Obama Administration Negotiating With The Enemy?

File this under "As if the Obama Administration hasn't done enough to us already" -- From Doctor Zero we now learn that while most of America was preoccupied with the holidays and evils of Healthcare 'reform':

It seems unlikely that the Khazali outrage could have happened without President Obama’s authorization. I’m ready to hear him explain this… and then, considering his reputation as a liar, every thinking American should be ready to fact-check every word he says. I don’t mind admitting I’m a hostile audience. You should be, too. Nothing this President has done since taking office has earned him a shred of trust or faith, especially in the area of national security.

Read it all HERE.

"Surging" the Taliban

With my Daughter-in-Law now on duty in Afghanistan, I won't necessarily be thinking and reading more about what is going on there, but I will probably be writing more. In that vein, I highly recommend Frederick Kagan's (along with Max Boot and Kimberly Kagan) AEI short publication How to Surge the Taliban to give the reader some things to think about, that they might not have otherwise, to broaden their perspective. Need an example? How about:

"The civilian death toll in Afghanistan last year was 16 times lower than that in Iraq in the pre-surge year of 2006, even though Afghanistan is more populous."

It will be interesting to watch Team O's machinations if they really start trying to pull out of Afghanistan...while trying to look like they are not trying to pull out. (Yes I think that's what Team O would do if they thought they could pull it off).

Hmmmm. "Daughter-In-Law" is too wordy and not properly descriptive. She shall henceforth be referred to as D3, for Daughter Number 3. (Yes she's the oldest, but she signed up for the job last and there is no hope for advancement or escape.)

Updated 11pm: Fox News reports Gen Petraeus says pretty much the same thing, except their headline is a little more counter-intuitive. Must have been written by a former NYT employee.

The “COST” of Iraq War?

If you want to think that way, how about we consider the net economic benefit of “cost avoidance”?
H/T Instapundit

I contemplated spending some time debunking the Democrat talking-point memo masquerading as a report on the cost of the “Iraq War” when the news broke yesterday, but decided to write about something else, thinking that the Dem’s analytical basis was so lame that someone with much greater readership would chop it down to size – and today I was proved correct.

James Pethokoukis at US News & World Report takes the Democrats to task today for failing to consider the costs of containing Iraq in his blog:

Should we then assume that by not waging the war, Uncle Sam would be a trillion dollars to the better? That would be a questionable assumption, a product of a sort of "static analysis" that assumes if you change one critical factor, all the rest stay pretty much the same. Professional futurists, like the ones at the Big Oil companies, know better than that. They give clients a range of scenarios based on different values for different variables. And that is also what three economists at the University of Chicago's business school did in 2006. They looked at the costs of not going to war with Iraq back in 2003.

Mr. Pethokoulis then points out, the U of Chicago study examined the costs of CONTAINING Iraq (emphasis mine).

Advocates for forcible regime change in Iraq expressed several concerns about the pre-war containment policy. Some stressed an erosion of political support for the containment policy that threatened to undermine its effectiveness and lead to a much costlier conflict with Iraq in the future. Others stressed the difficulty of compelling Iraqi compliance with a rigorous process of weapons inspections and disarmament, widely seen as a critical element of containment. And others stressed the potential for Iraqi collaboration with international terrorist groups. To evaluate these concerns, we model the possibility that an effective containment policy might require the mounting of costly threats and might lead to a limited war or a full-scale regime-changing war against Iraq at a later date. We also consider the possibility that the survival of a hostile Iraqi regime raises the probability of a major terrorist attack on the United States.

That last sentence was the key one for me and we’ll get back to it in a moment. Pethokoulis’ analysis continues:

Factoring in all those contingencies, the authors find that a containment policy would cost anywhere from $350 billion to $700 billon. Now when you further factor in that 1) a containment policy might also have led to a higher risk premium in the oil markets if Iraq was seen to be gaining in military power despite our efforts to box it in, and 2) money not borrowed and spent on Iraq might well have been spent on something else given the White House's free-spending ways, it's easy to see that doing a cost-benefit analysis on "war vs. containment" might have left administration officials with no clear-cut economic answer.

Mr. Pethokoulis parenthetically provides a link to the House Republican reply to the Democrats ‘defective report’. The response is too soft on the hard numbers to my way of thinking – but that is OK, considering it is a ‘quick-turn’ response to a Democratic sneak attack. Mr. Pethokoulis closes by pointing out that others have reminded us that the cost-benefit isn’t all that important in the scheme of things via a 2006 reference to the Becker-Posner Blog.

So how can we think about the VALUE of taking Saddam out?
With the status quo being what it was in 2001, what were the chances that Saddam would have been passive in the wake of our success in Afghanistan? Does not the fact that Zarqari moved into Iraq after he was treated in Iran for injuries received in Afghanistan, or the fact that Saddam had allowed/supported the training of thousands of terrorists leading up to the invasion of Iraq perhaps indicates that Saddam was anything BUT passively standing on the sidelines?
Finally, the fact that we have spent the last 4 or so years killing an increasing number of foreign radicals that came to Iraq AFTER we freed it from the Baathists MUST be recognized by any rational mind that if we can kill or capture a radical Islamist in Iraq, they won’t be able to do evil in the United States.
So, can we provide some reasoning to logically characterize the economic BENEFIT of taking Saddam down in Iraq? Of course!
I was going to take a stab at it but a funny thing happened while researching the problem tonight. There is already an analysis out there! One that we can use to give us a feel for the cost avoidance we’ve accomplished to-date with the war in Iraq and our subsequent ‘nation building, as a CRITICAL PART of the Global War on Terror(GWOT)--something the Left would like to ignore and have the rest of us to forget.
The analysis pre-dates the latest Iraq War and was produced by Professor Looney with the Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC), a ‘research arm’ of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey. It is titled: “Economic Costs to the United States Stemming From the 9/11 Attacks”.

Using the professor’s assessment of the impact from the 9/11 attacks, we can easily see the value of successfully preventing further attacks on US soil. Now I admit this approach is based on the belief that the terrorists WOULD stage such attacks if they were capable of doing so. This is an idea that does not require any imagination to accept, but I would argue requires a seriously fantastic imagination to deny.

Professor Looney estimated that the 9/11 attacks cost the United States approximately $22.5B in direct costs in the short term, but added to that in indirect costs based upon the impact of 9/11 on the economy:

Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars (emphasis mine).

So rounding down to easy numbers, we have the cost of the 9/11 attacks estimated at “half a trillion dollars” over a two year period. Taking an extremely conservative approach, and ignoring the compounding effects of multiple attacks on the US economy, we can see that every attack similar to 9/11 that is prevented since that time is worth 1/3 of the total cost that the Democrats claim to-date. Ergo, all we would have had to have accomplished in the GWOT so far was to keep Al Qaeda and their ilk too busy to carry out three lousy follow-on attacks and the War in Iraq is a big-time money-saver!

Add a little more realism to the assumptions by factoring in the compounding effect that repeated attacks of possibly even smaller scale or lesser success might have on the US, and the War in Iraq becomes a freebie! At least, that’s how it would look to any moron who actually thought the cost of doing the right thing was in any way as relevant as doing something because it WAS the right thing.

Hey! This is the second post in a row that I get to close with:

As the old saying goes: "Too many people know the price of everything but the value of nothing".

John Kerry Keeps Digging....Update

James Taranto at Best of The Web Today does a nice little interleafing of John Kerry's defense and the point-by-point fisking of JK's rant by the WSJ's citizen-readers in response.

And so JK's attempt to recover some semblance of moral standing after his first statement:

"We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen."

.....fails miserably.

John Kerry Hits Bottom, Keeps Digging....Again

JK: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

“ John Kerry”, erstwhile Vietnam War veteran hit bottom with his assertions that a bloodbath in Southeast Asia after the US cut off the South Vietnamese at the knees in 1975 'didn't happen'.

As published on WSJ Online on 26 July 2007, James Taranto wrote:

Mr. Kerry, who served in Vietnam before turning against that war, voted for the Iraq war before turning against it. He draws on the Vietnam experience in making the case that the outcome of a U.S. pullout from Iraq would not be that bad. "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen," he said recently.

As seen at the page linked above, the Wall Street Journal (specifically James Taranto) "called out" the aging Junior Hairdo From Massachusetts on his shameful, self-serving statements. NOW, in an extremely weak retort, Kerry keeps digging and provides us with this gem, whereby he attempts to misrepresent the conditions in Southeast Asia both preceding AND following Congress’ shameful abandonment of the South Vietnamese in 1975 to fit his neat little left-wing POV.

Does his delusional summary of the Vietnam War and its aftermath ring true with the American people? True science isn’t run on consensus, but political science is, so what’s the bottom line? Did Kerry make a sale with the WSJ public? A review of the reader responses posted so far gives me cause to think well of my fellow citizens.

Citizens Vs. Kerry Scoreboard: 21-1-1

Out of 23 responses, 21 decidedly reject Kerry’s pseudo-intellectual posing, and most of those I would also say go so far as to properly MOCK the Senator and his ludicrous contortions.

One response is rational but approaches the issue with oblique peanut butter spreading of recriminations among all players in his sight. Ehh, call it a 'Tie' ( = neutral).

Finally, the lone (clear) Kerry supporter attempts to support his boy by also denying the Domino Effect via the technique of employing the narrowest possible definition of the Domino Theory and interpretation of the events that have followed, so allow the limited mind to ignore the instability of SEA after 1975. This supporter can be simply dismissed on the grounds that it is one of the WSJ’s perennial gadflies, a "semi-pro" commentator, who after retiring from a career as an ‘Educrat’ now spends his breakfasts crafting responses to any and all commentaries with which he is, or is not, in agreement. As regular readers are aware, one of my 'dreads' in this life is that we will be suffering more of such behavior in the future as more and more @# * #$^%@ hippies retire and have more time on their hands -- time to whine incessantly about all manner of things. Yes, “Michael D. McCaffrey of Yarmouthport, Massachusetts” I am talking about you and your ilk.

Pentagon Gives Word to Power: Senator Clinton Outraged

Hillary & Co. are in a snit over hearing unpleasant truths.

[Note: I've been quiet on the 'blogging' front for a while for a lot of reasons, the least of which is I'm preparing for my final post(s) on the Air Force's self-destruction. But this was just waaay too much to let go.]

The Offense: A response from Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) Edelman to a demand by Senator Clinton that we start planning and prepare for our defeat:

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,..."

The article further relays that Edelman:

...added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.''

A Clinton rep (Philippe Reines) provided these comments in response to Edelman's factual statements:

"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better,''

Now, there are two basic problems with the Clintonian outrage:

First, Edelman's points were factual. Reines comment was inflammatory.

Second, since according to the article, Edelman's response was 'leaked', it follows that Edelman responded in private. If Edelman and DoD wanted the correspondence to remain private, it kind of points to who might find the most benefit from having Edleman's response 'leaked' doesn't it?

Hmmmm. Who might find it most beneficial to leak Edelman's letter?

(Hint: The initials are HRC, though no doubt someone will find time to credit the genius of Karl Rove making it look like a Hillary stunt.)

Sidebar: "Now here is how you could morph Edelman's comments into something more inappropriate:

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States [with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence demonstrated by Congress in 1975,] will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,''

Gee, even that isn't too bad.....I suppose because it is still factual.

(Notice I didn't even comment on Kerry's two cents in the article: he STILL doesn't matter)

Militia Foils Pinko-Hippie-Anarchist Alliance

aka:

"Pinko Losers & Aging Hippies Herded Like Cattle by Real Americans"

I was going to blog on this in detail, contrasting the smelly, Commie-Pinko, "Anti-Victory" Hippies with the upstanding citizens of the Gathering of Eagles, thus protecting the monuments from the desecration that occurred last time. But then I viewed Michelle Malkin's excellent summary (with pics) and knew it couldn't be topped.

Go to Michelle Malkin's site. See real Americans, from different walks of life, make a stand against the anti-civilization hordes.

And lest you think I jest about the Commie-Pinko Hippies, here is the URL (sans "http:" as I don't want to link to this filth) for International Answer: "//answer.pephost.org". Scroll only a bit to see the nice selection of Che shirts.

I've often wondered where the natural curiosity of the press is concerning the true nature of these 'organizers'.

Update 03/25/07 -- corrected one horrible mispelling of Michelle Malkin's name. (I'm so ashamed)

The 246!

Now THIS is the proper way to look at things. Found courtesy of Black Five

The 246 should be mocked into oblivion.

Rep Sam Johnson Smacks Down Ron Paul, et al

Maybe instead of adding weight against the DisHon. John Murtha, I can make a contribution against the cut-and-run idiots closer to home.

Observe the cliché-ridden themes of the alter-moonbat rant of libertarian and isolationist Ron Paul:

‘Questioning his patriotism’
It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

‘America Imperialism’
Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

‘9/11 was an excuse to attack Iraq’
Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

AND

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil…

‘We’re helping Osama Bin Laden’ or ‘they hate us because we’re there’
His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq

‘It’s the Wrong War
Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed.

‘We can’t win’
We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?

Now compare Ron Paul’s blathering with Sam Johnson’s perspective on the issue of the ‘non-binding’ resolution. I include the full text** of Johnson’s comments, not just because I agree with him, but because it is his very perspective and the roots of that perspective that are at the core of the debate on the alternatives: Abandonment or Victory.

“You know, I flew 62 combat missions in the Korean War and 25 missions in the Vietnam War before being shot down.

“I had the privilege of serving in the United States Air Force for 29 years, attending the prestigious National War College, and commanding two air bases, among other things.

“I mention these stories because I view the debate on the floor not just as a U.S. Congressman elected to serve the good people of the Third District in Texas, but also through the lens of a life-long fighter pilot, student of war, a combat warrior, a leader of men, and a Prisoner of War.

“Ironically, this week marks the anniversary that I started a new life – and my freedom from prison in Hanoi.

“I spent nearly seven years as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam, more than half of that time in solitary confinement. I flew out of Hanoi on February 12, 1973 with other
long-held Prisoners of War – weighing just 140 pounds. And tomorrow – 34 years
ago, I had my homecoming to Texas – a truly unspeakable blessing of freedom.

“While in solitary confinement, my captors kept me in leg stocks, like the pilgrims… for 72 days….

“As you can imagine, they had to carry me out of the stocks because I couldn’t walk. The following day, they put me in leg irons… for 2 ½ years. That’s when you have a tight metal cuff around each ankle – with a foot-long bar connecting the legs.

“I still have little feeling in my right arm and my right hand… and my body has
never been the same since my nearly 2,500 days of captivity.

“But I will never let my physical wounds hold me back.

“Instead, I try to see the silver lining. I say that because in some way … I’m living a dream…a hope I had for the future.

“From April 16, 1966 to February 12, 1973 – I prayed that I would return home to the loving embrace of my wife, Shirley, and my three kids, Bob, Gini, and Beverly…
“And my fellow POWs and I clung to the hope of when – not if – we returned home.

“We would spend hours tapping on the adjoining cement walls about what we would do when we got home to America. “We pledged to quit griping about the way the
government was running the war in Vietnam and do something about it… We decided that we would run for office and try to make America a better place for all.

“So – little did I know back in my rat-infested 3 x 8 dark and filthy cell that 34 years after my departure from Hell on Earth… I would spend the anniversary of my release pleading for a House panel to back my measure to support and fully fund the troops in harm’s way….and that just days later I would be on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives surrounded by distinguished veterans urging Congress to support our troops to the hilt.

“We POWs were still in Vietnam when Washington cut the funding for Vietnam. I know what it does to morale and mission success. Words can not fully describe the horrendous damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground.

“Our captors would blare nasty recordings over the loud speaker of Americans protesting back home…tales of Americans spitting on Vietnam veterans when they came home... and worse. “We must never, ever let that happen again.

“The pain inflicted by your country’s indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors.

“Our troops – and their families – want, need and deserve the full support of the country – and the Congress. Moms and dads watching the news need to know that the Congress will not leave their sons and daughters in harm’s way without support.

“Since the President announced his new plan for Iraq last month, there has been steady progress. He changed the rules of engagement and removed political protections.

“There are reports we wounded the number two of Al Qaeda and killed his deputy. Yes, Al Qaeda operates in Iraq. It’s alleged that top radical jihadist Al-Sadr has fled Iraq – maybe to Iran. And Iraq’s closed its borders with Iran and Syria. The President changed course and offered a new plan …we are making progress. We must seize the opportunity to move forward, not stifle future success.

“Debating non-binding resolutions aimed at earning political points only destroys morale, stymies success, and emboldens the enemy.

“The grim reality is that this House measure is the first step to cutting funding of the troops…Just ask John Murtha about his ‘slow-bleed’ plan that hamstrings our troops in harm’s way.

“Now it’s time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home – and those who fought and died in Iraq - so I can keep my promise that when we got home we would quit griping about the war and do something positive about it…and we must not allow this Congress to leave these troops like the Congress left us.

“Today, let my body serve as a brutal reminder that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past… instead learn from them.

“We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them. We must support them all the way…To our troops we must remain…always faithful.

“God bless you and I salute you all. Thank you.”

**all emphases are Rep. Johnson’s

Rep. Johnson, as a veteran who suffered the consequences of a feckless Congress in an earlier war, has views that are clearly more substantive and deserving of recognition than the isolationist Paul’s. But since Paul is a useful idiot of the Left on this issue, I expect he’ll get a lot more media airplay.

Extra: If you get a chance to see the C-SPAN videos of the speeches, do so –and especially so in Rep Johnson’s delivery, watch it until the end. There you will see Rep. Johnson conclude his weighty observations and comments by struggling to walk away from the dias with the painful and permanent reminders of his service to his country. What a somber contrast in gravitas with the manic-Pekinese egoism that exudes from Medical Deity Paul.

Murtha Watch: Possibly Part 1 of Many

I've been considering making the UNHon. John Murtha the object of a running theme for quite a while now and haven't yet decided to definitely take on the task (Since I'm way behind on what I've already publically promised I will remain undecided for a while). The first part of deciding whether to take this on is to really evaluate and get to know your enemy -- and as retired military man, parent to a once and possibly future military man as well as in-law to military personnel, make no mistake Murtha IS my enemy. So I've been asking myself what kind of people would vote for this, this....well, whatever he is I can't really tell, but I suspect 'deranged' might be one of the adjectives.

Tonight I visited the Desp. John Murtha's House website and found a link to a map of his district here. (There is also a huge .pdf file on his site that will make an excellent reference for further study). A less detailed representation is below:

Fascinating! - And the Dems took Texas Republicans to task (and court) for Gerrymandering?

The demographics of Murtha's district deserve close analysis all their own, but at first blush it looks like his district was designed to avoid paved roads and cable access as much as possible. I suspect Murtha's base is largely poor, comparatively uneducated, and has statistically less access to a broader world view than some other places [update: based on the last election I have to also wonder about Pittsburgh]. (Oh! And his base includes a lot of people on his pork gravy train of course). I'll bet the vote in that district split largely along the Greedy-Ignorami Alliance vs. the Informed Patriot Defenders lines. Too bad the Greedy-Ignorami got out the vote last time outnumber the Patriots 2-1.

Another Update:

Maybe I'll just read Murtha Must Go and provide practical support to their effort. Catch their latest observations here.

Subversive Dem's and Roundheel Republicans

Subversive

–adjective

1. Also, sub·ver·sion·ar·y / tending to subvert or advocating subversion, esp. in an attempt to overthrow or cause the destruction of an established or legally constituted government.

–noun

2. a person who adopts subversive principles or policies.
[Origin: 1635–45;<>

—Related forms sub•ver•sive•ly, adverb sub•ver•siv•ism, sub•ver•sive•ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. traitorous, treacherous, seditious, destructive

With the Dem’s takeover of Congress has come the inevitable, and of course cowardly, SUBVERSION of the National Security through the weasel-like ‘non-binding resolution’ ploy to be followed by further SUBVERSIVE acts to undermine the war effort.

Meanwhile, their fellow travelers in the mainstream media scribe accounts of their activities as if they were merely reporting the Congress was declaring it National Dental Hygiene month.

NOW can I question these idiots’ "patriotism"?

ADDENDUM:

Here’s hoping several of the Republican A**hats who voted with the Dems soon experience and recognize a deliciously ironic loss of office over this -- an attempt to appease the Left, on the very issue of appeasing our enemies.

Until the Republicans in Congress ditch their ossified leadership and start heaping rightful scorn on those who have deserted the War on Terror, ALL future appeals for contributions sent to me will meet my ‘roundfile’ unopened. If enough people did it, we wouldn’t have to do it very long to make things right.

Darth Biden

"Failed Policy' Emboldens Enemy"….

"You don’t need to see his identification….. "

"These aren’t the droids you are looking for…. "

Running Biden’s big quote from the linked article through my handy de-BS’er to peel away the static we find:

"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Joe Biden, a White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy to stop us (Democrats) from subverting the war effort, going to war prematurely before making sure we couldn’t twist it to our political advantage , going to war without enough public relations troops to overcome our allies in the mainstream press."

Biden made his mark as a foot soldier in the Cowardly Congress that abandoned South Vietnam. He leads the effort this time.

The disdain with which I hold men such as Biden is beyond written or verbal expression. Oh, I suppose I could try and just paraphrase Curly by simply stating “I crap bigger than Joe Biden” but then... doesn’t everyone?