Category Archives: defense policy

Iraqi Drama Catches US Off Guard

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline of a Wall Street Journal article, and I stole it. It’s here, too, because the headline says it all.

The quickly unfolding drama prompted a White House meeting Wednesday of top policy makers and military leaders who were caught off guard by the swift collapse of Iraqi security forces, officials acknowledged.

And

US military leaders said they had thought that Iraqi security forces’ efforts would be enough to slow ISIS’s advance. But those assumptions were proven wrong when Iraqi troops largely abandoned their posts.

Yet it’s not just about establishing ISIS in Sunni Iraq. Having moved to within a few 10s of miles of Baghdad, ISIS has announced its intent to move on and seize Shia Karbala and Najaf, hosts of two of the holiest shrines for Shiite Muslims, for the humiliation of the Shia in Iraq. And for the added fertile agricultural territory.

Why was the US caught off guard by this Iraqi collapse in the wake of the collapse going on in next-door Syria? Because no one in this administration has any clue at all concerning what’s going on—and why—outside the little choir of “advisors” President Barack Obama maintains in his coterie.

John Kerry’s False Dichotomy

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State John Kerry defended the trade of five top Taliban “generals” for the terrorist hostage Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl this way:

To leave an American behind, in the hands of people that torture him, cut off his head, do any number of things, and we would consciously choose to do that? That’s the other side of this equation. I don’t think anybody would think that is the appropriate thing to do.

Indeed, no one was thinking that, much less arguing it. The thrust of the criticism of the trade has centered on the trade, not on the idea of getting one of our own back; Kerry’s ascription to the contrary is facially false.

For instance, we could have worked a different deal, trading other prisoners, not from Gitmo, for the hostage Bergdahl.

We could have worked a different deal, trading something else for the hostage Bergdahl.

There’s reason to believe that we knew where Bergdahl was being held with enough specificity to just go get him.

Of course, Kerry knows that, which makes his “choice” a cynical and dishonest offering. The question is what does he gain with such claims? What can his boss, President Barack Obama do for him for this support of a bad effort? What does Kerry get directly for this?

Hmm….

A Step in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

[A] bill announced Thursday by Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Senator John McCain (R, AZ) would allow veterans who wait 30 days or more for VA appointments or who live at least 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic to use private doctors enrolled as providers for Medicare, military TRICARE or other government health care programs.

This is clearly a step in the right direction, but this bill absolutely does not complete the reform of the VA. Why should a veteran have to wait 30 days before he can see a non-VA doctor that he could see tomorrow at urgency or in a few days to a week otherwise?

Why should a veteran have to drive 39 miles to a VA facility, driving past a non-VA doctor’s office just 10 miles away?

Why should a veteran be required to see a government-designated doctor when he could see one that he prefers those 10 miles away?

No. The final way, the complete way, to reform this VA is to disband it and let our veterans see the doctors they choose to see at the medical facility they and their doctor deem appropriate, with the VA’s budget paid to the veterans as vouchers.

The Sanders-McCain bill, it’s claimed

also would let the VA immediately fire as many as 450 senior regional executives and hospital administrators for poor performance.

Again, a useful step, but this cannot be a final one. Disbanding the VA and returning all of the VA’s employees to the private sector clears this problem away, also, and with finality.

Bergdahl and Deal Making

Posted on by
Reply

Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff made a number of points about the Obama “exchange;” I’ll add just a couple.

…President Obama was motivated less by a desire to bring back this particular prisoner than by a desire to make a deal—almost any deal—with the Taliban. Obama himself tipped his hand when, in announcing the deal, he said it could “open the door for broader discussions [with the Taliban] about the future of [Afghanistan] by building confidence.”

Mirengoff added

But who doubted that deals can be made with the Taliban? A deal can be made with anyone if it is one-sided enough.

Indeed. And after initially (or so Obama’s minions claim) holding out for a grand bargain,

A senior administration official said “we didn’t achieve as much as we would have liked, but neither [did we achieve] nothing.” Instead, “we have created precedent and a basis that might well provide an opening in the future,” he asserted.

Well, no, you didn’t. A precedent in this venue requires that both parties to agree that it is one or that one party has the power to enforce its terms in later efforts. This isn’t an American superior court where precedence has force regardless of agreement (you’d think a Constitutional scholar like our President would understand that). On the other hand, the Taliban did set a very critical precedent. They’ve demonstrated that they have the power to enforce their precedential terms onto this administration at will.

And this: only a partisan hack could think trading five four-star generals for a single sergeant is a good deal. Or a community organizer out of his depth.

Who’s More Valuable?

Posted on by
Reply

A soldier of questionable motive, but who acted deliberately and wound up in enemy hands, or a soldier of clear motive, but who made a traffic error and wound up in an “ally’s” jail?

Obama announced Saturday in a dramatic Rose Garden news conference that five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay would be exchanged for [Army Sgt Bowe] Bergdahl, a 28-year-old infantryman held captive for five years by the terrorist group. The swap angered many in the military and on Capitol Hill, because it went against long-standing policy of not bargaining with terrorists.

On the other hand, we get

Although [Marine Sgt Andrew] Tahmooressi is not a prisoner of war, he served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, and now suffers post-traumatic stress disorder, according to his mother, Jill Tahmooressi. Friends who have visited him in [the Mexican] prison say he has been tortured and threatened with rape and death, and they question whether the administration is doing enough to help him.

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R, CA) observed

[A]s far the Administration went for Bergdahl, Andrew Tahmooressi is still stuck in a Mexican jail for making a wrong turn, and the only thing grabbing the president’s attention so far is an online petition that forces him to respond.

If he responds to the petition at all. In the meantime, neither our Secretary of State and ex-motor boat skipper, John Kerry, nor our President and ex-community organizer, Barack Obama, have troubled themselves to pick up a phone and make a call to Mexico.

It’s pretty clear where this administration’s values lie. Keep it in mind this fall.