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.

Courtesy of AFP:

US President Barack Obama’s offer to talk to Iran shows that America’s policy of “domination” has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.

“This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed,” Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

“Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change,” he added.

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to “unclench its fist”.

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its “crimes” against Iran and saying he expected “deep and fundamental” change from Obama.

Ahhh, yes, echos of the Jimmah Cahtahr administration ring in my head.

Thanks, President Obama. 

If you get tired of being treated like a little b-hotch by the Iranians, and Venezualans, and Russians, and Canadians (etc…), call Rush Limbaugh.  I’m sure he’ll be happy to give you some pointers on dealing with these guys.

In the name of bi-partisanship, of course….

When GHW Bush failed to deliver the coup de grace to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and failed to support the uprisings against him in the aftermath of the 1st Gulf War, the stage was set for the current conflict.

Likewise, the failure of Clinton and the UN to effectively deal with Somolia in the 1990s leads us to the ongoing problems in that region, which has now brought us piracy at a level unseen for many decades.  And now, this piracy threatens the lifeblood of modern civilization – oil.

From FT.Com:

A Saudi supertanker laden with an estimated 2m barrels of oil that was seized by pirates was on Tuesday confirmed to be anchored off the coast of Somalia.

While most other seizures have been of vessels heading into or out of the Suez Canal, the latest incident will raise question marks about the safety of the route from the Arabian Gulf to the Cape of Good Hope – a route taken by the largest oil tankers heading from the world’s main oil-producing regions to both Europe and North America.

The development therefore puts at risk a far higher proportion of the world’s energy shipments than the 12 per cent that shipping organisations had already considered in danger. “That route from the Cape to the Gulf was not considered the riskiest route,” said Mr Mukundan.

What is the response of the US Military (from AFP)?

The top US military officer said Monday he was “stunned” by the reach of the Somali pirates who seized a Saudi supertanker off the east coast of Africa, calling piracy a growing problem that needs to be addressed.

But Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there were limits to what the world’s navies could do once a ship has been captured because national governments often preferred to pay pirates ransom.

That’s right, the US Navy and Marines will…do nothing…

“…once they get to a point where they can board, it becomes very difficult to get them off, because, clearly, now they hold hostages.

“The question then becomes, well, what do you do about the hostages? And that’s where the standoff is.

“That’s a national question to ask based on the flag of the vessel. And the countries by and large have been paying the ransom that the pirates have asked,” he said.

So once again, our miltary leadership acts more like international lawyers than warriors.  And the willingness of the victims to pay ransom for the ships and crews trumps action against the pirates.

But things may be beginning to change (courtesy Times Online):

The furious Saudi foreign minister said the banditry was akin to terrorism and demanded an international crackdown on the pirates.

Prince Saud Al-Faisal said: “Piracy, like terrorism, is a disease which is against everybody, and everybody must address it together.

“This outrageous act by the pirates, I think, will only reinforce the resolve of the countries of the Red Sea and internationally to fight piracy,”

The prince suggested that several nations in the Red Sea region were willing to form a coalition to combat the ascendency of pirates in the Gulf of Aden and surrounding waters.

The Saudi’s, and the other oil producing states in the Persian Gulf, certainly have the resources, and the need to protect their tankers and merchant ships.  They may not have the military hardware or trained personnel to protect their shipping, or to strike back against the pirates.

But the level of piracy, and the growing reach of the pirates, should be sounding warning bells in Washington DC, Beijing, and other states dependent upon trade trasiting the horn of Africa.

The International Maritime Bureau has reported that at least 83 ships have been attacked off Somalia since January, of which 33 were hijacked. Of those, 12 vessels and more than 200 crew were still in the hands of pirates.

There is no doubt that the Pirates base of operations is Somalia.  When the last group of warlords that exerted some type of central control (the Islamic Courts – not a nice bunch of guys) was ousted in 2007, the last vestiges of government in the area went with them.

There is no doubt the the US and UN bungled the mission to Somalia in the 90′s, leaving things worse than when they arrived.  There is also no doubt that the world missed an opportunity after the overthrow of the Islamic Courts to attempt to impose order on Somalia.

There can be no doubt that Somalia will continue to be a festering sore of lawlessness, misery, and piracy until the warlords are put down, and order is restored.

It will not be cheap, and it will not be easy.  But having just come through the crucible of the Iraq War, there is no doubt that America has the military know how and skill set – what we used to call “lessons learned” (usually the hard way).  The Gulf States have the financial resources, and almost as importantly, the proper religious leanings to bankroll actions to intervene and start the rebuilding process.  But America does not have the manpower to take on this task, while the Afghanistan conflict continues to brew.

However, the Chinese have the manpower to spare, and financial interests in Africa, and are also dependent upon Persian Gulf oil.

So, perhaps we have a clear opportunity for President Elect Obama to use some of his vaunted Worlwide Political Capitol, and use Petro State money, with Chinese Troops, and American know how, to solve a pressing problem, and restore some order to one of the most chaotic failed states in Africa.

Just a suggestion.

Recently, the Presidential candidates had their say on the military draft;

Senator McCain’s position:

According to his campaign, Mr. McCain supports the current Department of Defense restrictions on women in combat units, including armor, field artillery and special forces.

And Senator Obama’s:

Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service.

The article goes on to explain (in a surprisingly fair way) the candidates stands on the issue, in general and specific, including the issue of women in combat, and I recommend reading it, in any case.

But I would like to go further than either of the candidates, and propose a fundamental restructuring of the US Army into a two tiered force, with separate, though complementary, missions.

The first would be a Peacekeeping/Nation Building/Police Action force. Soldiers for this group would be drawn from a military draft (more on that later), and from volunteers. For the sake of discussion, lets call them the the PK’s. I really need to find a better term for that.

The PK’s would do what the Army is doing today in Iraq: Policing; training the local police and military; construction projects; community relations; keeping warring factions separated; general purpose nation building. They would also have a role domestically in disaster response, and border control, when such duties were necessary.

These are all worthy activities, serving a noble purpose. But they are a stone that dulls the blade of the finest professional fighting force in the world today.

Using finely honed precision weapons – let’s call them the War Fighters – for PK duties is not only a waste of the time and resources spent training them for their specific mission; but it deprives the nation of their services in other areas, where their specific skill sets can best be used.

The War Fighters should, and must be, an all volunteers force. We have proven since the last draft ended that this leads to a solid, professional corps, fully invested in the mission.

There are tremendous advantages to a system of this type. It allows for a the application of resources where they can be the most effective. War Fighter training and equipment is different from the skills and training needed for nation building. But there can be no doubt that both are needed in the world today. It is obvious from our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, that both theaters could have been better served by a dual chambered military force.

Another advantage is that many people who are not suited for a direct combat mission, could find other positions to serve with the PK’s. It would also allow for a reintroduction of the notion of National Service, that has been, for the most part, lost to this nation.

Service in the PK force should be one option of many available to young adults in the United States. Others should include Ameri-corps, the Peace Corps, the Public Health Service, the Veterans Administration, Border Patrol, or other organizations.

But ALL young Americans should be understand that they are expected to serve some time in National Service, if they want to receive benefits from the government (note – this system *must* be voluntary, or it is just another form of slavery).

Two years of service could net you a 0% interest college loan. Four years could net you a partial or full college grant. Service could be a prerequisite to access to government small business loans. Many government services that are supplied today gratis could now be contingent upon performing some type of National service. After all, the taxpayers who are funding those services should be able to expect some value in return for their contributions.

This would have the additional beneficial effect of delaying the entrance of young adults into college until they are in their early 20′s, with some real world experience, and a much greater appreciation of the college education they have earned through their service.

We could do much worse to expect our children and grandchildren to contribute something back to their nation. And in the case of the Peace Keeping force, contribute to a better life for others, as well.

Just a thought.

UPDATE:
It is worth noting that I am not suggesting as drastic as the separation of the US Navy and the US Coast Guard. I am saying that the same overall structure needs to have two faces, that can, when needed, be melded together, quickly, seamlessly, and easiily, to form a much larger and greater whole.

This same concept could be applied to the US Air Force, though on a smaller scale. The Air Transport mission of the Air Force is commonly used for Humanitarian and PK support type missions today, and that role could be enhanced.

It is rare that the Tacoma News Tribune’s Patrick O’Callahan has anything to say that I find particularly insightful or even of passing interest.  I daresay, my scribblings are of even less interest to him, had he ever chanced upon them by accident of a web search.

But he has a piece today that caught my attention, and I would like to expand upon:

McCain’s ‘country first’ ethic is tough sell in 21st century

I consider McCain a noble man. I believe he’s dead serious when he talks about putting country first. He especially impressed me in the 1990s when he led efforts to normalize American ties to communist Vietnam. He recognized that normalization was in this country’s best interests and acted accordingly, despite the sadism he’d endured in Hanoi.

I also think McCain was being honest when he said he’d prefer to lose an election than see his country lose a war. A Democratic supporter of Barack Obama would certainly argue that McCain doesn’t understand America’s real interests, but I don’t doubt that he’s thoroughly committed to what he thinks those interests are.

Listening to him Thursday, it struck me that country-first is pretty much McCain’s religion. He described his own embrace of that demanding creed in terms eerily similar to the way many Christians talk about their conversions.

Imagine my dismay, when I read these paragraphs, and agreed with Mr. O. completely.

And O’Callahan points out something that I had missed:

He started as a young sinner: “I didn’t think there was a cause more important than me.”

Then came the epiphany: “I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner of someone else’s.”

Then was born new creature: “I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s.”

This is a theme that I recognize in my own life, and that of many of my friends.  No, none of use had to deal with the POW experiences of McCain, but in service to our country, on distant shores, at the tip of the spear, we found something more than ourselves to believe in.  Some higher purpose that “keeping up with the Jonse’s” and material aquisition, and personal comfort.

This is how we like our heroes: Nathan Hale regretting he has but one life to lose for his country; George Washington walking away from one of the richest estates in Virginia to endure long years of wartime hardships.

Indeed, it is this very selflessness and self sacrifice that makes a man more than he otherwise might have been, and draws the admiration and respect of his fellows. If not the definition of a hero, it is part of the fabric of such.

A lot of small-government libertarians are deeply alarmed by McCain’s willingness to regulate and his hostility to private interests he views as self-serving…

Most average Americans won’t share the ideological horror of pure libertarians. But some won’t warm up to McCain’s stoic message: Country first, always and in everything. Stand tall. Life is tough. Keep on fighting.

He sounds as if he wouldn’t think the loss of an assembly line is the end of the world. Obama, by contrast, is all solicitous sympathy.

Indeed, as a recovering Libertarian, I find a lot to dislike in McCain’s political stances.  But there can be no doubt that he takes his stands in conformance with his personal creed, Country First. And I take solace in his mindset that America is the promised land of opportunity; and that adversity is our path to learning, and gives us new opportunites.

Part of my instictive distate for Obama, and the rest of the Liberal Elite is that they have confused the Country with the Government.  While these two things are not exclusive, neither are they part and parcel of each other.  

The Country is the People, and the Land, and – and this seperates us from all other nations on this earth – the Constitution.  All of the government today could be wiped away, and the bureaucrats swept off to some desert island, and still there would be the People, and the Land, and the Consitution, and we would rebuild.  

McCain’s like that tough old turkey of a World War II-vet uncle who keeps pushing you to join the military when you don’t like the idea. He’d put his hand in the fire. But with the Greatest Generation dying and the draft long since abandoned, that’s getting to be a tougher ethic to sell.

And this is the saddest parapgrah I have read in a long time.  It is so accurate and intuitive that it should bring you to tears.

I have written before, and will again, of the increasing void between the citizens of the nation, and the military – the “rough men who stand ready to do harm” in their defense.  And the increasing trend in the schools and media to denigrate the military and their accomplishments, and ridicule the very idea of military service.  This is a necessary part of the agenda of those that would put the Government first, instead of the Country.

To see the results of a military totally divorced from the people, one need only watch the video of the crushing of the Tienanmen Square demonstrations in China.

I truly believe that this election will shape the next 30 years of American history.  That a sweep House and Senate seats, and the White House delivered into the hands of a party that is Socialist in all but name, with the support of approximately 50% of the voting population, will threaten our very economic engine, and take to an era of the omnipresent Nanny State.  I have no doubt in my mind that the two most leftist Supreme Court judges would take the opportunity to retire, so that they could be sure of equally leftists replacements. 

Or we could hold the line in the House and Senate, and have in the White House a man who believes in Country First.  Who will hold the line on what is best for the nation, and the people – not what is best for government bureaucrats and union organizers, and community organizers, and the myriads of other leeches who suckle from the public teat, and seek to make business a tool of the state.

We have seen where Obama and Biden and their fellow travellers would take us.  It was called the Soviet Union, and it was a spectaular failure. Their new model is Western Europe, which has already decided to emulate the loser in the cold war, is failing fast, and will, in 30 years, be a far different place, more like Eastern Europe under the Soviets.  Except for those countries like Spain and Italy who will have willingly committed suicide through lack of procreation, and who’s lands will become Islamic due to immigration (immigrants brought in for their tax revenue, to support the pensioners who were unwilling to breed their replacements). This is the new model for the Democrat party, except they will use South Americans to pay the taxes.

I may not agree with John McCain on every issue, but given a choice between a man who believes in his Country first, versus a man who believes that Government is the answer to all ills, I will side with McCain.

And maybe we should talk once again about that Military Draft thing…

While the first thing that usually comes to mind, to a US Voter, when the words Reparations is heard, is the demand by many for Reparations for Slavery, there are many others who want a piece of the Reparations Pie – meaning money from Uncle Sam, i.e. the American Taxpayer.

One of the newest entries is South Korea.

It seems that, defying all logic, there were civilians casualties in the Korean War.

…the Seoul government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission has more than 200 such alleged wartime cases on its docket, based on hundreds of citizens’ petitions recounting bombing and strafing runs on South Korean refugee gatherings and unsuspecting villages in 1950-51.

Of course, while it is common knowledge that the North Koreans were infiltrating dressed as civilians, and were using civilians for cover, it is apparently the fault of US Forces for not being willing to take casualties in weeding out the commies from the refugees.

And while I have no doubt that many Korean are simply interested in justice and acknowledgement, others are interested in more… tangible forms of apology:

Concluding its first investigations, the 2 1/2-year-old commission is urging the government to seek U.S. compensation for victims.

“Of course the U.S. government should pay compensation. It’s the U.S. military’s fault,” said survivor Cho Kook-won, 78, who says he lost four family members among hundreds of refugees suffocated, burned andshot to death in a U.S. Air Force napalm attack on their cave shelter south of Seoul in 1951.

I have no doubt that there are many such incidences from the Korean War.  And Vietnam.  And World War I & II.  And the Spanish-American and Mexican wars, and the war of 1812, and the revolution.

I am also certain that such incidences can be documented (or told in folklore) of every war going back to the first conflicts in the Fertile Cresecent between the early city states, thousands of years ago.

But let’s take a second, and look at South Korea today:

1. Population of more than 48 Million
2. Seoul, the capital city, is the 2nd largest city in the world.
3. The South Korean economy is the 4th largest in Asia, and 13th largest in the world, with a GDP of $1.2 Trillion.
4. South Korea is the largest ship builder in the world, and the third largest steel producer.

How about North Korea, whose government would have ruled the South, had the US not intervened?

1. Population approximately 23 million population, with periodic bouts of starvation.
2. GDP of approx $40B.
3. Rules by a totalitarian regime, with little or no outside contact.

(facts above from various sources including CIA Factbook)

Considering the vastly different lives lead by citizens of North and South Korea, I think that we can be forgiven for feeling that we have already paid compensation in the blood of 36,516 dead; 92,134 wounded, and 8,176 MIA US Citizen Soldiers.

We did NOT start the Korean War – NorthKorea did, with the support of the Soviet Union.  We DID save the South Korean from lives of desperation and poverty, lived by their brethren in the North.

I’m not suggesting they should thank us, but maybe they could be a little more understanding.

NOTE:  For full disclosure, I have spent several years in South Korea, and have a large extended family there.  I have a tremendous affinity for the people, culture, and history of the region. 

But it is about time the South Korean’s grew up, in a geo-political sense, andmatched their economic maturity with political maturity.

They need to stop holding Candle Light Vigils about importation of US Beef, and start holding them for the plight of North Koreans starving to death because of their government.

And they might comes to terms with Japan over some useless rocks in the Sea of Japan (or the East Sea, as the Koreans call it), instead of using the disagreement over which nationality of seagull nests there as an excuse for a pissing contest with their former Colonial masters.

Cassandra over at Villainous Company has a wonderful piece:

Winter Soldier II: The Inconvenient Truths Americans Won’t Hear from the Media

While she makes some excellent points on the issue, what caught my attention was a point she made about life, and ones attitude toward the same:

I’ve never seen any point in being Edgy. Life is way too full of hard edges. I have very little use for anger – the only way to stay furious, it seems to me, is to adamantly refuse to see anyone else’s side but your own. Once you break down and admit you’re not the only person on the planet who ever manages to think of a plausible point, it becomes difficult to maintain a truly self-righteous wad of indignation.

Well worth the read!