Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

A Job Well Done: Bin Laden Taken Down At Last



At last, an Obama Administration initiative that I can get behind. A team of Navy SEALS has killed Osama Bin Laden

Helicopters descended out of darkness on the most important counterterrorism mission in U.S. history. It was an operation so secret, only a select few U.S. officials knew what was about to happen.

The location was a fortified compound in an affluent Pakistani town two hours outside Islamabad. The target was Osama bin Laden.

Intelligence officials discovered the compound in August while monitoring an al-Qaida courier. The CIA had been hunting that courier for years, ever since detainees told interrogators that the courier was so trusted by bin Laden that he might very well be living with the al-Qaida leader.

Nestled in an affluent neighborhood, the compound was surrounded by walls as high as 18 feet, topped with barbed wire. Two security gates guarded the only way in. A third-floor terrace was shielded by a seven-foot privacy wall. No phone lines or Internet cables ran to the property. The residents burned their garbage rather than put it out for collection. Intelligence officials believed the million-dollar compound was built five years ago to protect a major terrorist figure. The question was, who?

The CIA asked itself again and again who might be living behind those walls. Each time, they concluded it was almost certainly bin Laden

This is a great day, of course. (and I know that the hunt for Bin Laden was not an exclusive effort by the Obama administration. Far from it), but too long in coming. Hard to believe, but it's been nearly 10 years since 9/11. Should it really have taken so long to find this guy? We not only had missed opportunities on the battlefield. We had the entire left side of the American political spectrum working against the intelligence and military communities that were tasked with finding the Bin Laden needle in the Af-Pak haystack. Maybe that's just the way democracy works: it's messier than you might like. OK, but does fealty to democratic principles mean we had to listen to Dick Durbin and others call US troops "Nazis," among other scurrilous moments? Other reax:

1. Our military, especially the Special Forces, is one of the few institutions in American society that still works as advertised. That the Navy SEALS have to compete for funds with ACORN and Planned Parenthood is a sign of how far conservatives have to go to re-balance and re-organize the government.

2. Not sure how "gutsy" it was for Obama to make the call to kill Bin Laden - what else could he have done? - but give him a lot of credit for sending in a team to shoot Bin Laden in the head, rather than dump a Clintonesque pile of ordinance into his lap.

3. Bin Laden was a cartoon villain to the end. He ever used a woman as a human shield, just like Snidely Whiplash! Why didn't he tie her to the railroad tracks?

4. Would I have preferred that Bin Laden had been killed during the Bush-Cheney years? Sure, but sometimes things don't work out that way. We can take grim satisfaction in seeing the Left's "constitution shredders" celebrate a killing that was brought about by the sort of enhanced interrogations and secret prisons that pompous leftists spent years actively working against .

5. I thought this USA Today headline was ... peculiar


First of all, there's the unfortunate Obama/Osama parallel. Then there's the peculiarly dismissive tone. "Obama says" Osama is dead? Was Obama alone in taking this singular position? Did Bin Laden issue a denial? A simple "Death Of Bin Laden" headline would have been more appropriate.

6. We may be close to going through the looking glass in our relationships with many Muslim nations. Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden. Can there be any doubt about this? Some are already suggesting that there was never an al-Qaeda, but rather a series of front groups for the ISI and other Middle Eastern intelligence services.

7. What a peculiar life Bin Laden led. After a few years attacking US interests, and then inspiring the greatest ever act of terrorism on American soil, he spent a couple years on the run, gamely carrying on the Hassan i Sabbah "Man In The Mountains" role, before retiring to his Pakistani mansion/compound. What did he do all day? Raise pigeons? He certainly wasn't fomenting further terrorist activity.

8. As with the end of the Cold War, liberals are standing around taking credit for a result they largely resisted every step of the way.

9. Buried at sea????? In accordance with Islamic Law???? Did the Obamites have Islamic burial rites confused with a Viking funeral? This was the one fiasco in this affair. We should have at least displayed the body to (1) deflate the Osama Myth and (2) show proof of death. We've missed both chances.

10. Is this the end of the war of terror? Dunno, but it sure feels like something has come to an end.








Sweet Spot: The GOP Is Winning the Lame Duck Congress


Looks like the 111th Congress will soon be drawing to a close with a few hot-button issues left unresolved. So far, we've really been hitting the Free Will sweet spot in terms of achieving conservative/Tea Party goals:

The Bush tax rates are going to be signed into law by a pouting President Obama. For all the right wing caterwauling, this is a remarkable achievement in terms of policy and politics. Here, let me bring in Powerline to explain:

For some years, we have assumed that 2011 would see a massive tax increase. That this will not happen is a great benefit to both taxpayers and the economy. That the Republicans could achieve this result despite not controlling any of the three entities involved in the negotiations--the House, the Senate and the White House--is rather remarkable. I think it was made possible by the fact that many Democrats, including President Obama, recognized the damage that a tax increase would do to the economy.

For this reason, the symbolic value of the agreement for conservatives is huge. For nine years, Democrats have gnashed their teeth at the "Bush tax cuts" and have vowed to reverse them. Democrats have now controlled Congress for four years, and have made no effort to do so. When they couldn't put off the issue any longer, what happened? A majority of House Democrats and a large majority of Senate Democrats voted to perpetuate the Bush administration's tax policies. By doing so, the Democrats have implicitly admitted (in some cases, the admission was explicit) that the Republicans were right all along: the sort of punitive tax burden for which the Left hungers is economic poison.

I'm not a smoker, but if I were, I would light a cigar to celebrate the day when Congressional Democrats and the leader of their party's left wing, Barack Obama, gave in to reality and endorsed the Bush tax cuts.

I don't think we've paid enough attention to that last one. Democrats have been righteously denouncing tax cuts since the Reagan era. We've heard over and over the last two years that tax cuts are part of the tired old routine that no longer works. But, it turns out that the tired old routine was being performed by Democrats who, when given absolute freedom and opportunity to let the Bush tax rates expire, shrank away. This really is a great moment, the domestic equivalent of winning the Surge.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid has pulled the trillion dollar ominous omnibus budget, and will continue to fund the government through continuing resolutions. Some say this is the appropriators' last hurrah. We'll see:

Tonight may indeed may be a “seminal moment,” as McCain said. This was to be the appropriators’ last hurrah. In the end, they couldn’t see it through, and it’s not going to get any better for them next year.

Why did it go down? You had Jim DeMint rallying outside opposition, and pushing Reid’s back against the wall procedurally with the threat to have the whole monstrosity read on the floor; that was time Reid presumably couldn’t afford to waste given everything else he wants to jam through.

Then, you had Mitch McConnell on the phone all day with Republican appropriators–Reid’s base of support on the bill–twisting their arms to come out against it. My understanding is that by the end he had all the appropriators committed against it, with the exception of two who were undecided. McConnell told the appropriators that passing this bill, and passing it this way, would represent a rejection of everything the mid-term election was about, and ultimately he prevailed. Again and again over the last two years, McConnell has done what a minority leader needs to do–keep his troops united.

And, finally, there was McCain. He was out there, too. On “Hannity” last night, he sounded like a tea-partier, urging people to use social media and to flood the phone lines in opposition. It must have been particularly sweet for him, after all these years battling appropriators, doing a victory jig all over the bill on the senate floor a little while ago.

Again, we'll see. The best part is that the omnibus had a billion dollars worth of Obamacare funding in it, which will now be left for the next Congress to appropriate, if they can.

Next on tap are votes on START, DADT, and the DREAM Act. With one exception, these are minor matters that shouldn't ruin anybody's Christmas

START looks to be heading towards passage. Some Cold Warriors are muttering darkly about this, as well they might. But, this drive to pass START is like waiting in line for Paul McCartney tickets. Yeah, it might be relevant, but the real excitement is decades in the past. Conservatives complaining about START should really be asking why Democrats seem hell-bent on silently acquiescing to a nuclear Iran.

DADT? The best reason to pass this is so we no longer have to watch querelous news stories about dedicated gay soldiers being drummed out of the service. (after they "told"). I am sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't abide liberals using the military to play-act a civil rights melodrama. But, I'm comfortable betting that the number of gays who will join the military when they can serve openly will be so small as to render the military readiness argument moot. The real question is, what issue will anti-war leftists use as a proxy to protest the military once DADT is no longer in place?

Unlike START and DADT, the DREAM Act is a big deal, would affect everybody, and would be a disaster if passed. That's the hill to die on.

Happy X-mas. War Is Over: The End of Operation Iraqi Freedom


What if you won a war and nobody came? The Iraq War, after seven years and 4,000+ heroic dead, is winding down, leaving behind 50,000 "advisors" and a parliamentary democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
Lt. Col. Mark Bieger huddled his infantrymen in a darkened parking lot minutes before they were to depart Baghdad for the last time.

This is a historic mission!" he bellowed, struggling to be heard over the zoom of fighter jets and unmanned drones deployed to watch over the brigade's convoy to Kuwait. "A truly historic end to seven years of war."

The 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which left Iraq this week, was the final U.S. combat brigade to be pulled out of the country, fulfilling the Obama administration's pledge to end the U.S. combat mission by the end of August. About 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, mainly as a training force.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom ends on your watch!" exclaimed Col. John Norris, the head of the brigade.

"Hooah!" the soldiers roared, using an Army battle cry.

Shortly before midnight Saturday, a group of infantrymen boarded Stryker fighting vehicles, left an increasingly sparse base behind and began scanning the sides of a desolate highway for bombs. For many veterans, including some who made the same trip in the opposite direction years ago under fire, it was a fitting way to exit.

"They're leaving as heroes," Norris said of his soldiers. "I want them to walk home with pride in their hearts."

This being the Age of Obama, victory is marked not by a parade down the Avenue of the Americas, but by a midnight convoy across the Kuwait border. Which is appropriate in a way. The Iraq War may have been "approved" by wide bi-partisan congressional majorities, but it was obvious at the time - and became clear within less than a year - that the Democrat "support" for the war was little more than craven opportunism to get through the 2002 mid-terms. The Iraq War was fought and won by President Bush, the US military, and the 30% of the country that never lost faith in the mission. The idea of an anti-war politician like President Obama "marking" the occasion with a teleprompted speech is frankly more nauseating than his studied silence.

Hoorah.


The Government Oil Spill: Coast Guard Liable for Sinking of Deepwater Horizon Rig, Ensuing Chaos



Hot Air has the story on the latest wrinkle in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It seems that the Coast Guard's botched response to the initial fire contributed, at least in part, to the sinking of the rig which made a bad situation into (switching to ominous voice) The Worst Oil Spill in American History: Did The Government Cause the Oil Spill

The generally accepted view of the Deepwater Horizon disaster has focused on the blowout preventer and the non-standard procedures BP conducted just before the explosion and fire. However, most of the damage and the main source of the spill came from the collapse and sinking of the DH platform rather than the initial explosion. A new report by the Center for Public Integrity, based on testimony from people on scene and Coast Guard logs, contains evidence that the platform sunk because of a botched response from the Coast Guard, which failed to coordinate firefighting efforts and to have the proper resources to fight the fire:

The Coast Guard is not supposed to participate in firefighting, but instead assign an expert to coordinate the private firefighting efforts of the rig operator and its contractors. The Coast Guard failed to do so, and the result was an uncoordinated, “general response” effort that mainly relied on salt water to extinguish the fires. That is not the most effective way to fight rig fires; the best way is to use foam, which apparently wasn’t on hand. An expert would have known this, but as CPI’s report of the testimony shows, none was assigned:

What can say about this except:


The Coast Guard has apparently been struggling in the face of budget cuts at the hands of the Obama Administration. Has this ever been in the news before? Does anyone remember any public debate about the Coast Guard budget?

The crippling budget cuts President Obama proposed for the Coast Guard also deserve a closer examination. Obama's spending plan reduced the blue water fleet by a full one-third, slashed 1,000 personnel, five cutters, and several aircraft, including helicopters. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Coast Guard updated its official maritime rescue manual -- advising against firefighting aboard a rig -- just seven months before the Deepwater Horizon explosion. That change in policy came at a time when Adm. Thad Allen warned the budget cuts threatened to turn the Coast Guard into a "hollow force."

At this point, you just have to laugh to keep from crying. Can you imagine anyone running for office on a platform of slashing the Coast Guard's budget? We might be passing massive health care "reform" bills of questionable utility and of even more questionable constitutionality; but when faced with budgeting for federal responsibilities that are actually in the Constitution, the sophisticated Left puts on their green eye shades and play "fiscal hawk" for 5 minutes. This is why Big Government is self-defeating. Taxes and Spending spiral ever upwards, yet the government can't seem to get anything done right.

Sigh.

Cold comfort: we've been through this sort of misprioritization before. The post-Viet Nam Left took power and slashed defense spending; leading to the sort of weakening of America's position in the world, demoralization of the armed forces, and equipment failures resulting in military fiascoes that you would expect. But, President Reagan turned that around - in the face of "what if the Pentagon had to hold a bake sale" style protests, of course - quickly and forcefully. We can turn this around too.

In the mean time, we will have to watch the spectacle of a trillion dollar federal government that struggles to perform its most basic functions.






Mother, You Had Me, But I Never Had You: Mothers in Combat


The NY Times is kicking off a year-long series of articles following a battalion from the 10th Mountain Division that will be spending a year in Afghanistan. The first article is about the deployment and the "wrenching" effects it will have on the soldiers' personal lives. Future "wrenching" problems: a hostile welcome from the locals, dealing with troubles at home while you're thousands of miles away, the death of a beloved NCO, etc. Honestly, what do the hermans at the Times expect?

The details of the deployment are suitably melancholy: the young kid packing his gear while listening to Ludacris, the captain savoring a last peaceful cup of coffee, the tearful father holding his 6-month old son. All of the last lingering moments of people caught up in something much bigger than they are (no, I don't mean a front page story in the NY Times). But, there was one thing that set me off: A Year At War

Sgt. Tamara Sullivan pulled out her cellphone charger and braced for a night of tears. She called her children in North Carolina, ages 3 and 1, and told them she would soon be going to work in a place called Afghanistan. For a year. She reminded her husband to send her their artwork. She cried, hung up, called him back and cried some more.

“I asked for him to mail me those pictures, those little sloppy ones,” she said. “I want to see what my children’s hands touched, because I won’t be able to touch them.”

I've actually written on the topic of sending mothers into combat before. It is unspeakably cruel and does absolutely nothing to enhance America's national security. I mean, what is Sgt. Sullivan's husband doing? It had better be lying in a bed with two broken legs because I can't think of anything more emasculating than sending your wife into combat while you stay home like a Mr. Mom.

My recollection is that, when people were arguing in favor of women in the armed forces, Phyllis Schlafley-types made a big stink about the possibility of young mothers being sent into combat. Oh, No! came the response. Women will only be in support units behind the lines and far away from harm. That made sense when you imagine wars as being like the Civil War and WW2, where the support units were often (but not always) far from the front lines. But what about now, when the whole of Afghanistan - and before that, Iraq - is a war zone? (don't forget Lori Piestewa, who was with Jessica Lynch at the battle of Nasiriyah, was killed in action, and left behind a young son).

The fact is that the US military is sending women, including mothers, into combat. At the very least, they are being separated from their children for a year - and often there isn't a Mr. Mom in the picture to take care of the kids. At the worst, these mothers can and do become casualties. And this helps, how? I know what people will say: these women knew what they were getting into when they signed up and, anyway, the PC military doesn't want to be seen as discriminating on gender. Again, this helps, how?

I am agnostic on the issue of "women in the military," especially as (1) it works well in the Israels Defense Force, without compromising Israeli pulchritude and (2) it's too well established. However, I think sending the mothers of young children into combat is too much. I don't know how this works in the IDF, but it seems to me that a woman becoming pregnant while in uniform, or presenting herself to a recruiter with babes in tow, is grounds for a state-side desk job, at the very least. But, sending a young mother into a combat zone strikes me as unspeakably and unnecessarily cruel.



Best Retirement Invesments Auto Search