This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Jonn Lilyea

  • Gore gives expert advice to President

    Yesterday in an interview with ABC, Al Gore, that expert on deploying combat forces, called the war in Iraq “the worst strategic mistake in USA history”. So since he’s such an expert on warfighting, I decided to to post proof that he knows what he’s talking about;

    Al Gore in Vietnam

    Gore went on to say “I would urge the President to try to separate out the personal issues of being blamed in history for his mistake and instead recognizing that it is not about him. It’s about our country.” Ironically, it’s the same advice I would have given Al Gore after the 2000 election when he whined for weeks about Republicans stealing elections. (Did I say weeks? I meant years) 

    The war in Iraq was only a logical extension of the war against terror. It makes more sense to kill jihadists in Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan. geographically, it’s ideal. Placed between Syria and Iran, the two biggest state-sponsors of terror, and wide open terrain with big fields of fire as opposed to Afghanistan’s relatively isolated location and mountainous terrain.

    Strategically, the Bush Administration’s plan to use Iraq as the battlefield is brilliant – Iraq attracts large numbers of foreign jihadists while our expert troops pop their empty heads open with well-placed 5.56mm and 7.62mm fire.

    Further on in the interview, Gore avoids the interviewer’s question about whether he’d immediately withdraw troops if he were president. That’s the Democrat plan - broad, blathering criticism about the current administration while deftly dodging opportunities to offer solutions.  I guess that’s the only way they can figure how to avoid lying – not saying anything.

  • Two from column A and one from column B

    The Iraq Study Group gave their report to the President this morning, and since they leaked their report last week, there are no new surprises. It demonstrates how useless these “bipartisan” commissions have become;

    As expected, the panel’s recommendations attempt to cut a middle path between demands by many Democrats for a firm timetable for a U.S. withdrawal and President Bush’s insistence that U.S. troops remain in Iraq until the job is done.

    How do you compromise on the right answer? I know it’s popular to subscribe to the platitude that there are no more right answers, but obviously, that’s just wrong. You can’t compromise on the answer to the math problem 1+1=?, just like you can’t compromise on the answer on how to be successful against the dark forces arrayed against us. Either we are or we aren’t.

    Democrats can’t even agree on a strategy. In Newsweek this week, Silvestre Reyes, the incoming Intelligence Committee chair said;

    “We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.

    So which is it, guys? More troops like Reyes says or a withdrawal like the Baker Commission suggests?

    And as I said in earlier post, this “quick reaction force” to support the mobile training teams left behind in Iraq just won’t work. It didn’t work in Viet Nam and it won’t work in Iraq. It’s be like supporting the San Francisco police department from Oregon – it’s too far to be a deterrent. And what is the QRF going to do when it’s not needed?

    This reminds me of the 9/11 Commission report that never really decided anything except that they all agreed that someone brought down the World trade center on September 11th, 2001. They had no real recommendations, they never pointed a finger at the real culprits, and no real workable solutions to prevent the inevitable future attack. Because the whole report was a compromise between competing political factions, rather than a report from experts on the subject.

    The report is no different. Attempting to reach a political compromise on what action we should take to win in the Middle East, this “study group” has only muddied further the waters. I’d like to take the study group, put them in body armor, give them a rifle and send them out to patrol in Baghdad – maybe then they’d have a better idea as to what our troops need, because the answer isn’t in some regurgitated campaign commercial.

  • Just one question

    Can anyone tell me what John Bolton has done in the last 16 months to not deserve the job as our Ambassador to the United Nations? Can anyone can point to any specific incident that indicates that he wouldn’t serve the interests of the American People? Did his supposed bad temper cost us some valuable concession from an adversary? Has he embarrassed the country somehow? Well…other than the fact that he was appointed to the post by a Republican President, I mean.

    John Kerry offers his insight;

    “With the Middle East on the verge of chaos and the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea increasing, we need a United Nations ambassador who has the full support of Congress and can help rally the international community to tackle the serious threats we face.”

    But the Republicans have created this partisanship, right? The President has alienated the Democrats, right?

  • Holocaust deniers they’ll tolerate, but…

    In the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal today is a reprint of a letter from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Olympia Snowe (?-ME) to Rex W. Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobile. According to the senators, ExxonMobile has damaged the stature of the United States in the world by supporting “global climate change skeptics”.

    and those skeptics access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.

    Don’t these two clowns have anything else to do than bother working Americans like Mr. Tillerson who happen to disagree with the Democrat party (and whatever party Ms. Snowe belongs to these days)?

    I find it terribly troubling that two of the people whose sworn job it is to protect Americans’ freedom to speak as they please are telling Americans to stop disagreeing with them. Not only that, they “cc” a copy of their letter to the Wall Street Journal – like some terrorist manifesto warning to other corporations who dare disagree with their fantasies about global climate change.

    ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the credibility and stature of the United States. Large corporations in related industries have joined ExxonMobil to provide significant and consistent financial support of this pseudo-scientific, non-peer reviewed echo chamber. The goal has not been to prevail in the scientific debate, but to obscure it.

    Funny, but this letter appears to be an attempt at “obscurring” any opposing opinion to the views held by these two senators. And since when do they know pseudo-scientific when they see it? What sort of research have these two knuckleheads done in the field, other than listening to other blowhards wax endlessly about the coming doom and end of Man?

    And I find no fewer than five times is the phrase “credibility and stature of the United States” used in this letter. I wonder if they think that withdrawing our troops from Iraq would have any effect on the credibility and stature of the United States.

  • Jimmy Carter plans his funeral

    I guess Jimmuh was on CSPAN today and discussed his preferences for how he wanted to be planted when his time comes. Personally, I hope there is a viewing in the rotunda scheduled for him when he expires (whenever he goes, it won’t be soon enough). I, for one plan to go. No Democrat has done more for the Conservative movement than Jimmy Carter.

    He demonstrated to the world how ineffectual government really is and how, when the chips are really down, nothing is better to cure this country’s ills than the American People themselves.

    With the Soviet Union marching across Afghanistan towards warm water ports, thousands of Cuban soldiers marching across Africa and thousands of Cuban refugees paddling across the Caribbean, Communist guerillas marching up the Central American peninsula, Soviet combat brigades stationed in Cuba – 90 miles from our coastline, OPEC holding American energy needs hostage, Islamofacists holding real  Americans hostage, the top marginal tax rate at 70%, inflation creeping towards double-digits, unemployment reaching double-digits nothing was more comical than our President, wearing a cardigan telling us to turn down the thermostat, put on a sweater and stop complaining – the epitome of useless Federal government.

    Every Conservative should show up for Jimmy’s funeral. Who knows what could’ve happened if he had been the least bit electable in 1980. Thank you, Jimmy Carter. Hell, I’ll even give his eulogy.

  • NYT vs. Bloggers

    The New York Times is outraged that FloppingAces has questioned the ability of bloggers to accurately report the news. In light of the New York Times’ failure to accurately report the news with their vast resources, I think they’re displaying a bit of hypocrisy. We’ve got Reuter’s faked pictures, we’ve got ABC’s faked documents along with New York Times editorials masked as front page news stories. Everyday.

    So what makes the bloggers of the world any less dependable than these supposed professional news organizations? Maybe the bloggers are more accurate because they don’t seem to be blinded by editorial boards, most of the bloggers I’ve read are more interested in national security than partisan wrangling. The new York Times should just sit back and watch how it’s done for a change.

  • Chavez; the Left’s darling

    Aside from the fact that Jimmy Carter certified his recall election in 2003, the Left has been in love with Hugo Chavez, former brother paratrooper and current Venezuelan President. On every discussion forum where I’ve participated in the last six years, The resident Leftists have gone out of their way to defend this populist-cum-Leftist-cum-communist applauding the way he “bravely” stands up to the US (when was the last time the US attempted to assasinate a foreign leader who wasn’t a threat to our national security?), the way he “bravely” seizes foreign assets and nationalizes them (like his mentor Fidel Castro did in Cuba-bankrupting a previously profitable economy).

    Hugo (pronounced oo-go in Spanish) has offered oil to the US poor through his now-nationalized oil company (Citgo) while his own people live in abject poverty – hundreds of thousands in lean-to huts on the edge of high-rise projects in urban areas.

    Well, now Hugo has threatened to shut down non-state media outlets in Venezuela and yesterday, on the eve of his election, shutdown US-based Telemundo’s election coverage. Doesn’t sound very liberal (in classical sense of the word) does it? Telemundo, though based in the US is far from US friendly (I watch their nightly news at least three time every week just to keep my language skills current), in fact I’d call them pro-Chavez given the coverage I’ve seen there.

    So what’s Chavez worried about. Nothing, really. He’s just demonstrating that he has a firm grasp of the people’s throats in Venezuela. He’s using the US as his boogeyman to scare people into believing that he’s the only thing that stands between them and US occupation – in the Noriega mold.

    The real danger in Chavez’ personnae is that he’s funding loyal Leftists and communists in neighboring countries with his oil profits. So the supposed “populist”, is funneling money that could go to help his own people into a buffer zone of South and Central American fiefdoms withholden to Chavez. In our own backyard.

     This threatens the security of the entire region. We are still dependent on the Panama canal to move our goods to market and keep our Navy supplied to some extent. They just voted to widen the Canal this last year which will increase our traffic there. We still depend on Latin American oil (the chance that we’ll develop our own resources in the next five years is pretty grim given the current make-up of Congress).

    And now he’s claimed victory in yesterday’s election – and in typical style has claimed it was a blow to President Bush, a point reiterated unsurprisingly by Iran. I wonder if he’s planning to get the chair at the DNC next year.

  • Proof the “Baker Commission” are amateurs

    After a coupla days working instead of blogging, I picked up the Wall Street Journal this morning and read about how the “Baker” commission report was mysteriously “leaked” yesterday – a week before its presentation to the people who actually commissioned the study. So while I was reading through the WSJ article (requires subscription), I nearly choked on my cup of Cafe Duran Puro;

    Currently, the U.S. has about 3,500 advisers posted there, divided into 10-man teams and embedded with Iraqi Army and police units. As late as Nov. 24, the panel was soliciting advice from military experts on how to ensure that the Army and Marine Corps select their best and brightest officers for advisory duty. In recent months, that task has fallen to less-experienced National Guard and reserve officers. The final report will likely recommend that the advisory program be increased by “several thousand officers,” said one person involved in the debate.

    So what does the Commission think? That all we have to do is snap our fingers and “several thousand officers” will suddenly appear with the proper training and qualifications? That’s just absurd. And as far as calling National Guard and Army Reserve Officers “less-experienced” well, that’s just plain ignorant. I used to train prospective officers at ROTC Advanced Camp every summer at Fort Bragg as a platoon TAC NCO. Officers are all trained the same; we don’t discriminate between reserve, Guard or Regular Army cadets.

    When they become commissioned officers, they all attend the same officer basic courses, irrespective of their commissioning source – they’re all held to the same standard. Many who are part-time Guard or Reserve Component are police officers in their own communities and so they bring MORE expertise to the job than some active duty officers might.

    Many active duty officers who the commission are calling more experienced spend much of their career in staff jobs. Their time with line soldiers is minimal – which is why NCOs are called the “Backbone of the Army”. Most NCOs spend their whole careers with line troops while officers spend a year on the line, then become the Battalion Motor Officer or Mess Officer for a year. Some lieutenants who excel might get two line platoons in a row if the get a “special platoon” (Recon or mortar) after their initial platoon leader job.  

    That’s not much more experience than a Reserve or Guard Officer might get.

    Next I encountered this nugget in the story;

    The study group’s hope is that the larger U.S. military presence within Iraqi units would help them to improve more quickly and allow U.S. forces to pull back to larger, more secure bases away from Iraqi cities. The U.S. advisers would have the ability to quickly call on American forces if their units were being challenged or overrun.

    Now, where’d they get that idea? Right out of the Mobile Training Teams of Vietnam. Remember the John Wayne movie “Green Berets” when the camp was getting over run with Viet Cong and the Americans in the base had to call for a “Mike Force” to rescue them and turn back the Communists? That’s where the commission got the idea. From the same old failed policies of the Vietnam era.

    The politicians and media are trying to direct activity on the ground reminiscent of those photos of LBJ pouring over maps of North Vietnam picking bombing targets for the Navy and Air Force. Is this what we get when we get Democrats? More of the same fouled stuff?

    Just like the Clinton Administration and mission creep in Somalia while second-guessing commanders and refusing to give them the armor they needed and our troops died waiting for Pakistani armor to rescue them. Just like in Kosovo and Serbia, politicians determining flight altitude and limited action so that more civilians died than if direct action had been applied instead.

    I guess with Democrats we get deja vu all over again. No new ideas, just repackaged failures. To quote Jon Podhoretz in his article in the NY Post; Please stop laughing at the doddering old fools now. It’s disrespectful.