Courtesy of Reuters:

Outnumbered U.S. troops defend Afghan frontier

U.S. commanders are rushing thousands of reinforcements to the south of Afghanistan to take on the Taliban in what Washington considers a make-or-break year for a war it now views as its main security priority.

Here in the east of the country, the official line from top commanders is that they now have all the troops they need.

But down on the ground, in the high mountain passes on the east bank of the Kunar river which guerrillas have been using to smuggle fighters and weapons in from Pakistan for decades, the soldiers of 6/4 squadron tell a different story.

The fighting is hard and constant, and they do not have enough men to stop the Taliban infiltrating across the border.

In January, U.S. commanders sent an extra 700 troops to the area south of 6/4 squadron’s territory. The new troops are just “a drop of water” in the sea, said one soldier who asked not to be identified while discussing the shortage of manpower.

and this, from AP:

Obama: Early to mull more troops in Afghanistan

President Barack Obama says he needs to see how fast Afghanistan can be stabilized and led toward a more democratic government before deciding whether more troops are needed.

He did not rule out the possibility of sending even more troops, while
stressing such a decision was premature at this point and that U.S. military action is not the only answer to bringing stability to the region.

“We have to see our military action in the context of a broader
effort to stabilize security in the country, allow national elections
to take place in Afghanistan and then provide the space for the vital
development work that’s needed so that a tolerant and open,
democratically elected government is considered far more legitimate
than a Taliban alternative,” Obama said.

“My
strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on
more and more troops,” he added. “The military component is critical to
accomplishing that goal, but it is not a sufficient element by itself.”

“The starting point was a recognition that the existing trajectory was
not working, that the Taliban had made advances, that our presence in
Afghanistan was declining in popularity, that the instability along the
border region was destabilizing Pakistan as well,” Obama said.

I submit that stability can only come with the suppression of the Taliban.  I have a hard time understanding why the lessons learned in Iraq are NOT being applied to this front in the continuing war again those who would like nothing more than to tear the world back down to the stone age.

I will agree with Obama that the military force is not the only answer, but it is a critical component to it.  Without sufficient military force to suppress the bad actors – the local taliban that terrorize villages inside Afghanistan; the smugglers bringing in new fighters and war supplies for the agents of oppression; the Al-Qaeda elements whose sole motive is to spread choas and anarchy, to pave the way for the new Caliphate – there can be no political or social improvement.  Indeed, the people will not stand with us, when we do not have the force, and more importantly, the appearant will to win.

Let’s face it, the United States, with the notable exception of Iraq (not for lack of effort on the Democrat’s part) has a recent history of grasping defeat from the jaws of victory.  And even Iraq had to be a “two parter” becuase of a lack of resolve to finish the job the first time (leaving untold thousands of Kurds and Southern Iraq’s to Saddams tender mercies).

Until we repeat our commitment to winning the Peace in Afghanistan, by shutting down the ability of the Taliban to terrorize the population, through the use of overwhelming firepower, we will continue to lose ground, and more lives will be lost, on all sides.

When I was much younger, we had a saying:  “Peace through Superior Firepower”.  Never has this been more true than in this conflict.

Our enemy (not our Opponent – this isn’t a soccer game) knows the terrain, and has a warrior mindset that has deated every “invader” since Alexander the Great.  They will not stop until they are back in control of Afghanistan, and add in Pakistan to boot.

If we don’t get serious about this threat, just like with Obama’s budget, our children will pay for our mistakes.

I have been, for a number of reasons, silent for the last several weeks.

One issue was technical – I found that my Hosting company was not practicing basic security measures, and had allowed my sites to become vulnerable to various threats.  So, it became necessary to move the site to a new hosting company, with a much better reputation.  As a plus, the new firm is very supporting of Word Press blogs, and it is making my life a LOT easier from a site maintenance perspective.

On the personal front, I have been in the final stages of starting up a new company, and tying up things with my former employer.  Amazing how much time that can take up.

And finally – I decided to sit back and watch the Political situation for awhile, and see what developed.

I will be interested to see what changes of perspective and insight I gain as an entrepreneur, versus a cog of a of a large, soulless, corporate machine.

———-

I would like to note, however, that I was very unpleasantly surprised during the last election cycle at just how low the level of discourse has fallen.

While at an informal function (no-host bar, everyone somewhat lubricated)  just before the election, I allowed myself to be pulled into a political discussion.

People that I have known, and done business with for years, were actually SHOUTING at me, for daring to admit that I was voting for someone other than Obama.  This ran the spectrum from 20 somethings to one gentlemen that is in his 60s.

As I tried in vain to have a rational discussion of basic political theory, it quickly degenerated to loud voices from some, to exclusion from others.

This has event has weighed on my mind heavily for the last month or two.  I have finally decided that I must be extremely careful, going forward, to refrain from any political discussions in public – at least with people that I must work with and around.  Not for personal safety reasons; but because so many people are unable to have any sense of perspective and proportion.

It’s just an election, people.  We survived Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon.  We can survive Obama’s warmed over New Deal and Clinton era Retreads.

After all, I am an American first, and a Conservative Libertarian second.  If Obama succeeds, Hip Hip Hooray.  If he fails utterly, there is another election in 2010, where we can take back the Senate (and maybe the House, if its bad enough); and another Presidential election in 2012.

Courtesy of Reuters/Yahoo News:

Senate lawmakers in Florida have voted to ban the fake bull testicles that dangle from the trailer hitches of many trucks and cars throughout the state.

Yes, you read that right: Fake Bull Testicles. But why?

Republican Sen. Cary Baker, a gun shop owner from Eustis, Florida, called the adornments offensive and proposed the ban.

First of all, I don’t understand what Sen. Baker being a gun shop owner has to do with this, unless it’s to A) prove that he’s REALLY a Republican (i.e. gun nut, and unstable in general), B) denigrate all gun shop owners by tarring them by association with this legislator.

My personal issue with Sen. Baker is that he wants to ban something just because HE finds it “offensive”. In particular, I find the misuse of government time and resources even debating such an issue as offensive.

And what fate does Sen. Baker suggest for transgressors?

Motorists would be fined $60 for displaying the novelty items, which are known by brand names like “Truck Nutz” and resemble the south end of a bull moving north.

But it seems that there is some common sense among Sen. Bakers fellow legislators:

In a spirited debate laced with double entendre, Senate lawmakers questioned whether the state should curtail freedom of expression in vehicle accessories.

Because, in the end, ones sense of Taste and Propriety in such issues in ultimately dictated by a higher power:

Critics of the ban included the Senate Rules Chairman, Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican whose truck sported a pair until his wife protested.

Charlton Heston was an iconic actor, with a voice rivaled by Alex Hailey.  He was the star of many of Hollywood’s most memorable films, from the Ten Commandments, and Ben Hur (which endeared him in the American Heartland), to Planet of the Apes (the original, not the schlock that followed).

A statement from the family is available here.

The BBC (curiously) seems to have the best, and most respectful obituary of this screen legend:

Charlton Heston’s life story reads like a film script. From the backwoods of Michigan, he became one of the world’s most famous faces, a high-profile campaigner for Civil Rights and an unapologetic president of America’s National Rifle Association.

Of course, while the Hate-mongers and smear merchants to the left of the political spectrum in the US will never forgive Heston for his term as president of the NRA, this WWII Army Air Force veteran was a very public and vocal supporter for Civil Rights, at a time when most Democrats (including Al Gore’s father) were opposed.

In New York City on January 15, Charlton Heston received the “2001 Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Award” from the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a leading U.S. civil rights organization. CORE chairman Roy Innis praised Heston: “He’s been a civil rights fighter most of his career.” Yoko Ono, a member of the Awards Committee, said: “I respect Mr. Heston for lending his name to the cause of racial equality.” (Chuck led the Arts Contingent at the 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. King gave his “I Have a Dream” speech……

 Heston was, throughout his life, and in the end, an American Original.  He was one of the best of us.

After a busy summer of relatives coming to visit; a catastrophic reorganization at work; a near frantic pace of business; all capped off by a well earned mini-vacation; I am back online, and will be spooling the blog back up.

As I write this, there are reports that the Pakistani Government has finally had enough of the stand off in Islamabad at the Red Mosque, and has ordered a breach of the compound.

The clerics who run the Mosque have been attempting to impose Taliban like law in Islamabad.  After 6 months of confrontation, last week the Government had finally had enough, and decided that it was necessary to shut down the Mosque.  The Imams retaliated by shutting themselves in, with many hundred students, and defying the government forces.

Echoes of this standoff have been felt in other cities in Pakistan, where other radical clerics have turned out their supporters to protest the governments actions.

3 days ago, Gen. Musharraf, currently the Secular leader of Pakistan, survived an attempt to shoot down his aircraft, and this may have spurred his decision to conclude the siege at the the Red Mosque.

But the Red Mosque is not the only source of Islamic Radicalism in Pakistan.  In fact, at least half of the students in Madrassas in Islamabad are taught by radical sects aligned with the Red Mosque.

And on Pakistan’s frontier with Afghanistan, many of the tribal areas are either controlled by, or under threat from, the Taliban.  The Pakistani government essentially ceded these areas to the Taliban and Al Qeada earlier this year, in what were called Peace Accords, but were, essentially, a recognition that the Pakistani Government could not exert it’s authority in the region, short of massive military force, and agreed to leave the Radicals alone, if they would not promote their agenda in greater Pakistan.

Unfortunately, as always happens with appeasement, the radials now want more, and the Red Mosque siege gives them a vehicle:

…the mosque’s supporters in the Northwest Frontier Province have attacked the government. In Swat, a settled district in the Northwest Frontier Province, Maulana Qazi Fazlullah, a 28-year-old radical cleric, has called for his followers to strike at government agencies for taking action against the Lal Masjid. “In broadcasts on his FM channel on Tuesday and Wednesday, [Fazlullah] asked his supporters to take up arms against the government to avenge the action taken against Lal Masjid and carry out suicide attacks,” Dawn reported on July 4.

Fazlullah’s followers have carried out his call for violence. In the five days since the Red Mosque standoff began, four major attacks were carried out against police forces in the district. Six have been killed and thirteen wounded in shootings, roadside bombings and ambushes throughout the region.

North of Swat in the district of Dir, four soldiers were killed, including two officers, and another was critically wounded in an IED attack. The army convoy was reported to be heading into Swat in preparation for a possible “showdown between supporters of Maulana Fazlullah and law-enforcement agencies.”

The former President of Pakistan, General Zia Ul Haq, promoted the radical Madrasas as a source of mujahedin to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.  It seems that the swords other edge is now becoming obvious, and those same madrasas are now turning warriors of god who aim to take down the Secular government of Pakistan, and create a new Taliban state in its place.

The possibility of Pakistan falling to the Taliban and Islamic Radicals should be chilling to the bone.  Pakistan has a modern military, with high tech weaponry (mostly US) and a proven Nuclear arsenal.

The only reasonable response of the Western World to this situation – indeed, the only response that will give Western Civilization any chance of seeing the next turn of the century – is to put our support squarely behind Musharraf; greatly increase the NATO mission in Afghanistan to fight the resurgent Taliban; and finish the job of pacifying Iraq.

Failure to stamp out the Taliban, Al Qeada, and Radical Islam is not a viable option.

The Dane links us to a great report by Robert E Rector of the Heritage Foundation, on the true costs of the Shamnesty Immigration Bill that failed in the Senate last week:

Heritage research has shown that low skill immigrants (those without a high school degree) receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay. This imbalance imposes a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime, the typical low skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million.[4]

 Future taxpayer costs will be increased by policies which increase (1) the number of low skill immigrants entering the U.S., (2) the length of low skill immigrants’ stays in the U.S., or (3) low skill immigrants’ access to government benefits and services. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Senate immigration bill does:

 The bill would triple the flow of low skill chain immigration into the U.S.

• By granting amnesty to at least 12 million illegal immigrants, the bill would greatly lengthen their stay in the U.S., particularly during retirement years.
• The bill would grant illegal immigrants access to Social Security and Medicare benefits and, over time, to more than 60 different federal welfare programs.
• Although the bill does not currently permit Z visa holders to bring spouses and children in from abroad, this would likely be amended at some future point on humanitarian grounds, resulting in another 5 million predominantly low-skill immigrants entering the country.

Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion once the amnesty recipients reach retirement age.

This explains why the White Hoise and the Senate Democrats (and several Republicans) were trying to push this thing through so fast.  They didn’t want to give anyone tiime to read it, and do these kind of pencil figures on the cost and impact of shamnesty for 12 to 20 million illegals.