Democrats at the Crossroads

Senator Joe Lieberman pleads with his fellow Democrats to awake from their fallen state:

The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President
Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it
was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the
Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted
the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party
about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace
the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own,
because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders
made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of
partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.
By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but
Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to
the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

And with a warning to Barack Obama:

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the
footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never
met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting
down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

I think the Dems must wake up or fade into irrelevance. If the latter happens, here's hoping they don't take the country down with them. But I just can't figure why my fellow countrymen fight so hard those who fight against the terrorists.

(Not interested in) Fixing the Military

This New York Times editorial with the above title minus that in parenthesis, falls flat on offering any solutions of what our post-Iraq military should look like. It mainly repeats extreme liberal talking points that suggest there is little hope of ever fixing the myriad challenges our great armed forces face.

For instance, there is the usual complaint about the Iraq War from the Left:

"the war of necessity in Afghanistan and President Bush’s
disastrous war of choice in Iraq "

As well as the repetative comment that the military is too worn out from the war to fight:

"So alarming is the deterioration that many military commanders say
the country is unable to sustain the current operation in Iraq let alone face
down future threats. "

Though most experts concede the military is strained, no one, including our Defense Secretary has any doubts we couldn't protect ourselves if need be, since the bulk of the Air Force and Navy isn't engaged in the Middle East fight.

There is the tired lament that the Wars since 9/11 "have made the world more dangerous", which has little basis in fact unless the Times can point to a specific incident outside the Middle east on the scale of the 2001 attacks on US soil. They never can, since facts are out of place in their criticism of our commander in chief.

The Grey Lady does concede, as this blog often argues, what "the country does not need is a military ready to refight the cold war", but doesn't offer any basics. When it says the country should cancel "expensive programs that do not meet today’s threats or tomorrow’s", which pet project does it suggest we cut out of which liberal or conservative politician's district?

The paper then goes into an extended list of the military's woes, without conceding the recent good news of progress on the ground, as Democrat and Republicans have all noticed, including most recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi having seenthe change for herself.

As a helpful discussion on the Future Force, this article is not. As a partisan attack showing the liberal media's continued bias against our military and President Bush, with no interest in seeing Democracy in the Middle East or preventing a second terrorist attack on the nation, this fits in perfectly.

Pelosi Sees Success in Surge

The Democrat Speaker of the House in last weeks visit to Iraq can't doubt the evidence of her eyes. Here's Paul at Powerline:

According to AP, the Speaker, who made a surprise visit to
Iraq, "expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote
national reconciliation." She also "welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget
as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial
elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power
among local officials."

As Abe Greenwald points out, in February Pelosi said
that “the purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of
Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq; they have not
done that." Since she now finds the government is making the changes that will
promote reconciliation,

it should follow that, in her estimation, the surge is well on its way to accomplishing its purpose.

This is good news, though I have to think that even though America is safer since President Bush decided to take the war to the Islamists rather than waiting for another attack, the Left will still continue to call this an "unnecessary war", even as they shelter under our new-found security. Of course they haven't apologized to Reagan yet.

Obama's Elusive Patriotism

Barack Obama once again finds himself having to defend his patriotism to the country. How did we ever get to this point in America? Obama is continually forced to reassure the electorate, because of statements by his pastor, his wife, his own plans to talk to terrorist supporting states, that he will not sell this nation's security up the river if he becomes its commander in chief. His latest knee-jerk overreaction to comments President Bush made before the Israeli Knesset must only compound the continued doubts that the Democrat Senator has the stuff to defend America against her many foes. Listen to this latest criticism from Obama of President Bush:

(Bush and John McCain) need to answer for the fact that Al Qaida's
leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in
Afghanistan.
They've got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest
strategic beneficiary of our invasion in Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George
Bush's policies.
They're going to have to explain why Hamas now controls
Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we
should have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority.

This is the kind of blame America first that raises questions of Obama's judgement. Instead of blaming the terrorists, the radicals who blow up innocent civilians including women and children without compunction, the democrat frontrunner blames America's leaders and her policies. We have to wonder if a future President Obama is faced with another terrorist attack on a US city on the scale of 9/11, 2001, where over 3000 innocents died in the Twin Towers and Pentagon, would he respond with military force or with regrets and apologies for "George Bush's policies"?

More-His own Party is helping much either:"House Democrats Reject Troop Funding" and "Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mullen says the funding must be provided within days, or the Pentagon will be forced to begin sending layoff notices."

Bush Warns Against Appeasing Terrorists

How soon they forget.

President Bush in Israel today invoking history that some have forgotten:

...that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the
"elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death
to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the
killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the
President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and
calls for Israel to be wiped off the map....

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the
terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they
have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi
tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I
could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an
obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which
has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The Democratic response was:

Waaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

Sounds like the President hit a sore spot, one in which hopefully John McCain will remind the Left this fall.

More-John McCain gets the message.

Battleships versus the Pirates

Just found this on the Ares Blog:

A Dutch navy warship, HNLMS Evertsen (F 805), is presently busy
escorting one of the world's most luxurious cruise liners through allegedly
pirate-infested waters off Somalia...The Evertsen, a 6,200-ton air defense and
command frigate deployed in the area to protect food shipments run by the World
Food Program, happened to be on standby for a few days while awaiting the next
WFP ship to be escorted, says the Dutch defense ministry in The Hague.

Now for the question of the day:

But is this a role for a surface combatant designed and built for high-intensity
sea battles? Is this a role for any naval ship?

See? Its not just me!

A Surge into Afghanistan

If this pans out, it could mean doom for the Taliban. I sense Petraeus behind this, from the NY Times:

The Pentagon is considering sending as many as 7,000 more
American troops to Afghanistan next year to make up for a shortfall
in contributions from NATO allies, senior Bush administration officials
said.
They said the step would push the number of American forces there to
roughly 40,000, the highest level since the war began more than six years ago,
and would require at least a modest reduction in troops from Iraq.
The
planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing resignation to the fact
that NATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops despite public
pledges of an intensified effort in Afghanistan from the presidents and prime
ministers who attended an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, last
month.

With the Iraqi's beginning to stand up for their own defense, the offensive begun there by Petraeus and company can now turn the full force of American arms on this last bastion of Osama Bin Laden. Actually, the Surge there already has begun, with some 2300 new Marine forces added recently.

Depending on China to Defend the Sealanes

The cat is in the hen house. Story from Radio Australia (and thanks to Galrahn):

There's been a call for China and other Asian nations that
fish off the coast of Somalia to take part in a proposed United Nations-backed
force to combat maritime piracy.Spain's prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero, says the area off the African coast has become especially
dangerous.

I warned earlier that the new Maritime Strategy and our obsession with the Big Ship navy was conceding the littorals to the pirates. Meanwhile, while the US continues funding an all-battleship navy, we are looking to nations who still build small ships to fight a war we should be handling with ease, against Al Qaeda insurgents on the high seas. For the folly of calling on China to help us with what should the West's responsibility, consider the Anglo/Japanese Alliance of 1902 and how that worked out.

Respect for America on the Upswing

Winning tends to make you a lot of friends. This story is from the Australian:

...in a world supposedly awash in anti-US sentiment, pro-American
leaders keep winning elections. Germany's Angela Merkel is certainly more
pro-American than Gerhard Schroeder, whom she replaced. The same is true of
France's Nicolas Sarkozy.
More importantly in terms of Green's analysis, the
same is also true of South Korea's new President. Lee Myung-bak, elected in a
landslide in December, is vastly more pro-American than his predecessor, Roh
Moo-hyun.
Even in majority Islamic societies, their populations allegedly
radicalised and polarised by Bush's campaign in Iraq and the global war on
terror more generally, election results don't show any evidence of these trends.
In the most recent local elections in Indonesia, and in national elections in
Pakistan, the Islamist parties with anti-American rhetoric fared very poorly.
Similarly Kevin Rudd was elected as a very pro-American Labor leader, unlike
Mark Latham, with his traces of anti-Americanism, who was heavily defeated.

This was the reason Ronald Reagan and his successors had to work so hard to restore American power after the debacle that was the Vietnam War. Sadly, the Democrats have forgotten this hard won lesson.

No Strike Planned on Iran

Despite what you continue to hear from the hysterical Left, Galrahn believes otherwise:

We read any sustained increase of two aircraft carriers to be
a signal that a considerable amount of military activity is about to take place
in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It will be interesting to see how long the Truman
CSG remains in the region, and it could be that events on the ground in Iraq
over the next few days will decide how long the carrier remains in
theater...

Yes, we are intentionally ignoring the Iran possibilities,
although we will be monitoring this and this closely. We admit we might be willfully
denying the possibility of a strike against Iran, despite the fact that if you
add the European forces, we are currently observing the highest level of naval
presence in the Middle East region since late 2003.

Someday we may have to go in, but I think the worse thing that can happen to Iran, already has: the Iraqi's are standing up!

Petraeus, Odierno for Top Commands

General David Petraeus

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno

Here's the scoop on this major turn of events in the war, from Yahoo/AP:

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led troops
in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated by President Bush to be the next
commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said
Wednesday.
Gates said he expected Petraeus to make the shift in late summer
or early fall. The Pentagon chief also announced that Bush will nominate Army
Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Petraeus in Baghdad...

GOP presidential hopeful John McCain, R-Ariz., said he
supports both Petraeus and Odierno. He called Petraeus "one of the great
generals in American history."

Think Grant and Sherman, Lee and Jackson, Eisenhower and Patton, each of which were battle winning combos without peer. How exciting to live in these times when American arms are once again triumphant over her enemies!

Decapitating Al Qaeda

Despite reports to the contrary, Iraq is proving to be Al Qaeda's Vietnam, rather than America's. Story is from Strategypage:

Between mid-March and mid-April, al Qaeda suffered major losses in
Iraq. American and Iraqi troops killed or captured 53 al Qaeda leaders. These
include men in charge of entire cities (or portions of large cities like Mosul
or Baghdad), as well as men in charge of various aspects of terror operations
(making bombs, placing them or minding the bombers). Most important, nine of the
ten most senior men involved, were captured, and interrogated. This led to
locating more al Qaeda staff, and assets. Hundreds of weapons and explosives
caches have been discovered this year, as a result of interrogating captured
terrorists. The result has been a sharp fall in suicide bomber attacks,
and the ones still carried out are against soft targets...

Both Bush and Bin Laden has declared the Iraq front as the Center of the Terror War. Al Qaeda will likely be a force for years to come, but with such a dramatic failure within the Islamic heartland, their recruiting problems must be far worse than our own.

A Reluctant Empire at Best

Deep cuts are planned by the Sarkozy government for the French Army, one of the world's historic, technically proficient , and experienced armed forces. Then there is Canada, which recently threatened to pull its indispensable troops out of the fight in Afghanistan if other NATO allies refused to carry their fair share in the fight against radical Islam. It appears the War on Terror is less popular than the Cold War, despite the inescapable fact that with terrorism, the frontline isn't just a far-off battlefield, but thanks to the West's liberal immigration policies very often on each nation's doorstep.

It is against these internal threats which hold Britain, Denmark, France, and other European powers in mortal terror of racial violence, that the US might have to defend their allies against. Where once our legions were poised along the Central Front in Germany to deter the Soviet menace, we may soon be forced to send peacekeepers to maintain order within our traditional allies, to stave off internal collapse and a descent into Islamic domination.

America was once dragged kicking and screaming to a new global role after World War 2, by Democrats no less, after the war-weary Europeans proved unable to stem the tide of communism. Later, only after numerous attacks on her embassies, ships, and cities did she belatedly take a stand against Islamic Radicalism in the Middle East. As before, the first initial response in our dreaded new world burden was initiated by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton.

It is such a farce, then, when the Left wing blogosphere reacts with accusatory panic at each US Navy fleet movement in the Gulf region. Every new aircraft carrier deployment is viewed by the conspiracy theorists as an imminent sign of the long-predicted attack on Iranian nulcear facilities, and an expasnion of the American Empire. Anyone recall what happened during the "Week of April 6th"? Not much.

When Europe seems to be eagerly disarming and forcing its defense concerns increasingly on the US, presumably so that the former can maintain their much-loved Welfare State, charges of a "Neocon scheme" for world domination fall flat.

Iraq Forces Take Basra!

The normally pessimistic NY Times is today reporting some hopeful news as the Iraqi Army takes its country back from terrorists and Saddamists:

Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric
Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad
strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against
the fighters.

By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air
and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi
troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia
strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi
troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the
spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.

But Al Sadr still spouts defiance:

Despite the apparent concession of Basra, Mr. Sadr issued
defiant words on Saturday night. In a long statement read from the loudspeakers
of his Sadr City Mosque, he threatened to declare “war until liberation” against
the government if fighting against his militia forces continued.

But it
was difficult to tell whether his words posed a real threat or were a desperate
effort to prove that his group was still a feared force, especially given that
his militia’s actions in Basra followed a pattern seen again and again: the
Mahdi militia battles Iraqi government troops to a standstill and then
retreats.

Sadr is definitely in dire straits, and is playing his final card: threats and intimidation, while hoping either Iran or the Democrats will save his faltering cause.

This is certainly good news, because just last year as we learned the British were pulling out, there seemed little more the US could do, tied down with the Surge, to protect this southern Iraq city. More proof that as the Iraqi's stand up, we will be able to stand down!

More coverage from the Long War Journal.

Who Patton Would Vote For

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe has an idea which candidate the venerable US Warrior wouldn't cast his ballot for in the upcoming US Election:

Nowadays, the thought of losing a war isn't as hateful to some
Americans as the thought of losing an election. Recall MoveOn.org's infamous "General Betray Us" ad last fall, which was intended to
undercut the commander of US forces in Iraq. Think of Senate majority leader
Harry Reid's insistence that "this war is lost and the surge is not
accomplishing anything," or Barack Obama's unbudging claim that the "strategy is
failed" and we must "get our troops out," or Hillary Clinton's vow that
"starting on day one of my presidency, we will begin . . . to withdraw our
troops within 60 days."
Were Patton alive today, his opinion of such
defeatism would assuredly be unflattering - and unprintable. But his conviction
that Americans have no patience for losers would be reinforced by the public's
mounting confidence that the war in Iraq will be won.

I imagine he would have a few choice words for Jack Murtha as well! The "lose at any cost" mentality emanating from the 60's generation, many of which now are involved in US politics, would be abhorrent to Patton's generation, who realized there was such a thing as a "just war", and that nothing was worth losing our precious freedoms, not even death.

H/T to Murdoc.

Former Skeptics Say Army Not Broken

Some good news from the ongoing War on Terror via Fox News:

A year ago, some military experts were comparing the Army of 2007
with the army of a generation ago, at the end of the Vietnam War, when it was
considered "broken" due to morale problems and an exodus of the "best and the
brightest" soldiers from service.
(Army Maj. Gen. Bob) Scales said he didn’t
take into account that, unlike Vietnam, this Army is sending soldiers to fight
as a unit — not as individuals. He also neglected the "Band of Brothers"
phenomenon — the feeling of responsibility to fellow soldiers that prompts
members of service to re-enlist.
"The soldiers go back to the theater of war
as units," Scales said. "They are bonded together, they know each other, they
don't have to fight as an army of strangers.
"I was wrong a year ago when I
forecast the imminent collapse of the Army. I relied a little bit too much on
the data and not enough on the intangibles."

This is something I've noticed all along-that the Army is not broken but becoming battle hardened. The Liberal dominated Media would much prefer we look on the troops as victims of an "unjust war", rather than the true heroes they are.

Fallon Channels Patton, McClellan

One thing a serving officer should always remember: even if he disagrees with his Commander in Chief's military policy, he should keep his mouth shut to reporters. Admiral William Fallon, now former head of Central Command, didn't get the memo. From David Ignatius:

The first thing that many of Adm. William Fallon's colleagues note
about him is that he's a Navy officer. By that, they mean he has the stubborn
self-confidence, some would say arrogance, that is part of command at sea. He
knows how to wear his dress whites and receive a snappy salute -- and he likes
telling people off when he thinks they're wrong.
Those headstrong qualities
were part of why Fallon was chosen to run Central Command, arguably the most
important senior post in the U.S. military today.
And they explain why
Fallon finally crashed and burned Tuesday, tendering his resignation after his
blunt comments to an Esquire magazine writer had gotten him into one too many
conflicts with the White House and the military brass.

The 2 famed Generals I mentioned in the title both saw their careers cut short (or at least was far less than they could have been) because they failed to observe the rule I mentioned. After the war, though, these warriors went on to even greater fame, and for his dissent of the administration, look for Fallon to become a poster boy for the antiwar Democrats.

Why They Fight

Here is the real story of Iraq, and what the protesters war against when they slander our troops:

A two-year-old Iraqi girl returned to Haditha March 7 after
undergoing open-heart surgery at the Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at
Vanderbilt University.
Ala Thabit Fattah, the girl’s father, and several
family members traveled with Marines to Baghdad International Airport to meet
Amenah, who departed Iraq Jan. 22 with his wife.
“I am very happy. I was very
worried that my daughter would not come home alive,” Fattah said. “I am very
grateful for the great treatment the American people gave to my family.”
The
family then flew to Al Asad Airbase in Al Anbar Province, where they boarded an
MV-22 Osprey for the final leg of the voyage to Haditha.
Back home, the
family served a dinner in her honor.
“I’ve got four children, two boys and
two girls myself; I was very happy to see a father, mother and child reunite,”
said Maj. Kevin Jarrard, Company L’s commanding officer and the architect behind
the medical effort.

Here is what the Code Pinkers and others attack when they defame our recruiting centers: the only hope many poor countries have, that the US Military will step in and save them from dictators, and give freedom a fighting chance.

Thanks to Blogs for Victory for this story.

Military Recruiting Post Bombed

Could this be the next level in the Left-wing attacks on our troops, as we've recently seen occurring in Berkeley California? From Yahoo/AP:

An explosive device caused minor damage to an empty military
recruiting station in Times Square early Thursday, shaking guests in hotel rooms
high above "the crossroads of the world."...

Witnesses staying at a
Marriott hotel four blocks away said they could feel the building shake with the
blast. "I was up on the 44th floor and I could feel it. It was a big bang," said
Darla Peck, 25, of Portland, Oregon. "It shook the building. I thought it could
have been thunder, but I looked down and there was a massive plume of smoke so I
knew it was an explosion," said Terry Leighton, 48, of London, who was staying
on the 21st floor of the Marriott.

And the Leftist connection:

In October 2005, a group of activists who call themselves the
Granny Peace Brigade rallied there against the Iraq war. Eighteen activists,
most of them grandmothers with several in their 80s and 90s, were later
acquitted of disorderly conduct.

Of course, we can't discount Islamic terrorist action, especially considering NY's recent history with this problem. As we have seen so often in the Middle East, Al Qaeda excels in spreading confusion and discord among nations. The evidence, due to recent events however, is damning against the Left. Funny, how there are so against America fighting her enemies overseas, but have no such revulsion in attacking our troops here.

When prominent Democratic politicians, like Howard Dean and John Kerry in the last election, plus current presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, repeat unfounded rumors that "Bush lied to get us into war", it is only natural that their more radicals followers seek to take matters in their own hands. Meanwhile, to further their own political means, the liberal politicians excuse their own complicity in getting us in the war, as it was Democrats who first sounded the clarion against Saddam's WMD programs in the 1990's.

More from John at Powerline "Given the increasing virulence of attacks on the military and on military recruiting facilities by antiwar groups like Code Pink, most notably the repeated confrontations in Berkeley, one could speculate that a liberal group is the most likely culprit."

Even more-Gateway Pundit has photos.

McCain Beats Hillary, Obama

In a nationwide poll, the Maverick Iraq War proponent has the edge over his liberal competitors come November. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who has largely tied
his candidacy to the war in Iraq, narrowly leads both Barack Obama and Hillary
Rodham Clinton in a general election matchup, according to a new Los Angeles
Times-Bloomberg poll.
Among those surveyed, McCain won higher marks than
either Obama or Clinton for having the right experience and the ability to
handle Iraq and terrorism — and most other issues, except health care.

This is proof positive that the War on Terror, which the other side has ignored save for calling for retreat and withdrawal, is still important in the eyes of most Americans. The public realizes the dire need to avert a return to past defensive policies as during the Clinton era, or the Carteresque appeasement you would likely get from Obama.