Skip to content

Penn State University’s “Training Video”

By: Tom Skypek
Friday, April 10, 2009

For the last five decades, the United States military has been a constant target of radical leftists on college campuses.  It is clear that the naive students and leftist professors who dominate college campuses despise the men and women who guarantee their liberty–preserving their First Amendment right to communicate their often moronic and useless ideas.  ROTC has been a favorite target of these inviduals.  Now, veterans are being targeted.  A friend of mine (HP:  WB) passed along this “training video” produced by Penn State University.  American Veteran has some interesting thoughts on this matter.

The video is downright insulting. Of course, it is their right to produce and distribute garbage–why stop now? But this really pushes the limits of decency. Their lack of respect for veterans is disturbing. Here’s the video:

The video has been removed by the University. However, if you would like to share your thoughts with the leadership at Penn State University, please use this e-mail address: president@psu.edu. I’m sure President Graham B. Spanier would love to hear from you.

Filed in Veterans | Tagged , , | Comments (1)

God Bless the United States Marine Corps!

By: Tom Skypek
Sunday, April 5, 2009

A friend passed along this video:

Filed in American Foreign Policy | Tagged | Comments (0)

New Af-Pak Strategy

By: Matt Schwieger
Saturday, March 28, 2009

Limiting the scope of U.S. objectives is an important step in the right direction.  Still, I see two principle shortfalls with the Obama administration’s “new” strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan:

  1. Rosy assumptions on Iraq drawdown:  The plan miscalculates by underestimating the risks associated with the drawdown of U.S. involvement in Iraq.  Should a violent faction lie in waiting for the U.S. to pullout (now they have the timetable and can do so) and the situation in Iraq deteriorates, how does this affect the planned troop increase in Afghanistan?   The probability of such a contingency is not as unlikely as some would have you believe.  
  2. Inadequate troop levels given historical ratios:  If you accept the view that 1) disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda in the Af-Pak region is a top priority U.S. national security objective, and 2) that we have neglected Afghanistan in terms of troops and resources, then it seems to me as though a measly 4,000 trainer and 17,000 combat troop surge is hardly enough.  Some have suggested five brigades but given the difficult terrain, I think it might take even more.  See this RAND report for historical force-population ratios for counterinsurgency campaigns.

Filed in American Foreign Policy, Iraq | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

Overseas Contingency Operation

By: Tom Skypek
Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Overseas Contingency Operation–that’s the Obama administration’s new name for the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terror (GWOT).  Perhaps GWOT wasn’t the best descriptor for the global conflict against Islamic Extremism, but it seemed to capture the key elements (such as the scope of the conflict and adversary).  If anything, it lacked specificity in that it did not identify the adversary as clearly as it could have.  From FOXNews.com:  

The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase “Global War on Terror,” a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department’s office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

I can only speculate as to why exactly the Obama administration thought that this was a good idea.  It probably has something to do with their desire to improve “the U.S. image abroad.”  What this is, however, is political correctness.  The U.S. needs to speak candidly and realistically about threats to our national security.  Obfuscation and ambiguity is dangerous.  The Secretary of Homeland Security has also stopped using the word terrorism, instead using “man-caused” disaster.  As Conservative Punk notes, that probably won’t last too long.

James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation makes a good point:

By deliberately trying not to use the T word they run a serious political risk.  If something does happen, they’ll be accused of taking their eye off the ball and no amount of explanation after the fact will suffice.

Overseas Contingency Operation?  So much for calling a spade a spade.

Filed in Afghanistan, American Foreign Policy, Iraq, Terrorism | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Where’s Vladimir?

By: Tom Skypek
Friday, March 20, 2009

Filed in American Foreign Policy, Russia | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

Chris Dodd and AIG: “Confusion” or Blatant Dishonesty?

By: Tom Skypek
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

See Chris Dodd tap dance…

Filed in American Politics | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

Berkowitz and Constitutional Conservatism

By: Tom Skypek
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution has an outstanding essay in the latest edition of Policy Review.  This is a must-read for students of conservative thought.  Berkowitz does a brilliant job of merging the core principles of conservatism with the tactical electoral realities conservatives now face.  His analysis of the “social” and ”libertarian” conservative split is also interesting as is his critique of the Bush administration. 

He also offers a framework for thinking about policy:

  • An economic program, health care and social security reform, energy policy, and protection for the environment grounded in fiscally sound, growth-oriented, market-based solutions.
  • A national security policy that maintains American military preeminence because it is indispensable to the defense of freedom at home and to the discharge of global responsibilities abroad, and which, in its commitment to defending the nation against the new threats of mega-terror, is as passionate about individual liberty as it is about security and is prepared, based on constitutional principles, to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful tradeoffs.
  • A foreign policy that builds on the Truman Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine by recognizing America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty and democracy abroad while realistically calibrating undertakings — military, diplomatic, and developmental — to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.
  • An orientation toward international relations that promotes free trade, respects international law and institutions while protecting the legitimate prerogatives of national sovereignty, and seeks alliances and opportunities to operate within multilateral frameworks but, particularly where vital national security interests are at stake, is prepared to act alone.
  • A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.
  • Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.
  • Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-lawful immigrant.
  • A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.
  • A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.
  • The appointment of judges who understand that their duty is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, who bring to their task a presumption in favor of vindicating constitutional principles and protecting individual liberty, and who, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.

Surely, conservatives can find common ground in many of these areas.  The key, as Berkowitz notes, is figuring out how to embrace moderation without falling victim to ideological excesses.

Filed in American Politics, Conservatism | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

Fareed Zakaria’s Latest Critique

By: Tom Skypek
Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Fareed Zakaria is an impressive thinker and his commentary is usually rather thought-provoking.  I don’t always agree with him, but he often communicates some interesting points.  However, his disdain for President George W. Bush continues to color his analysis as well as his reputation as an objective analyst.  Peter Feaver has an interesting post over at Shadow Government on Fareed Zakaria’s latest critique.

Filed in American Foreign Policy | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

The Dying Art of Nuclear Strategy

By: Tom Skypek
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The U.S. should consider recalibrating its nuclear force structure by placing a greater emphasis on SSBNs.

The U.S. should consider recalibrating its nuclear force structure by placing a greater emphasis on SLBMs.

Nuclear strategists are a dying breed–so too is the very art of nuclear strategy.  This year the Obama administration will conduct a review of existing U.S. nuclear policy.  The review will touch on a host of issues, from missile defense and nonproliferation to stockpile management and force posture.

The intellectual giants of the Cold War who helped us define nuclear strategy have either passed on or are largely retired.  Legends such as Herman Kahn, Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter are just a few examples.  Recently, The Hudson Institute and the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center hosted a panel discussion on the Wohlstetters and their contributions to American strategic thought.  You can find the link here.   

In anticipation of the upcoming review, I wrote an article in The Weekly Standard to examine some of the issues that will be teed up this year as the Obama administration confronts the very important issue of nuclear strategy.  Here’s an excerpt:

Almost fifty years ago, the legendary defense strategist Herman Kahn published his classic work on nuclear strategy, On Thermonuclear War (1960), followed just two years later by a popularized rendering entitled Thinking About the Unthinkable (1962). An iconoclast and one of America’s unsung Cold War heroes, Kahn argued throughout his career that it was the responsibility of the United States government to think creatively, honestly, and unemotionally about the prospects of nuclear war. Today, the need for an honest and open debate on the role of nuclear weapons continues, and the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) presents an ideal forum. While competing priorities such as the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and a deteriorating economy at home have decreased the attention paid to the issue of nuclear strategy, its importance remains undiminished.

Since the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department has conducted two comprehensive reviews of U.S. nuclear strategy. The first NPR was conducted in 1994 during the Clinton administration and was plagued by infighting between the Pentagon’s civilian and military leadership. The 1994 review failed to result in any major policy shift, leaving Washington’s Cold War nuclear posture largely intact. The second comprehensive review was conducted by the Bush administration throughout 2001 and was submitted to Congress in December of that year. It marked the first real departure from Cold War thinking on nuclear strategy. The 2001 NPR called for significant reductions in the number of deployed warheads as well as a modernized force structure. The Cold War Triad, which consisted solely of offensive strike systems including bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), was supplanted by a New Triad. The New Triad folded the offensive strike systems into one leg and incorporated advanced conventional munitions; passive and active defenses formed the second leg of the New Triad while a responsive defense infrastructure formed the final leg. This new construct codified the value of strategic defenses and the importance of human capital management.

This article is something of a companion piece to an article Brad Thayer and I wrote last fall in The National Interest.  The aim of the piece is to facilitate an honest debate on the future of U.S. nuclear forces and their broader role in our national security strategy, which, I argue, should be significant.

Filed in American Foreign Policy, Nuclear Proliferation, U.S. Nuclear Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (0)

Arizona Sheriff Investigated for Enforcing Immigration Law

By: Tom Skypek
Thursday, March 12, 2009

No, I’m not kidding.  This isn’t a joke.  Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is under investigation by the Department of Justice for simply doing his job and enforcing U.S. immigration law.  This is only the latest reminder to us all that elections have consequences and that the Obama administration sees nothing wrong with illegal immigration.   

From CNSNews.com:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona following requests by congressional Democrats and allegations by liberal activists that the department has violated the civil rights of illegal aliens.

Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Robert Scott (D-Va.) requested the investigation, and activists groups such as National Day Laborer Organizer Network and ACORN launched petition drives and rallies in support of the probe.

The investigation focuses on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and dozens of officers under his command who were trained through the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), which partners federal and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. (The Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division is known popularly as ICE.)

John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren and Robert Scott:  are you for real?  What happened to law and order?  This is beyond absurd.  I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that ACORN was also involved in launching this probe.   

The press release goes on to say that 20 percent of inmates in the Maricopa County Jail are illegal aliens and that of those, 2,000 illegal aliens - 70 percent - were arrested for felony crimes.

Those felony crimes committed included the following: forgery, 12 percent; kidnapping, 10 percent; aggravated assault, 7 percent; driving under the influence, 7 percent; drug charges, 27 percent; robbery, 3 percent; murder, 3 percent; and theft, 4 percent.

So, not only did these individuals knowingly break the law by entering the U.S. illegally, but then they proceeded to commit felonies–and it is Joe Arpaio who is investigated?  Come on.  Sheriff Arpaio is an American hero.  These goof ball congressmen should be honoring his loyal service and diligent law enforcement efforts, not investigating him.  This type of liberalism only weakens this country.

Filed in American Politics | Tagged , , | Comments (0)