A Strong Military in a Dangerous World
In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.
John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth - and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.
The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values - and to keep the peace - America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.
John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.
As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.
Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics
The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.
America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.
In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.
As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.
He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.
John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.
As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.
Effective Missile Defense
John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.
John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.
Increasing the Size of the American Military
The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops.
Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.
John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.
John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm's way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation's values and interests absolutely demand it.
Modernizing the Armed Services
Modernizing American armed forces involves procuring advanced weapons systems that will help rapidly and decisively defeat any adversary and protect American lives. It also requires addressing force protection needs to make sure that America's combat personnel have the best safety and survivability equipment available.
Modernizing the armed forces also means adapting our doctrine, training, and tactics for the kind of conflicts we are most likely to face. Today, American forces are engaged in dangerous operations throughout the world. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and the Philippines, American forces are fighting the battles of the 21st century against terrorists and insurgents. These asymmetric conflicts require a very different force structure than the one we used to fight and win the Cold War.
The missions of the 21st century will not center on traditional territorial defense or mass armor engagements. Instead, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will be engaged in, among other things, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, missile defense, counter proliferation and information warfare. This calls not just for a larger and more capable military, but for a new mix of military forces, including civil affairs, special operations, and highly mobile forces capable of fighting and prevailing in the conflicts America faces.
Smarter Defense Spending
John McCain has worked aggressively to reform the defense budgeting process to ensure that America enjoys the best military at the best cost. This includes reforming defense procurement to ensure the faithful and efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars that are made available for defense acquisition. Too often, parochial interests - rather than the national interest - have guided our spending decisions. John McCain supports significant reform in our defense acquisition process to ensure that dollars spent actually contribute to U.S. security.
John McCain also feels strongly that our nation's military spending, except in time of genuine emergency, must be funded by the regular appropriations process, not by "emergency" supplementals that allow defense to be funded outside the normal budget cycle. This process gives Congressional committees less ability to closely scrutinize defense budget requests to ensure military funding is being budgeted wisely. It makes possible Congressional pork-barrel spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial home-state interests. And it allows the administration to add spending above that set by budget caps, bloating the federal deficit. Budgeting annually through emergency supplemental appropriation bills encourages pork barrel spending. The American taxpayer has a right to expect us to get the most out of each and every defense dollar, especially at a time when those dollars are so critical. Throughout his career, John McCain has fought pork-barrel defense spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial, home-state projects rather than addressing the needs of service personnel. He believes that unauthorized earmarks drain our precious defense resources and adversely affect our national security. John McCain will continue to fight pork-barrel spending to ensure that military funds are spent where they are needed most - in support of our military personnel and our national defense.
Taking Care of Our Military Personnel and their Families
Our military personnel and their families deserve the nation's unfailing gratitude, respect, and support. As a former naval officer with a distinguished record of military service, John McCain understands the profound sacrifices made by our men and women who serve in the uniform of our country and their families.
He believes one of America's most solemn obligations is to treat our military personnel with the same sense of devotion and duty as they demonstrate in rendering their service to the nation. John McCain has fought for improved military pay and benefits, and an improved quality of life for military families.
America's deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan rely heavily on Reserve and National Guard forces. John McCain has worked hard to ensure that benefits for deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen are brought in line with our active-duty military forces.
As president, he will make sure that just as we are always proud of our military personnel for what they do for the country, the country can be proud of what we do for them.
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama & The Democrats Plan To Slash Our Military And Raise Taxes
Rep. Barney Frank D-MA, has unwittingly given America a preview of what Washington will set out to do if the Democrats gain unfettered control of Congress, the White House and eventually the Supreme Court.
There is an intention to decimate our military with a 25% budget cut. This, while we are fighting in two wars and the world grows more dangerous by the day. The Democrats want to return our military to its' Carter era capabilities. We all remember when the military did not have the ability to fly 16 helicopters into Iran and rescue our hostages.
Obama speaking before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.
In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.
The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting.
"Second, 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.
"Third, 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."
His plan, needless to say, is frighteningly irresponsible given the world threats.
Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from "obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficit-reduction."
On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.
Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.
Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.
Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.
Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea threaten nuclear madness, and Osama bin Laden dreams of unleashing a nuclear 9/11 on America.
In contrast, John McCain has vowed: "We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies."
We've been down this road before. President Clinton pursued a denuclearization program, including his 1995 pledge to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it led to him kicking open our nuclear labs to the Chinese, who proceeded to steal our warhead secrets and strengthen their own arsenal.
Like the Ben & Jerry's crowd that supports him, Obama believes "real" national security is "humanitarian foreign aid" — essentially using our troops as international meals-on-wheels in Africa.
We've been down that road before, too, in Somalia and elsewhere. Thanks, but we don't need a third Clinton, or a second Carter, term.
Obama clearly stated:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space
I will slow development of future combat systems
I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons
Things that need to be looked at closely are:
-Slowing the development of future combat systems would weaken America's
conventional military preparedness.
-Not developing new nuclear weapons and placing deep cuts in America's nuclear
arsenal would leave America left with an increasingly obsolete nuclear capability
and will have little to no nuclear option in case of a threat to our survival.
-If America's ICBMs are off "hair trigger alert," then any response to a nuclear
attack may come too late to do any good at all. This at a time when nations such as
-Iran and/or North Korea have been working to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
-The cancellation of America's missile defense program or not weaponizing space
would lead to across-the-board unilateral disarmament. This makes about as much
sense as taking all weapons away from your local police department and expecting
the bad guys to no longer do bad things.
I believe that Obama and the Democrats are either dangerously naive or are relying
on the 'good will' of those who have the stated purpose to annihilate the US and our allies. Whether it is blind naivety or inexperience that leads to their poor judgement. They pose a danger to our survival.
The democrats overt desire to expand socialism in the US. is another example of questionable judgement.
We have all learned of their plan to provide 95% of Americans an additional tax refund. They are careful in their parsing of words. This is not a reduction in our income tax rate. It is an additional refund that can be taken away at any time. Another folly in this logic is that approximately 40% of Americans do not pay income tax. We are indeed going to redistribute the wealth by writing this 40% of non taxpayers a check. It amounts to another form of welfare. Or vote buying, depending on how you choose to view it.
An additional 'slight of hand' on the democrats part is the planned increase of our corporate tax rate. Already second highest in the world. The democrats will raise it ten percent. The problem is that corporations do not pay income tax. When their rate goes up, they pass that additional cost onto consumers.
Obama and the democrats are aware of this, but are counting on the media to provide cover until after the election. They know they can not fund their socialist programs with the current tax rates. If they put a tax increase on the lower and middle class in their tax plans, they will lose the election. They will still collect from the lower and middle class but they will do it through the corporate tax rate increase. Letting consumers pick up the tab indirectly.
As we remember from the Carter years, this has an upward spiral affect. As the resulting unemployment and consumer prices increase, so does the corresponding inflation rate. As the resulting inflation rate goes up, the Federal Reserve steps in and raises interest rates in an attempt to slow the inflation. Before long we will find ourselves in the second term of Jimmy Carter.
I have spoken to taxes and our military. I want to touch on the social agenda being pushed by Obama and the democrats.
Obama voted against any restrictions on abortion up through late term procedures. As he appoints Supreme Court Justices and rams them through a 'rubber stamp' congress, his abortion stance will be reflected in constitutional interpretation for decades to come. He also voted to not require medical attention for any child that survives a late term abortion.
Last week a class of 1st graders were taken to their lesbian teachers wedding during school hours. Defenders of this, argued that it would teach tolerance. I do not think children are able to process such information at the age of six and seven. Last Thursday, another elementary school treated their students to Gay "National Coming Out Day". This was done with grades K-8. Without parental notification, and was not included in the school's published calender. This was done to teach children the importance of building 'alliances'. Never mind parental authority. The leftists know what is best for our children.
Additional funding will be flowing to ACORN. The democrats know this is a winner for their reelection efforts. Voter registration fraud on a nationwide scale. This will continue to be funded through the federal 'Housing Trust Fund'.
While hunting guns will be protected, handguns are a target. American Hunters Shooters Assoc, has endorsed Obama. This organization is a front group for anti- handgun backers. The NRA endorsed McCain for a reason.
Obama's 'Global Poverty Act' funding. Currently the GAO and CBO omits funding language in the cost estimates. Filibuster proof majorities will remove the need to hide the actual costs. Actual estimates are $850 billion US taxpayer dollars to fight poverty in Africa. None of this money is targeting poverty in the US. This money will be paid to the United Nations and is over and above current foreign aid.
The 'Global Poverty Act' is part of a greater United Nations program, know as the "Millennium Project". It commits the US to the World Courts criminal division and will usurp the authority of the US. Supreme Court. Google the Millennium Project to learn other included tenants. The ultimate goal here is one world government. A redistribution of wealth globally between nations.
There is an intention to decimate our military with a 25% budget cut. This, while we are fighting in two wars and the world grows more dangerous by the day. The Democrats want to return our military to its' Carter era capabilities. We all remember when the military did not have the ability to fly 16 helicopters into Iran and rescue our hostages.
Obama speaking before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.
In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.
The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting.
"Second, 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.
"Third, 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."
His plan, needless to say, is frighteningly irresponsible given the world threats.
Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from "obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficit-reduction."
On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.
Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.
Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.
Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.
Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea threaten nuclear madness, and Osama bin Laden dreams of unleashing a nuclear 9/11 on America.
In contrast, John McCain has vowed: "We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies."
We've been down this road before. President Clinton pursued a denuclearization program, including his 1995 pledge to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it led to him kicking open our nuclear labs to the Chinese, who proceeded to steal our warhead secrets and strengthen their own arsenal.
Like the Ben & Jerry's crowd that supports him, Obama believes "real" national security is "humanitarian foreign aid" — essentially using our troops as international meals-on-wheels in Africa.
We've been down that road before, too, in Somalia and elsewhere. Thanks, but we don't need a third Clinton, or a second Carter, term.
Obama clearly stated:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space
I will slow development of future combat systems
I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons
Things that need to be looked at closely are:
-Slowing the development of future combat systems would weaken America's
conventional military preparedness.
-Not developing new nuclear weapons and placing deep cuts in America's nuclear
arsenal would leave America left with an increasingly obsolete nuclear capability
and will have little to no nuclear option in case of a threat to our survival.
-If America's ICBMs are off "hair trigger alert," then any response to a nuclear
attack may come too late to do any good at all. This at a time when nations such as
-Iran and/or North Korea have been working to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
-The cancellation of America's missile defense program or not weaponizing space
would lead to across-the-board unilateral disarmament. This makes about as much
sense as taking all weapons away from your local police department and expecting
the bad guys to no longer do bad things.
I believe that Obama and the Democrats are either dangerously naive or are relying
on the 'good will' of those who have the stated purpose to annihilate the US and our allies. Whether it is blind naivety or inexperience that leads to their poor judgement. They pose a danger to our survival.
The democrats overt desire to expand socialism in the US. is another example of questionable judgement.
We have all learned of their plan to provide 95% of Americans an additional tax refund. They are careful in their parsing of words. This is not a reduction in our income tax rate. It is an additional refund that can be taken away at any time. Another folly in this logic is that approximately 40% of Americans do not pay income tax. We are indeed going to redistribute the wealth by writing this 40% of non taxpayers a check. It amounts to another form of welfare. Or vote buying, depending on how you choose to view it.
An additional 'slight of hand' on the democrats part is the planned increase of our corporate tax rate. Already second highest in the world. The democrats will raise it ten percent. The problem is that corporations do not pay income tax. When their rate goes up, they pass that additional cost onto consumers.
Obama and the democrats are aware of this, but are counting on the media to provide cover until after the election. They know they can not fund their socialist programs with the current tax rates. If they put a tax increase on the lower and middle class in their tax plans, they will lose the election. They will still collect from the lower and middle class but they will do it through the corporate tax rate increase. Letting consumers pick up the tab indirectly.
As we remember from the Carter years, this has an upward spiral affect. As the resulting unemployment and consumer prices increase, so does the corresponding inflation rate. As the resulting inflation rate goes up, the Federal Reserve steps in and raises interest rates in an attempt to slow the inflation. Before long we will find ourselves in the second term of Jimmy Carter.
I have spoken to taxes and our military. I want to touch on the social agenda being pushed by Obama and the democrats.
Obama voted against any restrictions on abortion up through late term procedures. As he appoints Supreme Court Justices and rams them through a 'rubber stamp' congress, his abortion stance will be reflected in constitutional interpretation for decades to come. He also voted to not require medical attention for any child that survives a late term abortion.
Last week a class of 1st graders were taken to their lesbian teachers wedding during school hours. Defenders of this, argued that it would teach tolerance. I do not think children are able to process such information at the age of six and seven. Last Thursday, another elementary school treated their students to Gay "National Coming Out Day". This was done with grades K-8. Without parental notification, and was not included in the school's published calender. This was done to teach children the importance of building 'alliances'. Never mind parental authority. The leftists know what is best for our children.
Additional funding will be flowing to ACORN. The democrats know this is a winner for their reelection efforts. Voter registration fraud on a nationwide scale. This will continue to be funded through the federal 'Housing Trust Fund'.
While hunting guns will be protected, handguns are a target. American Hunters Shooters Assoc, has endorsed Obama. This organization is a front group for anti- handgun backers. The NRA endorsed McCain for a reason.
Obama's 'Global Poverty Act' funding. Currently the GAO and CBO omits funding language in the cost estimates. Filibuster proof majorities will remove the need to hide the actual costs. Actual estimates are $850 billion US taxpayer dollars to fight poverty in Africa. None of this money is targeting poverty in the US. This money will be paid to the United Nations and is over and above current foreign aid.
The 'Global Poverty Act' is part of a greater United Nations program, know as the "Millennium Project". It commits the US to the World Courts criminal division and will usurp the authority of the US. Supreme Court. Google the Millennium Project to learn other included tenants. The ultimate goal here is one world government. A redistribution of wealth globally between nations.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
On The Precipice Of Pakistans Overthrow
America's semi-reliable ally, Pakistan, is on the precipice of overthrow. The political climate there has ripened into a disaster in the making. Benazir Bhutto's husband is now in office, but only tenuously. They are having energy and food shortages. Al-Qaeda has taken control of two regions. The military command is dicey. Terrorists have longed for an opportunity to gain control of nuclear weapons, and may have found their mark. If the government there falls to radical Islamists, then the western world will be fighting for it's own survival. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.
This is the picture being outlined in a soon-to-be released U.S. Intelligence Assessment.
A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."
The first official summarized the estimates conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."
Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.
"Can it get that bad in Pakistan? The Pakistanis themselves now say that two vital regions - Swat and the area around Peshawar - are already in al-Qaeda's hands. The whole government is rotten to the core so it won't take much to push it over.
Then what? Same thing that happened in Afghanistan. A coalition of conservative fundamentalist parties take over and we have the nightmare scenario come true.
I want to say I'm confident Obama would do something if worse came to worse, but we just don't know, do we?" - Rick Moran
This is not the same world we lived in prior to 9/11. These radicals hate everything about the western culture. They want to destroy it. A member of Hamas was quoted as saying about our negotiations:"There is nothing to negotiate. We do not want anything from you. We want to destroy you."
I see people in the middle east supporting Obama. I hope they do so out of respect for him. However, I believe that he is viewed as the weaker Presidential candidate, naive and inexperienced. He would be easier to walk over. He might also be more hesitant to react. The radicals know what to expect from McCain and it gives them pause. Not so, with a perceived weaker Obama.
This is the picture being outlined in a soon-to-be released U.S. Intelligence Assessment.
A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."
The first official summarized the estimates conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."
Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.
"Can it get that bad in Pakistan? The Pakistanis themselves now say that two vital regions - Swat and the area around Peshawar - are already in al-Qaeda's hands. The whole government is rotten to the core so it won't take much to push it over.
Then what? Same thing that happened in Afghanistan. A coalition of conservative fundamentalist parties take over and we have the nightmare scenario come true.
I want to say I'm confident Obama would do something if worse came to worse, but we just don't know, do we?" - Rick Moran
This is not the same world we lived in prior to 9/11. These radicals hate everything about the western culture. They want to destroy it. A member of Hamas was quoted as saying about our negotiations:"There is nothing to negotiate. We do not want anything from you. We want to destroy you."
I see people in the middle east supporting Obama. I hope they do so out of respect for him. However, I believe that he is viewed as the weaker Presidential candidate, naive and inexperienced. He would be easier to walk over. He might also be more hesitant to react. The radicals know what to expect from McCain and it gives them pause. Not so, with a perceived weaker Obama.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Left Wing: Whales Trump National Security
I am in favor of conserving the environment and protecting the Whales. Most Americans recognize the need to do so. However, there needs to be proportionality in our approach. Our friends on the left have overwhelmingly thrown their support behind the Democrats. They do so, because the Democrats grant them more influence, even at the peril of old fashioned ‘common sense’. When I see the environmentalist putting their cause ahead of my family’s safety, I object. This article that I have provided excerpts from, highlights this short sided fallacy. A link is provided at the bottom.
It’s a dangerous world out there. Iranian mullahs push forward their missile and nuke development programs while musing about a world without Israel ... or America. Russia rattles its saber, invades Georgia, plants its flag in the Arctic and dismisses the United States as a has-been superpower. Islamists wage a “holy war” against “the Great Satan” with firefights in Afghanistan, bombings in the Middle East and plots around the world.
Perilous times, indeed. And while America is at war, environmental extremists are on a mission, too. Just not necessarily on our side.
Case in point: The Navy has a whale of a problem. It uses sonar to detect underwater dangers and to navigate its own submarines. But sonar may adversely affect the navigational ability of whales and other sea creatures. In five different cases, environmental groups have sued the Navy to restrict testing low- and medium-range sonar frequency arrays.
For example, when naval ships detect sea mammals within 200 yards during training exercises, they shut down the sonar immediately. Scientific experiments by the Navy determined that a 200-yard buffer minimizes the risk that whales will become disoriented by military sonar.
But instead of deferring to the service’s scientifically-based buffer zone, a U.S. District judge decided the Navy must turned off its sonar at a range of 2,200 yards. The new buffer zone - more than a mile-and-a-quarter radius - appears based on nothing but the whim of the court. The Navy called the restrictions “crippling.”
As a result of this decision, the commander of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group recently had to slash sonar training. Meanwhile, China continues to build its super-quiet diesel submarines that are harder and harder to find - even with sonar up and running.
The Navy is not the only service losing “lawfare” battles to the enviros. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled the Pentagon violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to evaluate how a new air base, the Futenma Replacement Facility, might affect the Japanese dugong.
Since NHPA is intended to apply to historical property, not animals, the court’s decision is as strange as the unusual mammal it purports to protect.
More than odd, the ruling undermines security. A joint statement by U.S. and Japanese officials “reaffirmed that completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility ... by the target date of 2014, is the key to ... the overall realignment plan for Okinawa,” including relocation of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Guam. The actions of an activist judge have now all but ensured this vital process will not be complete by the deadline.
Worse, the dugong decision may create a new opening for environmental activists to target other U.S. bases around the world, re-labeling arcane animals as historic relics that must take precedence under the NHPA.
Judges gone wild is a symptom of a bigger problem. In the end, the greatest threat to American security may be constituent politics that puts narrow self-interest above the common good.
“Lawfare” advocates a constituent concern regardless of the cost. As long as stakeholders advance their agenda, nothing else matters. This problem can get out of control when judges cultivate a culture of litigation and creative interpretation of law.
The activists can rightly argue they are just doing their job, lobbying for their thing. Government, however, is supposed to be about more than just the sum of constituent politics.
Lawmakers have an obligation to give us laws that will keep us all free, safe and prosperous. Courts are obliged to protect us from those who would violate or abuse the law.
But when activists hijack the judiciary and advance one goal at the expense of another, justice is perverted. And when government’s fundamental obligation to “provide for the common defense” falls victim to perverse court rulings, the nation’s future is at risk.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100608d.cfm
It’s a dangerous world out there. Iranian mullahs push forward their missile and nuke development programs while musing about a world without Israel ... or America. Russia rattles its saber, invades Georgia, plants its flag in the Arctic and dismisses the United States as a has-been superpower. Islamists wage a “holy war” against “the Great Satan” with firefights in Afghanistan, bombings in the Middle East and plots around the world.
Perilous times, indeed. And while America is at war, environmental extremists are on a mission, too. Just not necessarily on our side.
Case in point: The Navy has a whale of a problem. It uses sonar to detect underwater dangers and to navigate its own submarines. But sonar may adversely affect the navigational ability of whales and other sea creatures. In five different cases, environmental groups have sued the Navy to restrict testing low- and medium-range sonar frequency arrays.
For example, when naval ships detect sea mammals within 200 yards during training exercises, they shut down the sonar immediately. Scientific experiments by the Navy determined that a 200-yard buffer minimizes the risk that whales will become disoriented by military sonar.
But instead of deferring to the service’s scientifically-based buffer zone, a U.S. District judge decided the Navy must turned off its sonar at a range of 2,200 yards. The new buffer zone - more than a mile-and-a-quarter radius - appears based on nothing but the whim of the court. The Navy called the restrictions “crippling.”
As a result of this decision, the commander of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group recently had to slash sonar training. Meanwhile, China continues to build its super-quiet diesel submarines that are harder and harder to find - even with sonar up and running.
The Navy is not the only service losing “lawfare” battles to the enviros. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled the Pentagon violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to evaluate how a new air base, the Futenma Replacement Facility, might affect the Japanese dugong.
Since NHPA is intended to apply to historical property, not animals, the court’s decision is as strange as the unusual mammal it purports to protect.
More than odd, the ruling undermines security. A joint statement by U.S. and Japanese officials “reaffirmed that completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility ... by the target date of 2014, is the key to ... the overall realignment plan for Okinawa,” including relocation of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Guam. The actions of an activist judge have now all but ensured this vital process will not be complete by the deadline.
Worse, the dugong decision may create a new opening for environmental activists to target other U.S. bases around the world, re-labeling arcane animals as historic relics that must take precedence under the NHPA.
Judges gone wild is a symptom of a bigger problem. In the end, the greatest threat to American security may be constituent politics that puts narrow self-interest above the common good.
“Lawfare” advocates a constituent concern regardless of the cost. As long as stakeholders advance their agenda, nothing else matters. This problem can get out of control when judges cultivate a culture of litigation and creative interpretation of law.
The activists can rightly argue they are just doing their job, lobbying for their thing. Government, however, is supposed to be about more than just the sum of constituent politics.
Lawmakers have an obligation to give us laws that will keep us all free, safe and prosperous. Courts are obliged to protect us from those who would violate or abuse the law.
But when activists hijack the judiciary and advance one goal at the expense of another, justice is perverted. And when government’s fundamental obligation to “provide for the common defense” falls victim to perverse court rulings, the nation’s future is at risk.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100608d.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
