Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Obama wants a "peace dividend" while we’re at war (update)
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, July 30, 2008

This was linked previously by Lance, but it deserves a post of its own. We've been through this before:
Barack Obama said Friday that persuading NATO allies to contribute more troops to Afghanistan could lead to U.S. troop cuts and help improve the U.S. economy, with reduced military expenditure being diverted into tax cuts to help middle class families.
As you see more and more specifics from this guy (see reparations post) the scarier he gets.

We're presently engaged in building up the military because we've found that our doctrine of being able to fight two mid sized wars simultaneously can't be done with the military of the size it is today.

Why? Because it puts too much stress on the force, doesn't allow for the appropriate amount of downtime for training and can't be sustained.

All of those points were points the Democrats have been pounding for years.
"If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term, which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle class families who are struggling with higher gas prices that will have an impact on our economy."
Why is it that the first thing any Democrat wants to do is cut military spending? And yet they get all huffy when you point out that national security isn't their strongest point. As Baseball Crank points out:
The last thing we need is a president who thinks that national security in an active theater of war is a prime target for penny-pinching. It's also a rehash of John Kerry's effort to turn Iraq into a domestic-spending issue.
Except this time it is Afghanistan that would be effected - the supposed righteous war.

Some may ask, "why is it important to be able to fight two wars simultaneously". Deterrence. If your potential enemy knows your force structure would only allow you to deploy and fight one war (and again I want to point out we're talking about mid-sized conflicts, not world wars) at a time, they simply wait for you to become engaged in that war and then make their move in another area of the world knowing full well you can't respond. So the size of our force is critical to maintaining that deterrence level against those who might take advantage of a situation otherwise.

This statement by Obama also demonstrates his ignorance about NATO. Presently the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan is being carried by 3 nations - the US, Canada and Britain. Baseball Crank discusses why that is so:
Second, while he gave a nod in his big national security speech to "greater contributions — with fewer restrictions — from NATO allies," Obama misses the fact that more European troops, especially from the Western European continental states, invariably means more restrictions on effective prosecution of war. A cumbersome joint multinational command was a serious handicap to U.S. efforts in Somalia and Kosovo, and even under Bush the Afghan operation has not been free of such difficulties with European troops who fight, if at all, under a patchwork of restrictive rules of engagement.
Most of our NATO allies are not, let me repeat that, not going to commit combat troops to Afghanistan. And if they do, they will be in very small numbers. The UK and Canada are very unlikely to commit more combat troops. But it is combat troops which are most needed there. So when Obama talked about "surging" a couple of combat brigades into Afghanistan, that brought smiles to the faces of the Europeans, because it essentially took the pressure off of them to do that. Now they'll send a portable potty platoon here and a mess kit repair battalion there and claim to have fulfilled their NATO duties.

So while Obama talks about surging troops in Afghanistan on the one hand, he's talking about cutting the military on the other. That's asinine. And it is a direct reflection on both his inexperience and his judgment. In fact, saying things like this moves him from the 'scary' category to the 'dangerous' category.

UPDATE: Liberally Conservative points to some statements in Germany's Bild am Sontag which find some German politicians not to pleased with Mr. Obama or his statements about NATO:
Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, responded to Mr. Obama by telling the Bild am Sonntag that:

Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S.

Erwin Huber, chairman of the center-right Christian Social Union of Bavaria, called Mr. Obama’s statement “a disappointment for Europe and Germany.

Mr. Huber, who belongs to the sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, also said, “it is the opposite of solidarity and partnership when one side is to make more sacrifices and the other gains an advantage from it.
Well so far that idea's a hit on both sides of the Atlantic, isn't it? And this is an improvement over the present situation, right? Again, we're confronted with inexperience and lack of judgement.

(HT: Jimmy the Dhimmi)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Barack Obama said Friday that persuading NATO allies to contribute more troops to Afghanistan could
Could happen, if he would bother to actually run a meeting for his committee for Euro Affairs which deals with NATO...

Note one meeting since he got put in charge. Yeah, that’s who I want running the country - a guy that refuses to do his job. What, if in 4 years he’s been elected and is running for a second term, is he gonna blow off everything just to make that next photo op?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Given Obama’s history, he’ll start campaigning for his 2nd term approx. 5 days following his inaguration/beatification.

Military cuts? Sweet christ.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Again he proves himself to be totally clueless.

It is fairly obvious that the funding for the war effort is out of deficit spending (borrowing the money) and not current revenue streams.

All the talk by the Dems of somehow converting a lesser amount of borrowing for war efforts as some way to create tax cuts and still out of the other side of their mouth wanting to raise taxes for others simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

Spending has to come out of revenue streams and all the proposal by the Dems seem to come via added debt since their tax and spend stuff provably will lower total revenue. Then they scream at the same time about the deficit!

They want a tax cut for the middle class...well what exactly was that 50 Billion dollar non funded liability called the AMT adjustment about?
 
Written By: Daytrader
URL: http://
Barack Obama said Friday that persuading NATO allies to contribute more troops to Afghanistan could lead to U.S. troop cuts and help improve the U.S. economy, with reduced military expenditure being diverted into tax cuts to help middle class families.
Anybody, including Obama, who believes that our NATO allies will, out of the goodness of their hearts, commit more resources (when they have been living off of American largesse for siz decades) is living in a dream and shows no experience with foreign policy whatsoever.

Of course, Obama could try his "put more pressure on them" technique, that he claims to have been going with his Iraq policy, by announcing a scheduled troop withdrawal from Europe. Putin likes the idea, I’m sure.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Most of our NATO allies are not, let me repeat that, not going to commit combat troops to Afghanistan. And if they do, they will be in very small numbers.
Which begs the question; just what is NATO useful for anyways? It seems we would be better off going to A-stan alone with a select few, committed allies and minus the ossified Continental bureaucracy.

Anyone?
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
This is the more important line ...
So when Obama talked about "surging" a couple of combat brigades into Afghanistan, that brought smiles to the faces of the Europeans, because it essentially took the pressure off of them to do that.
.. couldn’t have said it better myself.
just what is NATO useful for anyways?
.. it keeps Europe safe by having the US defend Europe so the Europeans won’t build any armies of any size.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Anyone?
One of our biggest problems in Afghanistan is the lack of "unity of command". That is badly hindering progress in that fight.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The Democrats have, for the last 4 or 5 years, been claiming that there is this "other force" usually some "UN force" that will take the burden of the US.
Since the UN has no army it has to come from member states .. so who exactly will take up this call ? Effectively nobody.

If anybody spots this "other force" ... give the Democrats a call at 1-800-CLUELESS.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Get this slice of Red Meat from germany:
Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, responded to Mr. Obama by telling the Bild am Sonntag that:

“Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S.”

Erwin Huber, chairman of the center-right Christian Social Union of Bavaria, called Mr. Obama’s statement “a disappointment for Europe and Germany.”

Mr. Huber, who belongs to the sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, also said, "it is the opposite of solidarity and partnership when one side is to make more sacrifices and the other gains an advantage from it.”
Source.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
Erwin Huber, chairman of the center-right Christian Social Union of Bavaria, called Mr. Obama’s statement “a disappointment for Europe and Germany.”
Boy, it sure didn’t take long for the "new" to wear off did it...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
This was linked previously by Lance, but it deserves a post of its own.
It sure did, but most of them do. Glad to know you are picking up some of the massive amount of slack in my work ethic;^)
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
What "peace dividend" we’re BORROWING the money as it is.

The most they could say is we’re going to go into debt for the "right" reasons.

Rather then only if we are at war, have a national emergency, or are in a recession.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
One of our biggest problems in Afghanistan is the lack of "unity of command". That is badly hindering progress in that fight.
Which is why I think we would be better off without the Byzantine bureaucracy and encumbering rules brought to us by NATO. Better to have a central US-led command with our allies functioning under that umbrella, Iraqi Freedom style.

NATO, as a relic of the Cold War, has likely outlived its usefulness and now is more hindrance than help.
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
Which is why I think we would be better off without the Byzantine bureaucracy and encumbering rules brought to us by NATO. Better to have a central US-led command with our allies functioning under that umbrella, Iraqi Freedom style.
Militarily, that’s the best option. Politically, not so good. And, unfortunately, it is most likely the political that will triumph over the military there (and that will, as it has, cost lives).
NATO, as a relic of the Cold War, has likely outlived its usefulness and now is more hindrance than help.
NATO has become a political organization with the US being the military arm. It’s charter defines the organization as a defensive military organization committed to the defense of Europe and to defending any ally (in Europe) which might be attacked.

If the war in the Balkans didn’t really fit the charter’s mission (no NATO member was attacked), Afghanistan certainly doesn’t.

NATO is a relic looking for a job.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I hope the Europeans enjoy the monster they helped to create.

Cheers.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
check out
Major DNC Donor to Party Treasurer: Obama is a Bad Investment
...

Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people’s accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.
...
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Boy, it sure didn’t take long for the "new" to wear off did it...
Just like 9-11 .. for a couple of hours we are "all Americans" then the othe shoe drops.

Obama has ruined our relations with German. It’s all downhill from here.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Unlike Iraq, control of the cities is not the problem in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is HUGE. Bigger than Iraq. We just don’t have the troops to do in Afghanistan what we did in Iraq, even if we weren’t in Iraq. Rather it’s the lawlessness in the hinterlands that is the problem. Regular Army doesn’t get you much there. We need to bolster Afghan security forces and dismantle enemy networks, not control territory (i.e., it’s a special forces mission).

The root causes of the trouble in Afghanistan are twofold: (1) the slow (and frightening!) disintegration of Pakistan and (2) Iran’s alliance with the Taliban. Pakistan can’t control its border or northwest territories. This gives the Taliban and AQ a free area to operate and a porous border that they can cross to attack US troops. Just as troubling, Iran is training and equipping the Taliban with even more deadly tactics and weapons. Of note is that the Taliban has begun employing the same deadly EFPs that Sadr’s goons use against US troops in Iraq.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider