The Capitol Tribune

If world leaders could grade themselves

2009-12-26T06:00:00.004-05:00

Barak Obama gave himself a B+. Well, what if other world leaders were asked to give themselves a grade for their performance so far.

TWS has an excellent parody.

Merry Christmas

2009-12-24T21:31:00.001-05:00

(photo by Tyler)

The parade of armchair generals goes on and on

2009-12-23T07:08:00.005-05:00

President Bush certainly made some mistakes managing the war in Iraq. But to his credit he was also willing to go against conventional wisdom—and hysterical congressmen screaming “The surge won't work, what's the exit strategy,” which included then Senator Obama—and push on with the surge, ultimately defeating the Iraqi insurgents.

War is messy. Sometimes the line between victory and defeat is gossamer thin. Errors inevitably happen, and then the parade of armchair generals chime in with the hindsight clarity of “you’re an idiot” analysis. The parade for President Bush, Rumsfeld and others stretches for miles, and is still going on. Some of it is fair, but so much of it seems like pure axe grinding. It's to be expected, I suppose. The Obama parade--deservedly so--is warming up.

But where's the line (if we suppose there is one) between just and unjust criticism. The U.S. militaries failure to capture (or kill, preferably) UBL at Tora Bora is a good example. In hindsight some armchair generals blame Rumsfeld and Bush for UBL’s escape into Pakistan. They argue that Rumsfeld’s “light footprint” strategy, the deployment of a “leaner, meaner, high-tech military capable of lightning strikes,” was a poor fit for the fight at Tora Bora. There weren’t enough troops to complete the job, they claim. But as Peter Feaver points out, that position conveniently leaves out the fact that UBL would probably not have been holed up at Tora Bora had it not been for Rumsfeld going against conventional wisdom.

My problem with the Tora Bora critique -- both its generalized form and the particular form advanced by Glasser -- is that it conveniently forgets that the reason bin Laden was "trapped" in Tora Bora in the first place is that Secretary Rumsfeld and General Franks and CIA Director George Tenet defied both the conventional war plans and the conventional wisdom to mount the very light-footprint campaign that Glasser et al. are complaining about. If Rumsfeld and Franks and Tenet had used the conventional warplan that involved a heavy U.S. ground presence instead of the rapidly deployable light-footprint that Glasser denounces, the invasion of Afghanistan would have happened some time in 2002, if then. If Rumsfeld and Franks and Tenet had listened to the conventional wisdom during the early weeks when the light-footprint approach appeared to be faltering, they would have abandoned the Afghan effort long before the battle in Tora Bora.

Certainly Rumsfeld and General Franks would have changed their strategy if it had not been working. But it had so well up to that point. UBL was initially trapped on that mountain because U.S. forces had so rapidly closed in on him. Unfortunately, UBL got away. Knowing what Rumsfeld and Franks know now I’m sure they’d do it differently. But they didn’t have the wisdom of hindsight or the advice of so many professional armchair generals. And so the parade goes on...

Liberals need to "Lay off the hallucinogenic drugs"?

2009-12-21T19:23:00.005-05:00

Early this morning the U.S. Senate voted for cloture on the Senate's health care bill. The vote was strictly along partisan lines. Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader, had to make some unpopular deals with his fellow democrats just to get the votes. No one seems happy with the bill. Most republicans think it’s fiscally irresponsible, raises taxes, cuts Medicare, and only increases the size of government. Most democrats think it doesn’t go far enough: it doesn't provide universal health care and it favors insurance companies. And with polls showing a clear majority of Americans against the bill, there’s little doubt this bill, this vote, is a big risk for democrats. The determination to push this legislation through, against so much opposition and so quickly, will most likely cost the democrats seats in the next election, if not possibly control of the House.

Opposition to the bill and Obama from the political left has really been vehement. So much so that John Harwood (CNBC, left leaning news channel) felt comfortable saying that if Liberals felt they could do better than Senator Reid they needed to “Lay off the hallucinogenic drugs.”

Hmmm. So now we know. I’ve always suspected there was something more to some of those wacky left wing ideas than just principled opposition.

We should be thankful for what little NATO can do

2009-12-20T18:45:00.002-05:00

Robert Kaplan asks us to be thankful for what little NATO can do.

Still, just keeping Europe on the ground, in uniform, in Afghanistan represents an achievement of sorts that we should not belittle. For this commitment comes from a Europe that the Britain-based military analyst Colin S. Gray describes, in his 2005 book, Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare, as "thoroughly debellicized": that is, a Europe whose "aversion to military solutions is not simply an opinion of the moment" but something deep-rooted and "cultural."

Unfortunately, this is the case. Possibly Europe can step up to the plate to help with policing the oceans and providing humanitarian assistance in those instances where the U.S. is already tied up doing everything else.

The way the world is shaping up, America will have no choice but to yank Europe kicking and screaming into conflict zones, even as America will have to learn to live with all of the restrictions that come with European forces. Consider: China is rising as a great power, particularly in the naval sphere. The U.S. will not fight a war with China, but it will leverage like-minded, democratic others such as India, Indonesia, Australia, South Korea, and Japan to help manage Chinese ascendancy in the maritime rimland of Eurasia. This will take a lot of work, and a lot of ships. And with the U.S. increasingly tied up in the Indian and Pacific oceans as the years and decades march on, it will help to rely increasingly on European forces to cover the the Atlantic and Africa for them. Imagine a state collapse in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, and then think how a neopacifist Europe could still help with humanitarian assistance, relieving the U.S. of some of the burden.

Sunday reading

2009-12-20T17:45:00.005-05:00

War Is Too Serious to Involve Liberals. Hmmmm. There is some truth to this.

Gitmo Does Not Cause Terrorism. And it really doesn't. The idea is absurd.

Democrats worried about a backlash. They should be!

The face of evil

2009-12-17T07:00:00.006-05:00

This is an interview of a captured suicide bomber conducted by a Pakistani news agency. I recommend watching the entire interview. It's not that long. This particular segment (below) should remind us of why we cannot waver in our war to stamp out such evil.

Anchor: Sometimes it (suicide bombing) takes place in mosques and even very young children are killed…

Bomber: Why do you consider these children innocent?

Anchor: The child who is newly born, he may become like you when he grows up; you even kill him—so are you not killing innocent?

Bomber: No. No one is innocent.

Anchor: Even not the young child?

Bomber: No.

It's telling that during the interview the bomber says: “whoever is outside Waziristan is not innocent.” The sky over Waziristan should be crowded with Predator Drones waiting to vaporize these "innocent" reptiles.

The pull of neoconservative thought

2009-12-14T12:07:00.009-05:00

In his Nobel Prize speech, in an almost Bushesque moment, President Obama said, “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.” Hmmm. I suspect the Nobel committee must have winced. Is Obama showing signs of being mugged by reality? Have the "real-world object lessons" of the past year only affirmed the perspectives of neoconservatism? Abe Greenwald at FPI thinks so.

According to Greenwald, three convictions often linked with neoconservative thought have been affirmed over the past year:

1. No matter how technologically advanced and interconnected the world becomes, there will be bad actors, and their obstinacy will remain intact. Every regime cannot be made to acquiesce through appeals to common humanity. Some can only be made pliant through threat and, if necessary, force.

2. Populations living under despotic leadership are at all times engaged in a desperate struggle for liberty. Moreover, these populations look to America, the world’s longest-running constitutional democracy, for moral and material support. All the shallow resentment of the arrogant “world police” evaporates when truncheons start coming down on the heads of dissidents. America needs to be there when support is requested.

3. A willingness to apply overwhelming and innovative military force remains critical to America’s wars — regardless of their asymmetric natures. Similarly, America cannot afford to abandon or wind down her military efforts as a response to solely temporal considerations. Short wars have to be won; long wars, more so.

The Obama surge

2009-12-07T22:34:00.003-05:00

Petraeus, who authored the surge in Iraq that began in 2007 under President George W. Bush, verified reports in The New York Times on Obama's discussions about the Afghanistan strategy were accurate. The Times reported that Obama said to Petraeus, "What I'm looking for is a surge." [from The Hill]

Few of us can forget Obama's vehement resistance to the surge in Iraq, and his subsequent denials that it worked. But yet, again, more homage to Bush.

Spite the odds

2009-12-06T08:54:00.006-05:00

Photograph: David Furst/AFP/Getty Images

The President has made his decision—finally! We will send 30,000 more American troops into that God forsaken country, Afghanistan. Can we win there? Sure we can, though, the task will be consuming and defining “victory,” or when we’ve reached it will never be clear. With enough troops, resources, and time the American Military can succeed. But the real challenge here is not one of military but one of “will.” Will the President stay in this to win? His speech created a lot of doubt. Will his party support him? Not entirely. Will the American people be willing to weather the loss of more men and money? Really hard to say, but probably only for a short period. All of this makes an outward resolve by the commander and chief all that more important.

But this much is clear. If we are going to fight, then we should go at it with full force. And the President, once he has made his decision, should leave little doubt (openly at least) about his determination to win. We owe that to our soldiers in the fight. For now, however, I remain skeptical the President has the will to succeed. The evidence does not convince me and probably not, more importantly, has it convinced our allies or the Afghan villiagers.

The President’s decision to send 30,000 American troops is far less than what General McChrystal needed. Counting on additional NATO troops to make up the difference is dubious. Yes, they will send some. But it’s doubtful NATO countries will send large numbers of fighting troops. And most of these NATO troop contingents will come with so many restrictions on their use they end up almost useless. This, again, leaves the U.S. carrying most, if not all, of the heavy load in manpower and money. It was a big mistake for the President to provide a timeline for withdrawal. Telling the enemy when you plan to leave fills him will resolve to hold out until then. The average Afghan can’t be filled with confidence knowing this either. As Mark Steyn put it:

If you're some village headman who's been making nice to the Americans, the Taliban have a whole new pitch for you: In a year and a half, the Yanks are going. But we'll still be here.

I believe victory, in a narrow sense, can be achieved. But Mr Obama's speech at West Point didn't instill much confidence. You cannot (as President Obama has) call the war in Afghanistan "a war of necessity," and in our vital interest to fight and then provide a date for withdrawal without knowing if you'll have won by then. That seems more a politician trying to have it both ways than a warrior detemined to win.

There is much to overcome. 30,000 troops will dissolve quickly in the endless waves of Afghan mountains. I’m doubtful the President has committed enough troops or gained enough NATO commitment to tip the contest in our favor over the long haul. And he has created doubt about his determination to win. The odds of failure may have only increased. Of course, I hope I’m wrong.

My hope is that the American soldier and their leaders will find a way to succeed in spite of the odds.

A speech to remember: John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address

2009-12-05T07:08:00.001-05:00

This speech makes me ask what ever happen to Democrats like JFK? Where have they gone? Obama is certainly no Kennedy.

The surge: the story behind the strategy that saved Iraq

2009-11-28T07:50:00.000-05:00

Understanding the Surge from ISW on Vimeo.

Almost every advisor President Bush consulted with pre-surge was against the surge in Iraq. This included the current SoD, Robert Gates. History, of course, has proven Gates and all the other military and civilian advisors wrong. Bush was right. President Bush had consulted with General David Petraeus and decided to go with it. In the face of all the opposition it was a courageous decision. Certainly President Bush made mistakes in other aspects of the war. But he had clarity of purpose and a determination to win. And he did not dither.

Less "clueless" more clarity

2009-11-27T09:27:00.007-05:00

Charles Krauthammer may seem a bit harsh on Holder but Senator Graham's questioning was right on. There should be no confusion between "enemy combatants" and "criminal suspect" status. No enemy combatant captured on the battlefield should be allowed a trial in our civilian court system. But the confusion is very apparent. The Obama adminstration should make it clear where they stand. Are we engaged in a war or are we just pursuing criminals? Holder says "we are at war" but then decides to try foreign enemies in federal court as if their criminals suspects captured on American soil. Trying to have it both ways, mixing rules and procedures, rights and responsibilities, can only cause hesitation and doubt on the part of our military personel in the field. Are we at war or not? If we are then treat terrorists, like KSM, as enemies.

It was President Obama who banished the words "War on Terror" from use within his administration. Now, the administraton struggles with what to call our worldwide effort to combat terrorism and seems unclear on wheather those terrorists captured are enemy combatants or criminals. If it's a war--and it is--we should make that argument demonstrably clear in how we treat our enemies. This lack of clarity, vision, and unity of purpose was apparent in Holder's confused attempt to answer Senator Graham.

Senator Lieberman is right

2009-11-27T07:57:00.003-05:00

Being truly independent in politics is something many people say they admire—until it gets in the way of what they want. “If you speak the truth,” the Turkish proverb goes, you had better “have a foot in the stirrup.” Speaking truth to power may be a good thing, but not necessarily to your own political party. At least that is the lesson for Senator Joe Lieberman. He’s had his foot in the stirrup often over the years and at least once had his horse aimed for the other camp.

Senator Lieberman may be the deciding vote on any health care legislation that passes the Senate. And he is right to stand in the way. Health care reform is needed. The current costs of our system are out of control. We cannot sustain a system that constantly outpaces inflation. Right now, however, is not the time to add trillions of dollars in debt to our already staggering fiscal nightmare. Our deficit is exploding. Our national debt is currently 12 trillion dollars. Our implicit liabilities to aging baby-boomers are upwards of somewhere around 80 trillion dollars and growing in Medicare, Social Security and other related entitlement costs. And this keeps growing and growing the longer we take to reform entitlement spending. Being worried about the debt should be the primary issue on Capitol Hill. Lieberman may be loathed by the left wing but he shouldn’t back down for the sake of the country.

The key issue for Lieberman is out of control spending. Any health care bill that includes a “Public Option” will force Lieberman to join Republicans in a filibuster, which will likely kill the bill. A death our fiscal sanity should welcome. As Lieberman points out, any government run health care system will have “unlimited liability” for the government (which we already have with Medicare). The government will always be forced to cover the costs of the program regardless of how high they go. It’s only a guarantee for more debt. We can’t punch another hole in the boat. The truth is we’re probably going to have to cut Medicare spending and raise premiums just to bring that spending behemoth under control. A big problem is that the elderly and their vanguard, AARP, will fight cuts every step of the way. But it’s got to be done.

Part of the problem is that Obama has taken on too much too soon. The health care debate, while important, should have been shelved for next year. “It’s the economy stupid,” right now. It’s looking like 2010 will not be a good year. The economy will probably sag along with the already high unemployment rate. Health care reform is important, but was not something to have jumped into now. Managing the economy, the debt, and the war in Afghanistan should have been the key issues for 2009.

Robert Guest on American Power

2009-11-27T06:15:00.000-05:00

From Pop Teach:

Robert Guest is a Washington correspondent and the Lexington columnist for The Economist, covering American news and politics. Despite some predictions otherwise, Guest suggests that America is uniquely positioned to continue as the world’s leading superpower thanks to its unparalleled ability to attract working immigrants from around the world.

Happy Thanksgiving Day

2009-11-26T07:30:00.000-05:00

And disloyal staff too

2009-11-26T07:01:00.000-05:00

Carrying on from my last post, the following comments from close friends and staff of Obama leaked out:

...watching them play one hole in the time it took our foursome to play 3 was painful. The only thing stopping us from telling them to pick it up was the incredibly large security detail he had with him.

A special prosecutor will be appointed to find the disloyal commentors, since the Chief Duffer's golf score is a matter of "natioinal security," according to David Axelrod.

Duffer and Chief

2009-11-25T08:31:00.005-05:00

The WSJ articles begins: "One day last summer, Gene Mulak, observing carnage in the sand trap, decided it was time to rescue the Leader of the Free World." Hmmmm, possibly Afghanistan, and the fate of his Presidency, was on his mind.

The news is full of comments about The Duffer and Chief forsaking Basketball for Golf. Some people seem let down Obama has moved on to the more comtemplative sport:

The fact that he isn't playing [basketball]...is a metaphor for those people who think he's gotten soft, backed off of his promises, sold out," says Claude Johnson, [the] owner of Black Fives Inc., a basketball merchandising firm in Greenwich, Conn. "When President Obama goes back to basketball, that will be a sign that we haven't lost the original guy."

I'm sure the President has not "sold out"...yet. A court appearance will surely be in the near future. All those let down by the President's sudden preference for golf should consider Lexington's thoughts:

Basketball may have more street cred, but golf will make Mr Obama a better president. Basketball requires instant reactions in the heat of the moment. Golf requires patience and strategy, calmly executed. Which qualities would you rather see in your commander in chief? Golf also forces the president to take at least four hours off work, which is surely good for his sanity.

And right now anything that makes Obama "a better president" is a good thing. Let's just hope his demonstrated skill level on the green isn't a sign of what we can expect: a lot of thinking, swinging, thinking again, swinging, cursing, thinking about it some more, swinging again, some hard cussing, thinking harder, swinging, more sand flying, but no progress toward the goal.

Peters unloads

2009-11-24T22:09:00.001-05:00

Ralph "take-no-prisoners" Peters, yet again, holding back.

Coming up short

2009-11-24T21:41:00.004-05:00

According to McClatchy Obama plans to send 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. If true, this falls short of what General McChrystal has reportedly asked for. It would be a mistake both politically and militarily. Not having enough troops means McChrystal will not have what he asked for. He will not be able to engage on all the fronts he needs to. The implications are simple. If the war goes bad then Obama will be seen as partially responsible for not properly supporting the effort. The political damage would be severe. People may be against the war but few Americans are for losing.

If McClatchy’s report pans out to be true, I can’t imagine it will be popular with the military. As Senator Kerry put it “no one wants to be the last to die for a mistake.” If the resources aren’t there, the sense of a “lost cause” will radiate through the military and an already skeptical public. There should be no half measures in this fight. That's gone on too long already. We should either commit the resources needed to win or get out.

On the strategic front, Army Major Jim Grant’s proposal, One Tribe at a Time, is getting more traction.

Thanksgiving reads

2009-11-24T18:02:00.001-05:00

As the Thanksgiving holiday gets underway here's some book recommendations for your reading pleasure:

Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West. A truly first class book that looks at the real impact of mass Muslim immigration into Europe over the past 50 years. A must read.

Inside GITMO: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay. Mostly what we get about this subject is left wing distortions. Many of them just disgraceful ax grinding. This book is a very well done. It’s very sourced and gives an honest and genuine look at the real GIMTO. The book is nicely organized and well written. Don’t waste your time with any others on the subject go with this excellent book.

How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower. This is Adrian Goldworthy’s latest. I’ve actually not had time to read this one yet, but based on my readings of his other books I’d bet this worth your time.

Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome. This is Anthony Everitt’s latest. A must read for any Roman history buff. I haven't read a bad book from this author yet.

And we're doing this for why?

2009-11-23T18:23:00.001-05:00

So if KSM will be held indefinitely--probably for the rest of his life--even if he's acquitted, then isn't this whole federal trial just political theater?

[Charles Krauthammer] So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

And what about all the wasted time and money? The military commissions are far more efficient. Obama is going to prosecute some of the GITMO prisoners using military commissions anyway. Well, why not all? A federal trial could take years when you factor in appeals. And regardless the outcome, KSM isn’t going anywhere!

Seems like a farce to me.

Sullivan helps Palin get rich

2009-11-22T08:31:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan is so obsessed with Sarah Palin. He seems almost ill with the Sarah flu. He may try to argue otherwise, but 25 posts within roughly 48 hours, all hackings at Palin, are symptoms of an obscure feverishness. Sullivan may say Palin is just a good story, but his words make it clear this is beyond just mere journalistic fascination. It’s personal:

Watching someone this delusional and this uninformed and this narcissistic strut around the world stage telling empirical untruth after untruth is a car wreck worth rubber-necking. The book is so weird, and its fiction so bad, and its facts so non-checked, you'd have to have every single journalistic bone in your body removed to be indifferent to it…She's a great story, a truly bizarre creature, an international woman of mystery, and completely off her rocker.

Of course this “truly bizarre” obsession with Ms Palin by left wing hacks like Sullivan has only helped Palin’s book sales. So I guess helping to make her rich is just reward for all those scurrilous things said about her now and in the past.

Still waiting

2009-11-21T18:33:00.000-05:00

Lexington ponders the waiting game:

AS HIS plane was refueling in Alaska en route to Asia, Barack Obama made a vow to the troops who greeted him at Elmendorf air base. “I want you guys to understand I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests,” he said. It was an old campaign line, and it drew applause. But it sounded odd, given that Mr Obama has been hesitating to commit more forces to the war in Afghanistan, which he used to call “a war of necessity” that was “fundamental to the defense of our people”.

Mr Obama told the troops that he would not risk their lives unless it was absolutely necessary. In that case, he said, “the United States of America will have your back. We will give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We will give you the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home. That is a promise that I make to you.”

Read on

Saturday reading

2009-11-21T09:14:00.000-05:00

Malign Neglect: Political correctness and institutional stupidity in the case of Nidal Malik Hasan.

Obama "Beyond Radioactive" In Many Districts Held By Democratic Reps

Holder's trials and errors

The state and journalism

U.S. Enlists Allies in New Surge