Obama’s speech on Afghanistan is perhaps as notable for what the President did not say as what he did. What do I mean by that? Well, he never uses the words ‘victory,’ ‘win,’ or ‘jihad.’  He does use ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ five times, and ‘defeating’ a grand total of once.

He had to wiggle hard to avoid using some of these verboten words.  We don’t fight ‘jihadists,’ for instance, but rather “a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam.”  Despite being too busy to talk about winning the war, he did find plenty of time to talk about himself, using the word ‘I’ on 40 separate occasions, and ‘me’ another six times.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Just don’t expect any hyperventilating from Chris Matthews:

Decrying Barack Obama as “white power in black face,” hundreds of African-Americans marched on the White House Saturday to protest policies of the first black US president, and demand that he bring US troops home.

More than 200 people gathered for the first public demonstration by African Americans against the Obama administration since his historic inauguration in January, and slammed the president for continuing what they described as Washington’s “imperialist” agenda around the world.

“We recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is white power in black face,” civil rights activist Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black is Back coalition which arranged the protest, called into a megaphone as the group marched outside the mansion’s gates.

We see once again that real racism is borne of left-wing, identity politics.  There’s no reason why Obama’s race should have anything to do with troop levels in Afghanistan.  There is no black or white policy involved, yet Obama is racially attacked because race-baiters have propagated the destructive idea that ones color has something to do with ones positions on certain issues, even those totally irrelevant to race.  In the eyes of liberal, identity-politics practitioners, anyone who strays from the political bounds of their racial identity is fair game for racist attacks.

Comments  Print This Post

---

The U.S. has reversed drug policy in Afghanistan:

Washington is to dramatically overhaul its Afghan anti-drug strategy, phasing out opium poppy eradication, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan told allies on Saturday.

Richard Holbrooke, attending a G8 conference on stabilising Afghanistan, also discussed efforts to support its August 20 election. Washington has nearly doubled its troops to combat a growing Taliban insurgency and provide security for the vote.

“The Western policies against the opium crop, the poppy crop, have been a failure. They did not result in any damage to the Taliban, but they put farmers out of work,” Holbrooke told Reuters after a series of bilateral meetings in Italy.

This is a welcome development.  Attacking poppy fields in Afghanistan was self-defeating for our larger mission.  We need to be less concerned about forcing anti-drug morality on Afghanistan farmers than we are about establishing a secure Afghanistan and stopping the reemergence of the Taliban.

Comments  Print This Post

---

This is a bad idea:

The US and its European allies are ­preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, the Guardian has learned.

The creation of a new chief executive or prime ministerial role is aimed at bypassing Karzai. In a further dilution of his power, it is proposed that money be diverted from the Kabul government to the provinces. Many US and European officials have become disillusioned with the extent of the corruption and incompetence in the Karzai government, but most now believe there are no credible alternatives, and predict the Afghan president will win re-election in August.

So America will now be in the business of deciding who leads Afghanistan? This is not what we went there for. We had every right to depose the government that supported those who attacked us on 9/11. We also had a responsibility, in doing so, to help them establish a new government. They have it. We don’t now get to decide it’s not quite good enough for us. There are some better ideas in the story, however:

As well as watering down Karzai’s personal authority by installing a senior official at the president’s side capable of playing a more efficient executive role, the US and Europeans are seeking to channel resources to the provinces rather than to central government in Kabul.

We made the mistake early on of trying to do to much at a “federal” level instead of in local communities.  Afghanistan is not a country where the people are used to looking to a far away capital for leadership.  Focusing our efforts on empowering local leaders to solve problems will do more for the country than working exclusively, or principly, with Kabul.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Or so says the Senator from Illinois, whose security in Afghanistan was provided by the much maligned firm.

Sen. Barack Obama has not been a fan of private police like Blackwater in war zones, and some news outlets even reported that they were spurned for his trip last week to Afghanistan and Iraq. But Whispers confirms that Blackwater did handle the Democratic presidential candidate’s security in Afghanistan and helped out in Iraq. What’s more, Obama was overheard saying: “Blackwater is getting a bad rap.” Since everything appeared to go swimmingly, maybe he will take firms like Blackwater out of his sights, the company’s supporters hope.

Hat tip: Protein Wisdom

Now to put Obama’s recent observation in context. His official Senate website features a number of op-eds disparaging the private security firm. In one from the Chicago-Sun Times the group is likened to a “rogue militia” group:

Contractors shouldn’t be rogue militia, roaming the country shooting without justification and without consequences. This is especially true since the federal government has apparently hired out the Iraq war right under our noses: There are nearly as many private military employees there as troops.

In the same article the administration is also chastised for relying on a “shadow military.” Another featured op-ed, this time from the LA TImes, declares that such contractors should not be tasked with providing security to American diplomats.

But Congress should also debate the overarching issue: Which military and security functions should be outsourced in the first place? And which pose the potential to harm the national interest if delegated to the private sector? The traditional standard was that “mission critical” functions — jobs that would lose the war if botched — shouldn’t be outsourced. What little is known about the Pentagon’s use of security contractors indicates that standard is obsolete. But what should the new criteria be?

The Blackwater debacle suggests that at the very least, outsourcing the protection of U.S. diplomats operating in war zones — a national security imperative — is a bad idea.

Does Barack Obama support these views? If not, why are they featured on his website? If so, how does he reconcile such statements with his recent adventures? Having found that the group is getting a “bad rap,” is he also willing to admit his culpability in making that so?

In a speech from October of 2007 featured on Obama’s campaign website (which curiously lacks a search function), he stated, “We cannot win a fight for hearts and minds when we outsource critical missions to unaccountable contractors.”  Does this mean that, by accepting the security of Blackwater, Obama has contributed to our supposed inability to “win a fight for hearts and minds?”

Comments  Print This Post

---

The Washington Post is reporting that the Bush administration is preparing to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization under Executive Order 13224. The move comes as significant evidence continues to build indicating significant Iranian involvement in ongoing terrorist activity in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

. . .The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard’s vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard’s financial operations.

“Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately,” said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. “It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people.”

. . .Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

Designating a military body as a terrorist group is a bold move by the administration, but it accurately reflects the nations tendency to use terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, as proxy fighters.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Exclusive: Suicide Bomb Teams Sent to U.S., Europe

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.

The tape shows Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, whose brother was killed by the U.S. last month, introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

“These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places,” Dadullah says on the tape. “Why shouldn’t we go after them?”

Wait, these terrorists are mad about Afghanistan? Doesn’t this tend to undercut that common argument of the left, that Iraq is uniquely responsible for creating more terrorists, while Afghanistan was a perfectly acceptable military action? Seeing as how the left is so quick to proclaim that they supported Afghanistan, and that these terrorists are using Afghanistan to justify attacks on Western targets, does that not now make the left as responsible for new terrorists as they argue supporters are the war in Iraq are? Of course it does, by their reasoning.

But we also know that their reasoning is bunk. Terrorists give all kinds of justifications for their actions that they know will be parroted in western media outlets across the globe. Their goal with such statements is to get us to question our tactics and erode our will to fight. The reality is that these suicide bombers exist because they have been indoctrinated by an extremist cult since birth. Their inauguration date into the world of suicide bombers was set long before we ever stepped foot into Afghanistan. Sitting around whining that military action “breeds terrorism” shows fundamental ignorance of history. Putting our national head in the sand has invited far more terrorism to date than taking the fight to the enemy. We were attacked because we were perceived as weak. Unfortunately, due to certain useful idiots here at home, we are still perceived as weak. Our projection of weakness, and not our military actions, is what will continue to drive terrorist attacks against this country.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Ahmadinejad Predicts Collapse of Israel, U.S., U.K.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted the collapse of Israel, the U.S. and Britain, attacking what he called their “oppressive behavior.”

“The Zionist regime is on a steep downhill towards collapse and disgrace,” Ahmandinejad told supporters at a rally of Basiji militia forces near Tehran today. In a reference to the U.S. and U.K., he said “the collapse and crumbling of your devilish rule has started.” The speech was carried live on state television.

. . .The Iranian president also called on neighboring countries to drive out “foreign occupiers,” in a reference to U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran is ready to help the U.S. on Iraq, Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed Sunday that he would help the United States calm Iraq if Washington changes what he described as its “bullying” policy toward Iran.

“We are ready to help you, Ahmadinejad declared while addressing a group of members of the Basij paramilitary group, affiliated to the elite Revolutionary Guard.

Real helpful.

Not to be misunderstood, Ahmadinejad made sure to work in some DNC talking points:

“You went to Iraq to topple Saddam and find weapons of mass destruction, but it was clear to us that you came in order to dominate the region and its oil.”

Ahmadinejad said that the U.S. and Britain are paying for the instability and violence in Iraq. “You have been trapped in a quagmire and locked in your place with nowhere to go.”

Comments  Print This Post

---

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.