Obama’s win for losing strategy? What the president might be trying to accomplish

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—Accepting General Stanley McChrystal's resignation was the right thing for the president to do, technically speaking. But looking past his tepid comment (the explosive comments came from the general's aides) and putting the mission before the man may have been a mistake of historical proportions—as McChrystal was had-picked for his expertise—this is not to say Petraeus isn't up to the challenge, but if he must abide by the same politically correct ROE's, including a hard withdrawal date, failure could be imminent. 

Petraeus is certainly competent and his successful Iraq surge strategy amidst a deteriorating situation on the ground coupled with being told by a senate panel they weren't prepared to believe a single word of his report shows his fortitude as well as stern dedication. Yet with current conditions, including a civilian command with a misguided strategy and an enemy embolden redeployment date could undermine the good general's military mission. 

But there is another consideration here, a larger question about the hard withdrawal date and its consequences—it is possible Mr. Obama is committing to it simply to sabotage the mission and marginalize the military? Think of it this way, if we pull out and utter chaos erupts like in Vietnam, would Obama’s predecessor if he isn’t reelected in 2012 really redeploy troops to an already failed conflict theater? Besides, Obama has perfect scapegoats, the notoriously crooked Hamid Karzai and George Bush, who took us into war in the first place against a country the left says didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.

--Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Where oh where has our little Pakistani Taliban gone? We’ve haven’t seen Faisal Shahzad since his arrest, but the administration has changed its public stance

NYC, NY—Oh where can Faisal Shahzad be? In a Wall Street Journal OpEd, authors Dana Perino and Bill Burck ask that same question. Conspicuous by its absences are any court appearances by the Pakistani Taliban.

On May 9^th, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "We need to give serious consideration to at least modifying the public safety exception [to Miranda]" and grant law enforcement officials "necessary flexibility". Is this an admission that Mirandizing the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in less than an hour was a mistake?

It well may be, but the fact that Mr. Shahzad has not been in a courthouse seems to indicate that his cooperation is leading to more arrests and possibly to disrupting other terror plots. Moreover, it appears the administration's new vigor for terror prosecution means what they’ve come to learn cannot be ignored and therefore, quick and decisive action must be taken.

There have already been a number of detainments and arrests in relation to Shahzad’s attempted Times Square bombing, not to mention a realigned military commitment to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps the divorce of campaign rhetoric has finally come to fruition in an administration that thought words and appeasement would be enough to fight terrorism.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

Terrorism in a post-terrorism administration meets Faisal Shahzad The War on Terror by any other name continues

NYC, NY—Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani born naturalized American citizen attempted to bomb NYC’s Times Square on May 3, 2010 using an SUV packed with explosives. The 30 year-old had returned from a trip to Pakistan in February.

The administration is lauding itself for the capture of Mr. Shahzad, but it wasn’t law enforcement or military personnel that made him; a Times Square vendor, Duane Jackson did that when he noticed the driverless Nissan Pathfinder idling.

The motives (according to multiple news copy) of the suspect are still “unknown” but perhaps we here at KP can give them a clue: terrorism.

Regardless of Shahzad’s “motives” his intent was terrorism—pure and simple. The interesting dichotomy is the campaign promises of President Obama to restore America’s standing in the world and to approach international affairs differently from his predecessor. Yet despite the many apologies and hand-wringing the president has done, the US remains a target (see the Christmas Day bomber and the Fort Hood massacre).

Which only goes to prove one simple fact, America is Judeo-Christian nation as endorsed by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and any number of writings by the Founding Fathers. Radical Islam is diametrically opposed to Judaism and Christianity—it does not have a problem with Shintoism or Buddhism or any number of religions—so as long as we remain a Judeo-Christian nation, radical Islamist will hate us.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

GITMO is just ok AG Holder is running into roadblocks on his way to close GITMO

WASHINGTON, DC—Attorney General Eric Holder is having a difficult time in closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility in Cuba. Congress has not yet appropriated the money necessary to relocate and house the enemy combatants currently held at GITMO.

But AG Holder is not only facing budgetary problems now and arguably into the future, he’ll also be facing legal opposition—and not just from elected officials. President Obama’s dedication to closing GITMO isn't exactly shared by its resident terrorists—that’s right, GITMO detainees wanting to stay in Guantanamo Bay.

Why, you may ask?

At GITMO, the detainees are given access to religious materials, allowed to exercise, all of the things allowed under the Geneva Convention. But if transferred to a supermax prison in the United States, the detainees would be subject to supermax rules and that means lock-down for twenty-three hours a day.

In a January Newsweek blog, an attorney representing some of the captured enemy combatants says they’ll sue to keep from being transferred to a supermax facility.  

And this is just another example of the folly of making a circular political campaign promise square with reality; there never has been a real reason to transfer the detainees and NIMBYs of all stripes certainly don’t want them in their back yards. It would be the ultimate knee-slapper to see Mr. Obama’s administration to go toe-to-toe with the likes of the ACLU.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

With friends like these in Kabul, who needs enemies? Karzai is showing the international community his true colors

Kabul, Afghanistan—Hamid Karzai’s comments that he’ll join the Taliban were clearly designed to garner attention, any attention, and to distract from the sham elections his country just held. No one is really buying the I’ll just take my toys home temper-tantrum the Afghani president is spewing but it does point the elephant in Kabul—an administration that is double-dealing and playing both ends against the middle.

Afghanistan’s leaders are the most corrupt among the world over and attempts to even remotely disguise it are being cast aside. Figuring he’s got nothing to lose, Karzai doesn’t have many friends at this point, so why not go for broke?

The Afghan invasion was to root-out the Taliban and wayward Al Qaeda members but has since turned into a conflict without a clear goal and practically no exit strategy. This is not the fault of the US military or any of its allies; it is the dubious product of a citizenry and corrupt government that has no interest in a peaceful future.

President Obama, Congress, and military commanders have a challenge perhaps two-fold more difficult then those that were faced in 1974; we wish them all the best and hope for a victorious resolution.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

From MAD to madness The president promised he’d unilaterally disarm the US, he meant it

On October 22, 2007, then candidate Barack Obama in a video speech to the Caucus for Priorities promised to unilaterally disarm the United States of its nuclear arsenal and much more…

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.”

Now, President Obama has begun to make good on his promise. Under the president’s new policy, any country that attacks the United States with chemical or biological weapons would be subject to a swift Shepardizing of sorts by administration lawyers that will determine if the attacking country has been in compliance with the Non Proliferation Treaty and gotten a stamp of approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency before a US response.

Taking the most effective deterrent off the proverbial shelf will certainly embolden US antagonizers, in fact, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has leap in front when he said on Iranian national television, "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. 

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

A war of words

President Obama’s Afghan policy speech has been described in different ways, but perhaps the most accurate way to describe it is to describe the man delivering it – absent principal and heavy on equivocation.

We describe it this way because no person of principal could have delivered such a speech, it simply was intended for too many specific audiences; it spoke directly to the anti-war left in promising prompt exit, the hawks got their surge, the libertarians were assured that cost would outweigh perseverance, isolationists were guaranteed that America would not go it alone and would be the first out the door – and the list goes on, should one be so inclined to enumerate it.

We wish the President quick and decisive success because his policy is centered around a quick deployment and redeployment – in other words, the President has by his very words has put forth the military must find success quickly and decisively, for we simply do not believe he has the conscious will or political fortitude to withstand setbacks such as Iraq suffered. If those setbacks occur, Mr. Obama has clearly demonstrated by his delayed decision to commit more troops that he will look for an exit, no matter if it be in victory or defeat.

As he accepted the Noble Peace Prize, he exclaimed, “Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize ... my accomplishments are slight"; a bit of humble pie or an attempt to position himself for an uncertain future? Mr. Obama won the Nobel Prize without merit and that is clear. But what remains unclear is his disposition on the wars he now fully owns; speaking to the nation he again kicked dirt on his predecessor, stating that the last administration squandered resources to fight an elective war in another country, thereby ignoring what he has called the “necessary” war in Afghanistan.

None of these statements are consequential in-and-among-themselves but they do speak to a demeanor the President is attaching himself to – a man who believes leadership comes from uttering crafted rhetoric rather than one who is willing to lead out of conviction.

It has been said the pen is mightier than the sword, for the sake of our military and our national security, let’s pray that will be the case.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

The overseas contingency snags GITMO

For the first time since signing an executive order to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, as he promised during the 2008 campaign, President Obama now admits his January 2010 deadline will not be met. The President would not set a new deadline, saying of the delay to close the facility he, “…knew this was going to be hard.” The President’s qualifier is not just “hard” by convenient definition, but rather, “technically hard.”

Technically hard? Try near impossible; the questions raised by critics were legitimate – where will the administration put 200+ detainees? Bermuda and Palau have already taken the first of those that have been cleared as non-combatants, the Chinese Uighurs, who dominated the 24/7 news cycle with video showing them lounging and frolicking in the island paradise.

Bob Schillerstrom, Chairman of the DuPage County Board, has requested Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to convene a Special Session of the General Assembly ASAP to deal with the many safety measures questions surrounding the prospective use of Thomson Correctional Center to incarcerate federal detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay.

The decision to close GITMO was made before Mr. Obama was sworn-in, a campaign promise he repeated. But ten months after issuing his executive order to shutter the facility, it remains open as there are real world consequences to campaign hyperbole turned on its head by reality. Mr. Obama practically guaranteed the American people he would restore the United States' standing in the world, yet has not been able to deliver. Not only are traditional American allies not actively giving assistance in the war efforts, they are quite hands-off when it comes to receiving GITMO detainees.

So the original question reposes itself, where will the US put GITMO prisoners once the facility is closed? A question the current administration won’t answer because it is unable to do so. Closing GITMO means the transfer of the detainees, plain-and-simple. And there aren’t any takers nearly a year later; as President Obama explained, "We are on a path and a process where I would anticipate that Guantanamo will be closed next year. I'm not going to set an exact date because a lot of this is also going to depend on cooperation from Congress."

With the midterm elections fast approaching and with all 435 House members up for reelection, that political landmine is best to sidestep, but sooner or later, the political and security realities will have to be dealt with.


-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Playing politics with Afghanistan

President Obama said last week that he isn’t waiting on more information on Afghanistan but being certain he has the best strategy before sending more troops and spending "billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money."

Mr. Obama stated while in Tokyo last week, "Our goal here ultimately has to be for the Afghan people to be able to be in a position to provide their own security, and that the United States cannot be engaged in an open-ended commitment.”

The President has not committed to a request made publicly by General Stanley McChrystal three months ago for 40,000 and gives no certain indication of exactly what he intends to do, only saying, his decision “will be made soon” and that it will be “fully transparent so that the American people understand exactly what we're doing and why we're doing it and what it will entail."

Meanwhile, troop morale has fallen as a new Afghanistan survey found that "unit morale rates...were significantly lower than in 2005 or 2007". This, along with increasing political from both the left and right has been growing. President Obama has said, “I recognize that there have been critics of the process. They tend not to be folks who I think are directly involved in what's happening in Afghanistan. Those who are recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right."

NATO has endorsed General McChrystal’s troop surge strategy and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has pledged $5 billion in aid to Afghanistan which would replace Japan's more discordant program for aiding the war-torn country – a refueling mission for US forces, which will end in January. Critics said the mission violated Japan's pacifist Constitution as that country’s constitution prohibits the country from sending troops to combat.

Japan’s support, along with US allies is growing strained. Mr. Obama and other Bush administration critics have beat a steady drum of diplomacy, replacing President Bush’s cowboy way with sophistication. But instead of allying with action, other countries are happy to greet talk with lip service. We were told time and again that Bush’s rush and buckaroo were isolating countries that would otherwise be committed allies, and now with a decidedly different personality in the White House, his suave style is all that accompanies him out of talks.

General McChrystal’s request ought to be heeded by the man who fired his predecessor, it is time for the Commander and Chief to listen.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Inching towards chaos

As President Obama continues his public waffling on Afghanistan, the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate.

With Hamid Karzai’s alleged ballot-box stuffing, the Iranians agitating and little-to-no help from our allies, the United States finds itself in a precarious situation in what Candidate Obama called a war we must win.

The Taliban has reformed and their strategy is clearing causing gains in their direction. A mountainous and lawless country, Afghanistan has long been the ideal breeding ground for the likes of Al Qaeda and warlords, not to mention, public support of the war has been on a steady decline since the war in Iraq began devolving – well before the surge and turn around.

Mr. Obama and Gordon Brown find themselves in un-winnable positions with their respective political bases – each wishes to pull the leaders further to the left and are demanding immediate withdrawal. But both leaders know full well where that will lead: a country left to the wolves, a signal to Islamo-fascists that American and Brittan don’t have the will to see their way through, and an effective surrender to Iranian interloping.

All of which is unacceptable should the two countries wish to remain true to their word and actions. If Messers. Obama and Brown do not head the call of the generals on the ground; the war is all-but-lost and so to will be the standing of their commanders-in-chief.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact