Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Iraq

Mattis is a Great Pick to be CENTCOM Commander

Tom Skypek — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:23:27 +0000

U.S. Marine Corps General James N. Mattis, who currently serves as the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, has been selected to lead U.S. Central Command. This is an outstanding pick by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mattis is an exemplary general officer and a true strategic thinker. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is beating up on Mattis for some comments he’s made in the past about warfare. His remarks were candid and, unfortunately, have been taken out of context. One misleading headline reads: “James Mattis: ‘It’s fun to shoot some people.’” Here’s the context for the quote:

You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years, because they didn’t wear a veil. You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ‘em.

I know this might come as a surprise to some people but our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan are not good people. They intentionally target and kill civilians. They are the types who think it’s okay to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. They hold the nineteen hijackers who killed nearly three-thousand Americans on September 11, 2001 in high esteem. They treat women as second-class citizens and view it as their duty to kill Christians and Jews.

So Mattis isn’t politically correct; he’s a warrior and he’s exactly the type of man I want defending this country. It’s a blessing that we have men like James Mattis and it’s a travesty that his reputation be marred in anyway by a handful of so-called journalists. The Senate should waste no time in confirming General Mattis.

Insurgents Hack U.S. Predator Drones with $26 Software Package

Tom Skypek — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:59:40 +0000

Unreal.

New Af-Pak Strategy

Matt Schwieger — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:57:07 +0000

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:

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.
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.

Overseas Contingency Operation

Tom Skypek — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:05:23 +0000

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.

Economics and Foreign Policy

Christine Willett — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:13:50 +0000

“If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution.” With this statement, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson provided European and Canadian financial institutions the possibility of an infusion of American taxpayer dollars as part of the proposed $700 billion Wall Street Bail Out Plan. This aspect of the plan highlights the close ties between economic and foreign policy issues.

The foreign policy gorilla in the economic room is monies spent on Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11(July 14, 2008), a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress, notes Congress has approved $859 billion for Department of Defense (DoD) operations to date. It also states, as of April 2008, DoD estimates it spends and average of $12.1 billion per month on the war effort. It further relates Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates for the war in the 2008-2017 time period range from and additional $570 billion to $1.55 trillion depending on troop levels. Whether one supports the war or not, the current $859 billion bill must be paid and some amount of future costs in billions will be incurred, even if Senator Obama’s plan of a phased withdrawal is enacted.

In the competition for funds to pay these war costs, the Wall Street bail out and the price tag for various domestic programs proposed by both presidential candidates (e.g. tax cuts, infrastructure investments, health care initiatives) hard choices will have to be made. Despite Secretary Paulson’s explanation, many Americans still resent the possibility of the government using their tax dollars to rescue foreign banks from ruin. The debate on the necessity for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continues. In the midst of all this, the United States must get its house in order, but it cannot withdraw from the world. The next President and Congress have their work cut out for them.

Gen. Petraeus Leaves Iraq, Prepares to Assume Command of CENTCOM

Tom Skypek — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:35:01 +0000

From the AP:

Gen. David Petraeus, whose strategy for countering the Iraq insurgency is credited by many with rescuing the country from all-out civil war, stepped aside Tuesday as Gen. Ray Odierno took over as the top American commander of the conflict.

At a traditional change-of-command ceremony attended by top Iraqi and American military and civilian officials, Petraeus said that Odierno‘s skills and experience make him “the perfect man for the job.

Gen. Petraeus has done outstanding work in Iraq over the last 20 months. He took command in Iraq at a time when both Democrats and Republicans believed the United States had failed in Iraq and that the war was lost. Gen. Petraeus will assume command of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which overseas U.S. military operations in the Middle East, Northern Africa and other countries in Southwest Asia.

New Vets for Freedom Ad: “Success is Relevant, Senator”

Tom Skypek — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:27:09 +0000

New Vets for Freedom Ad: “I am the Surge”

Tom Skypek — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:35:23 +0000

Vets for Freedom has launched a new television ad which will run beginning tomorrow in “the Denver media market this week, Minneapolis next week, and in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Colorado in the weeks to come,” according to an e-mail sent out today to supporters of the organization.

From Vets for Freedom Chairman Pete Hegseth:

The thirty-second spot features three VFF members–all of which were part of the Surge–who can personally attest to success in Iraq; all three asking Senator Obama–point blank–to support their success, and the success of all troops, by supporting the bi-partisan resolution introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham recognizing the success of the Surge and expressing gratitude to the men and women who made it possible as soon as the Senate returns from its five week vacation. (Senate Resolution 636, introduced July 31, 2008).

As the ad mentions, please call Sen. Obama’s office today at (202) 224-2854 and ask him to support our troops by supporting Senate Resolution 636.

Bob Kerrey: Candidates’ Position on Surge Irrelevant

Tom Skypek — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:56:35 +0000

According to former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, the candidates’ position on last year’s troop surge is irrelevant. Today, he wrote in the Denver Post, “Arguing about who was right or wrong in 2003 or even who was right or wrong about the surge has little bearing on the question of what do we do today, moving forward.” Sen. Kerrey couldn’t be more wrong. Sen. McCain advocated the troop increase last year at a time when public support for the Iraq War had reached its lowest levels and politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were waving the proverbial white flag of defeat.

The fact is that the troop surge increased security throughout Iraq, setting the conditions for political progress. Sen. McCain put his political career on the line and supported the surge not because it was politically popular but because it was the right thing to do for the country. It is a testament to his leadership and illustrates why he’d be an effective commander-in-chief. As for 2003, Sen. Obama was not yet in the United States Senate so he had the luxury of opining on the issue of war without having to vote on it. The notion that his opposition to the war illustrates his tremendous grasp of grand strategy is ill-conceived.

New Ad: “Troops”

Tom Skypek — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:17:36 +0000

Sen. Obama’s decision to work out instead of visiting our Wounded Warriors is starting to backfire. We can only hope that the mainstream media picks up this story and gives it the attention it deserves.