destroy the enemies of America -and the Afghan civilian population with great violence, then leave tomorrow and wipe the dust frorm our feet.

Human Rights?

Point 1: "WASHINGTON: The loud sucking noise you hear? That's President Barack Obama kissing up to the Chinese.

The Dalai Lama in Washington, as Barack Obama's administration insisted it still respected the Tibetan leader. Fellow Tibetan exiles welcomed the globetrotting 74-year-old monk as he arrived at his Washington hotel.
More Pictures

At least that's what supporters of Dalai Lama would have you believe after the U.S President passed up a meeting with the Tibetan leader in Washington DC this week – ostensibly to not offend Beijing ahead of his (Obama’s) visit to China next month.

It’s the first time in ten visits to the US in 18 years that the Dalai Lama has failed to meet with the American president. The political and diplomatic slight to the man widely admired in the US as brought forth a volley of criticism against Obama, hitherto hailed a champion of human rights.

Republicans are pillorying Obama for being a pussycat before the Chinese, and there have been murmurs of disapproval from the Democrats too..

"We regret that despite escalating human rights violations in Tibet, the White House has chosen not to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama...preferring a time that will be less irritating to the Chinese government and after the president’s own trip to China. We are concerned that this time may never come," says Katrina Lantos Swett, whose late father Tom Lantos led the move to present the Tibetan leader with a Congressional Gold Medal in 2007, awarded by then President Bush at a bipartisan ceremony.

The Dalai Lama is scheduled to receive a human rights award in the US Capitol on Tuesday given by the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is a long time admirer of the Tibetan leader. President Obama is also very much in the capital. But there will be no meeting.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obama-pilloried-over-ducking-Dalai-Lama-to-appease-China/articleshow/5092820.cms

Point 2: (Washington) The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, announced today that President Barack Obama will deliver the keynote address at the 13th Annual National Dinner on Saturday, October 10th, in Washington, D.C.

Point 3:

Conclusion: Freedom from violent political and religious oppression isn't worth his time. They are not the sort of human rights the president concerns himself with.

License for sexual and financial self-gratification IS a concern of his. And the support of a homosexual lobbying and special interest group with deep pockets IS worth his time.

Talk about skewed priorities... and less than a week after committing more time to trying to secure a windfall for his Chicago cronies than to securing a winnable strategy for the people of Afghanistan and the American Soldiers fighting for them.


"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." ...Ronald Reagan