The Stem-Winding Palaver to Avoid Speaking of Dr. Abdullah.
POTUS remarks in the Oval Office re Afghanistan, "...we were going to do an additional assessment... civilian side, diplomatic side, development side... then take further decisions moving forward... very deliberate process in making those decisions... no immediate decision pending on resources.... have to get the strategy right and then make determination about resources.... absolute clarity what the strategy is going to be..."
What the Palaver to Avoid Mentioning Abdullah Means.
The Politburo at the White House (Rahm, Ax, Rice, McDonough, etc) has long since decided to declare victory in Afghanistan and then to start strategic withdrawal of combat troops. That is what POTUS means by "get the strategy right..." This is Oval Office speak for quit, bug out, send in the diplomats, write checks, hand off to the allies. General Stanley McChrystal will ask for additional troops -- "resources" -- and will get a few. This will drag out till next March. The complication is that the Karzai brothers are rotten partners and stole the election so grotesquely that everyone knows Kabul stinks. The latest twist is that Imperial Envoy Richard Holbrooke is attempting to knit Karzai and the real winner of the election Dr. Abdullah into a government of national unity. I am told this will not work because the Karzai brothers do not share, and they have plundered the aid budgets and the opium trade so hugely they will be disprespected (euphemism) by their cronies if they try to split the take. Also, Dr. Abdulah has not been briefed on the backstairs deal by Saudi Intelligence to use the ISI to buy the Taliban and make a hudna with Al Qaeda. Abdullah may not approve of the notion of making his country an aid cash cow for Islamabad. Abdullah, as the legitimate winner of the election, will not obey the Politburo. The POTUS remarks today were addressed to everyone but the next president of Afghanistan. The Great Game, Chapter 98. The Obama administration is making all the rookie mistakes very quickly and without much joy at being gamed by the Pashtuns.
Tell me what you make of this Mr. Bachelor. Today the President had a meeting with Secretary Colin Powell. Also today, Secretary of Defense Gates stated that China could become a problem for US assets transiting the Pacific (yes, this is the same man who canceled the F-22 because we wouldn't be fighting a symmetrical war with a nation-state any time soon). Secretary Gates stated that this blocking of transit would not cause a face off of fighter to fighter but rather have far reaching issues on the high seas (I will laughingly say that perhaps Secretary Gates has forgotten the US' last naval confrontation was in the air and didn't go well because the Chinese fighter demonstrating his confrontational skills killed himself flying into the Navy P-3 but I digress). Powell's visit was followed by a visit by the Secretary of Defense.
What might these "visits" be about--are we about to get a new SECDEF? Or was the President searching for outside advice on Afghanistan? Anon.
I wonder, if the additional evaluation and determination processes contain similar language to the following?:
-coordination of questions of strengthening of military security and measures of trust, exchange of offers in the field of defence and safety;
- coordination of actions concerning security control and control of air space;
- interaction in questions solved by the Navies, maintenance of sea communications and safety at sea;
- training of military men in military schools of the sides, joint preparation of military-scientific and scientific-and-pedagogical personnel;
- direction of military specialists for training of national military and military-technical staff;
- interaction concerning military communications, systems of automated control;
- interaction in the field of military intelligence;
- organisation of military inter-state transportations;
- meteorological, hydrological and topographical support of troops;
- logistical and technical support of troops.
Sounds like it could be a well thought out directive... don’t you think?
Hey, wait a minute. Scroll back up. Isn’t Afghanistan a landlocked country? Hold on, let me look at my globe. Hmm... yes, it is. What does a Navy interaction mean to a desert country without coastal waters?
Whoops! Sorry, this is the ongoing negotiations with Russia and the breakaways of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and they talk about construction, military infrastructure and bases, and the grouping of troops. For some reason, they want to project it out for 49 years. Why 49? Why not a round number like 50?
I apologize. Darn, I thought I was onto something. Well, how about I just ask a question??
Can we really leave?
Whistling Georgia on My Mind.
Yes, but, the Pacific has a huge neutrality component.
Wasn't the program way over budget, way behind schedule, and in no way was going to deliver the enhancements it promised?
Or was that the ARH? Yeh, that was that rotor wing.
Anyway, the F22 was an awesome machine deemed to be "not needed" at a cost of 140Mil apiece... and it did deliver what it promised.
So is today's headline the answer: Pulling out of Missile Shield (who really cares about Eastern Europe anyway, right? oh, that was for our protection too?) and Russia "wins" a concession and will immediately help us with Iran!
Who is fooling who here? My guess is we will be hearing a very major shift in ISAF shortly--expect NATO to begin withdrawing troops (in drips and drabs but definitely a withdrawal) soon.
I read what the NATO chief had to say, still doesn't mean the alliance is dead. Estonia is toast and Finland (never a part of NATO) needs to reconsider what "Finlandisation" efforts it should be looking to. Great Britain and France (as long as Sarkozy is there) will stand by us even if we won't stand by ourselves.
Personally still wishing for 370 plus F-22s right now--it's the only way we'll reach borders of Af-PAK in the future.....sigh.
And it all makes sense, as long as you a. don't believe Iran has long range missiles (see public failure of N. Korea's missiles) b. think this helps Russia feel better about it self (I thought that's why we weren't concerned about Venezuela!)and that they will "influence" Iran for us (LOL) and c. we are as bankrupt as we appear to be (take it either way--in money or political will). Anon.
TRANSLATING OBAMASPEAK INTO ENGLISH
Mr. B: Thank you, for the translation. I had no idea what POTUS was talking about. Although he kept saying he wanted to be perfectly clear, it was clear he wasn't clear. Great tie, though.
Two things about the Afghan election that's worrying: 1) It was 'grotesquely' stolen just a short time after the Iranian election was 'grotesquely' stolen. Having seen what happened in Iran, why wasn't Karzai even a little concerned about doing the same thing? 2) Since the Afghan people don't seem to be too upset by the stolen election, can we ever expect the Afghan army/police to be committed to any national gov't -- stolen or otherwise -- unless it's an IRG type of force.
I've come to the conclusion that we should be out of Afgan. The US no longer has the will to fight an aggressive, short, full throttle war. The alternative is a slow grind where our guys are target practice for a bunch of medievalists. If they don't give McCyrstal all he wants, give him nothing and leave in an orderly way.
I'm for war by cruise missile and special op's.
BO is a joke as CIC.
*Everyone* though Neville Chamberlain was Brilliant, he got a piece of paper signed by Chancellor Hitler, oh joy! The press corp surrounding the UKPM and POTUS thought Mr. Hitler was reasonable and quite engaging.
Leftist policy wonks want to "denuclearize" the planet. They truly believe China, Russia, and Iran will simply dis-assemble their nuclear stockpiles. If the USA has no Nukes: China invades Taiwain, Russia invades Alaska, and Iran nukes Tel Aviv. What's to stop them?
Can we really leave the arena? Do We Dare? The situation could change quickly...
On September 8, 2009, Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony that the mission of Iran’s Islamic regime was to raise the banner of Mahdism throughout the world.
Following are excerpts from an English translation of his September 10 speech, as published by Press TV.
"Our enemies cunningly and intelligently try to [preoccupy] us with small concerns, so that we do not think and achieve great goals.
"Today the world [is] disappointed with the dominance of the [Western] theory of development, and has reached a dead end. Today our mission is not limited to the internal affairs of [our] country; it is a worldwide mission to open a way for global human society to escape from this disappointing situation."
"Can the World Imagine a Template for the Past, Present, and Future of Human Society That Is Superior to the society of Ali and the Mahdi?"
Secretary Gates says today that he is concerned with Iran "running out the clock" regarding their nuclear program. He indicated, though, there is still time for diplomacy and sanctions to persuade them of the security risks they expose themselves to by pursuing nuclear weapons.
Does "running out the clock" mean the same thing as "running out of time"???
Sure seems similar to me or maybe even really close to having the same exact meaning.
IIf the premise for Missile Defense in Eastern Europe was to take out intercontinentals launched from Iran potentially with nuclear warheads on board and the policy of the US is that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons then I guess there really is no need for Missile Defense designed to take out intercontinantals launched from Iran.
How will we or the UN or the IAEA stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Only those who don't want to develop nuclear weapons or can't develop them, don't develop them. Iran says they don't want to...do we or the UN or the world believe them?
IAEA says Iran already has the capability; delivery is a supposed issue. According to the President and the DOD they have short and medium range missiles--if they have nuclear warheads they can hit: Israel (already a declared "menace" by Iran), Saudi Arabia (who are Kafir--rejectors of the true faith), Turkey (ditto), Afghanistan and Pakistan (a small part). Ooooh, Afghanistan?!
So we will put ships which already have these weapons which can "knock" down these missiles in the "east Mediterranean" (and maybe the Indian Ocean although I heard no mention of that). This isn't a new system (faster etc yes; new, no). We have this system and we were going to have land based kinetic missiles (non-nuclear) but now we will try to put on European soil (or Turkish?) mobile kinetic missiles.
I am guessing the President was about 22 years old when we try to put the mobile nuclear kind of missiles in Europe and he may have missed the big demonstrations then, but, hey, these new ones wont be Ground Launch Cruise Missiles; they're non-nuclear and Eastern Europe might not be too "ticked" off with today's "brush off" to say OK in 7 or 8 years time.....and if you are asking why Eastern Europe actually look at a globe--if we stop them there, then Iran can't hit the US (of course this 7-8 years is supposedly the same time frame as when Iran will develop long range weapons.)
Now look at the administration's logic above and see what they aren't saying: 1. The administration assumes that Iran will develop long range weapons (and if you look close enough at this logic, long range nuclear weapons). 2. it assumes Iran will try and hit Israel (or Saudi the Kafir or even Turkey if they get the notion). 3. It assumes that Russia will not help Iran or harass Eastern Europe (that part of Eastern Europe that isn't Ukraine or Georgia).
But what about Afghanistan? A small med-range weapon sent to "name an ISAF base" might not be such a bad thing from an Iranian viewpoint, right? Or is it my paranoia setting in? anon.
Juliet- whisper it and we will strike at them...
Problems with China likely will not be "symmetrical war" even if "with a nation-state." F-22 is a better caltrop in 1913.
Couple of thoughts:
1) missile defense we proposed may or may not work;
2) it was important because it was a guarantee for the Poles and Czechs;
3) there is a Russian sphere of influence ("near abroad," they call it), we should respect; on the other hand
4) Central Europe (Poland, the Czechs, the Slovaks, now [probably] the former Yugoslavia) aren't part of it; so
5) this should have been managed better.
Mike - Just as capitalism has been trashed by a series of high-profile organized failures, democracy is being trashed in the same way. That is why I worry about the next election cycle here in America. Will it be legitimate? Will we even bother to have elections? With Obama at the helm, who could want for more?
Why stop at Alaska?
The F-22 can in fact act as an "area denial weapon"--so if I could send it back in time, would we use it to support the Second Revolution and keep Song Jiaoren from being assassinated? Or would the F-22 be used to contain China in the same way that President Wilson thought if he didn't support funding to allow democratcists to buy arms he would be supporting a more stable China?--does it make 1913 China a metaphor for today's Iran? If so, all I can say is look how well that went for us. Wilson definitely made a more stable China--but only after decades of war, revolution and terror and then as a communist state. Is this Afghanistan's fate or Iran's? (not to communism but to religious fascism.)
Our current Afghanistan problem--we have an administration who does not understand (or refuses to) that a strong approach to Russia, Iran and the rest of the world, though not popular keeps us from whatever the fate will be for those who misunderstand that negotiation from weakness gets you something other than a punch in the eye.
The European side of NATO will soon desert us--the west side because it has never really wanted to come to our support--it makes them nervous. The east side because they will have to stay a part of Europe and not a defacto Russian providence....Canada, because of strong public outcry, has already all but pulled out. OK, the prime minister says their mission is becoming more diplomatic versus military but that is just so much BS. (In fact it's so good I await the US administration using that very line soon!) Anon.