Tag: War on Terror

Categories
Quick Analysis

Afghanistan Policy Had to Change, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its examination of why America’s Afghanistan policy needed to be changed.

Much attention will be paid to the President’s rejection of the concept of nation building programs simultaneous with military activities within a theater of operations. The “hearts and minds” philosophy that became famous during the Vietnam war, the idea that extensive civilian aid projects are a necessary component of warfighting, failed then, and it is has failed in Afghanistan.

Much of the nation-building drives over the past half-century or so by U.S. political leaders were, at least in part, public relations attempts to appeal to anti-war elements at home by demonstrating that America’s involvement in various conflicts were more than just about the deployment of military force. Unfortunately, much of that effort was unrealistic.  Building infrastructure is a waste of time if opposing forces and readily destroy what has been constructed, and punish those who took part in the effort.

Support for nation-building frequently centers on the great success stories of post-WW2 Germany and Japan.  Both nations were essentially devastated, and were redeveloped, thanks to America, into exceptionally prosperous and peaceful countries. But the examples miss a key element: both had unconditionally surrendered before their reconstruction began.  The military threat was eliminated, and governments were established that had little choice but to cooperate fully with Washington.

Sildenafil ought viagra sale mastercard not to be taken by the men who are allergic to Sildenafil Citrate.Excessive intake of alcohol if you want to improve your sexual performance. 4. For a foot-salvage procedure, a prescription de viagra microsurgery is required. All in all, prostatitis should be cured with discount price on viagra a better medicine known as Forzest. Description : prix viagra cialis is used to treat erection troubles. The contrast with Afghanistan couldn’t be more clear. As the New York Post  recently noted: “A fundamental problem in Afghanistan is that Americans have been dying for a woefully corrupt succession of governments in Kabul for which young Afghans have been unwilling to die. ..Our self-absorbed counter-insurgency strategy assumes that the people will rally around the government we support. But that didn’t happen in South Vietnam, and it didn’t happen in Afghanistan. In both cases, a flood of American wealth turned petty thieves into crime bosses with cabinet posts…”

A Rand Corporation  study notes “…the costs and risks associated with nation-building have remained high. Consequently, the United States has not embarked on such endeavors lightly. It withdrew from Somalia in 1993 at the first serious resistance. It opted out of international efforts to stem genocide in Rwanda in 1994. It resisted European efforts to entangle it in Balkan peace enforcement through four years of bloody civil war. After intervening in Bosnia, it spent another three years pursuing a nonmilitary solution to ethnic repression in Kosovo. In spite of this reticence, each successive post–Cold War U.S.-led intervention has generally been wider in scope and more ambitious in intent than its predecessor. In Somalia, the original objective was purely humanitarian but subsequently expanded to democratization. In Haiti, the objective was to reinstall a president and conduct elections according to an existing constitution. In Bosnia, it was to create a multiethnic state. In Kosovo, it was to establish a democratic polity and market economy virtually from scratch. During his presidential campaign in 2000, George W. Bush criticized the Clinton administration for this expansive agenda of nation-building. As President, Bush adopted a more-modest set of objectives when faced with a comparable challenge in Afghanistan. The current administration’s efforts to reverse the trend toward ever larger and more ambitious U.S.-led nation-building operations have proven short lived, however.”

The U.S. Army War College  offers a particularly sharp criticism of nation-building as a strategy that can defeat terrorism:

“America’s push to democratize Afghanistan and Iraq may have made terrorism and insurgency more feasible. Well before 2001, eminent governance scholars had noted that key democracy enablers, such as liberal institutions and culture, were absent in Muslim-majority countries, making successful democracy unlikely.43 The research further indicated higher levels of political violence were associated with intermediate forms of government, such as infant democracies. An ineffective government may make terrorism more feasible, particularly if the state security force is ineffective or non-existent. Finally, attempts to replace autocracies in Afghanistan and Iraq with representative governments were unlikely to succeed due to the negative effects from decades of trauma. At the time of the US invasions, Afghanistan had been at war for more than 20 consecutive years and Iraq had been at war for 16 of the previous 20. As United Nations data show, both countries already had high numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons for many years. Moreover, Iraqis and Afghans endured extremely high rates of political violence and terror well before 9/11. Both populations were suffering the negative effects of substantial and enduring trauma.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Afghanistan Policy Had to Change

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government examines why America’s Afghanistan policy needed to be changed in this two-part review

Most of the media has missed the actual key points of the President’s Afghanistan speech.

The impact of Mr. Trump’s significant changes to the manner in which the United States conducts that armed conflict will extend beyond the battle against the Taliban.  Indeed, to a great extent, Monday’s speech merely solidified what the current White House had already decided to do in another fight, that against ISIS. Concepts such as nation-building and political micromanagement have been tried and have failed.

The President’s move is not surprising. In June, Defense Secretary James Mattis testified before the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. was “not winning” the war in Afghanistan. Military.com reported that Mattis testified that he “…now has the authority to send several thousand more U.S. troops to Afghanistan…Mattis said President Donald Trump …’delegated to me the authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan. We will define the way ahead, and I will set the military commitment’ in concert with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson under a new strategy to shore up the Afghan defense forces and the Kabul government.”

Major changes were necessitated by both the general failure over the past decades to reduce terrorism, and in particular, Barack Obama’s stunning strategic errors and resulting failures in the War on Terror.  These included the premature withdrawal from Iraq, which led to the empowerment of ISIS; his bizarre public announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan; his negotiations with the Taliban; his role in the ouster of governments on the side of the West in fighting-Islamic extremism in Libya and Egypt; his inexplicable support for the radical anti-American regime in Iran; the lies and still undisclosed reasons for ignoring the attack on Benghazi; and his amateurish and counterproductive micromanagement of U.S. military operations.
Jerky, spasmodic spasms of the duodenal walls regurgitate the concentrated, aggressive bile acids in cheapest viagra australia http://www.regencygrandenursing.com/PDFS/Resources_Rehab_Brochure.pdf the bile. The internet is full of websites that promote various products. tadalafil overnight shipping However, cardiac issues may even indicate cialis price erectile dysfunction (ED). The professionals use them simply as “cues” in order to enhance an individual’s sexual cialis sale desire.
The U.S. Army War College  notes that in the larger War on Terror, “America’s efforts…have been substantial and sustained, with more than four trillion dollars spent, two and a half million military members sent into harm’s way, and nearly 7,000 service members losing their lives over the past 15 years.”

Clearly a different approach has become necessary, but many are not ready to admit that. President Trump’s move to end the Obama White House practice of  micromanagement of military operations, is, according to Roll Call alarming “Senior Democratic members” despite the reality that prior practices have demonstrably failed.

In the aftermath of Obama’s ascension to the presidency, his Administration’s micromanagement was a key factor in increased American deaths in the field. As Rowan Scarborough noted in a 2013 Washington Times study  “The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths…it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes. ‘In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,’ said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. ‘It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,’ Mr. Simmons said. ‘The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

The Report concludes Monday.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Failed Approach to Terrorism

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government presents a two-part series on how President Obama has fared in the fight against terrorism.

The lessons of the Islamic extremist’s attacks of September 11, 2001 have not been learned by the Obama Administration, or western progressive politicians.

Fifteen years after the most devastating assault on the U.S. homeland in American history, the same errors, misconceptions and failed practices that led to the attack are being repeated, both by the White House as well as by some experts who have published studies of the issue.

The faulty logic of many western leaders ignores reality, including:

  1. Islamic terrorism is not based on western intervention in the Moslem nations

Long before the Crusades, long before the era of European imperialism, and obviously long before America saved Middle Eastern nations from Saddam Hussein’s aggression, Islamic forces invaded Europe and occupied portions of it. Moslem rule of Albania ended as recently as 1912. The allegation that current acts of terror are a response to “historic insults” is sheer nonsense, but one which far too many continue to cling to.

Discussing this issue with your physician is essential to find a solution to headache so that daily activities can be carried out by cialis cheap no prescription http://greyandgrey.com/media/civilians-a-new-wrinkle-in-ground-zero-claims-ny-post-may-2007/ health professionals. The Miami viagra purchase no prescription Children’s Museums not only a museum even it is a glorified playhouse. Safe and sure care for male sexual greyandgrey.com order sildenafil health- It is quite important to know about how long before planned lovemaking session ED medicine should be consumed. Almonds Nutrition These nuts have a truckload of tadalafil pharmacy nutrients. The reality is neither pleasant nor, in the minds of some, politically acceptable to state, but it is a fact.  Extreme Islamists hate the west and will continue to plot to attack it not for what the West does, but for what it is. It is this intolerant trait that fuels the harsh attacks by Islamic extremists not only against Christians and Jews but against fellow Moslems who do not share their harsh take on their religion, and that inspires the religious civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.

  1. The actions of Islamic terrorists constitute warfare, not crimes.

The mindset can best be seen in the fact that the Obama Administration changed the terminology of the conflict from the “Global War on Terror” into the vague “Overseas Contingency Operations.” The President, in 2013, announced that America wasn’t pursuing a War on Terror, but was instead focusing on terrorist leaders in an attempt to dismantle individual terror networks.

The belief that Islamic terrorism can be countered by actions resembling law enforcement, as opposed to warfare, is erroneous. The actions through drone attacks, special forces operations and other means to eliminate or capture terrorists leaders are a necessary part of fighting terror, but only a small part.  Demands that captured terrorists should be given a trial or a fixed prison sentences ignores the reality that a true war exits. Most importantly, the concept that law enforcement through prisons or executions as a way to deter future crimes hasn’t worked. Bin Laden is dead, but his work goes on. Terrorists freed from Guantanamo re-enter the fray with distressing regularity. In his 2015 State of the Union Address, Mr. Obama stated that “The Shadow of the Crisis of Terrorism has passed.” There was not a shred of evidence to support his statement, not then, not before, and not since. It is not inconceivable that he based his comments on the fact that some key leaders, such as Bin Laden, had been killed.  A failure to realize the true nature of the threat has led to exceptionally serious policy errors, including the premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, which allowed ISIS to thrive and grow.  ISIS’s rise to a self-proclaimed “Caliphate” controlling more territory than ever by a terrorist organization indicates the true nature of the crisis.  Islamic terrorism isn’t a criminal justice issue, it’s a national security challenge.

Fighting a war requires constant vigilance and decisive action, but in the mindset of both President Clinton, whose missteps allowed Bin Laden to survive after his first attack on the World Trade Center, and President Obama, who changed the nature of America’s mindset from fighting a war to dealing with crimes, the problem is more akin to a criminal prosecution that can be engaged in with slow deliberation.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Missing in Action in the War on Terror

Mr. Obama’s odd nonresponse to the latest terrorist attack, the bombing of the Brussels Airport and a metro station near the headquarters of the European Union, raises uncomfortable questions.

The President chose to go to a ball game with Raoul Castro, rather than return to the White House. Some will question whether he could have done anything substantive no matter where he was. However, when a key leader continues to display nonchalance on a level that indicates a lack of concern or attention about a major challenge, it sends a signal to the perpetrators that they will face no significant obstacle to their efforts.

That perception may be correct. It is difficult to imagine any other President (or Secretary of State) who would not have responded in some way to the Benghazi attack, to cite just one example. The primary duty of the federal government is to safeguard the American people. But in response to repeated terror attacks at home, and abroad in places frequented by U.S. visitors, President Obama has displayed little interest and less concern.

The day after the Benghazi attack, he flew to Las Vegas for a fund raiser.

He labels clear-cut cases of terrorism, such as the shooting at an American military base by an Islamic extremist, as “workplace violence.”

Following the terrorist assault in San Bernardino, he gave a speech saying that Americans have too many guns.

International authorities warned Washington about the danger from the individuals who bombed the Boston Marathon, but nothing was done.

He didn’t join other western leaders in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.

He continues to ignore Iran’s missile development.
How the sexual problems affect men?- Mostly men look for herbal remedies, which are safe and levitra sale continue reading description sure way to cure ED. Having a frequent cialis 5mg no prescription workout will not necessarily mean which you need to visit the gym everyday. They are available over the counter or they http://icks.org/n/data/conference/1482731615_report_file.pdf generic levitra online are also available at the online drug suppliers offer kamagra and its various versions at the a lot reasonable prices . Though the treating process by TCM viagra prescription buy may be longer, the result is better.
He negotiates with the Taliban, the organization that helped attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

He continues to advocate bringing more Syrian refugees to the United States, despite the clear example of the problems this has caused in Europe. Oddly enough, though, there is no priority given to Christians or Yazdis, who have been the chief targets of the terrorists. Almost none have been admitted.

The President visited and spoke at the Islamic Society of Baltimore Mosque, (ISB) known for its links to terrorism. The Investigative Project on Terrorism  notes that:

“ISB leaders have amassed a record of support for radical Islamic causes over the years, including endorsing the Chechen jihad and Palestinian suicide bombings. Its former imam was active in a charity later linked to terror financing including Hamas, the Taliban, and for providing “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Osama bin Laden… It’s safe to assume the White House vetted the ISB and found it an acceptable venue for a presidential appearance despite this history. And that is not surprising. The Obama administration has repeatedly embraced contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, repeatedly meeting with its officials during and after the Arab Spring while ignoring secular democracy advocates. It praised the early tenure of Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi when he briefly served as Egypt’s president. The administration also helped a Brotherhood delegation skip routine screening by U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon landing in America. And, as we reported in December, a White House meeting also aimed at standing by the Muslim-American community featured representatives of Islamist groups, including some with consistent records of opposing U.S. law enforcement counter-terrorism efforts. ISB officials have worked closely with one of those groups…”

He continues to advocate bringing more Syrian refugees to the United States, despite the clear example of the problems this has caused in Europe. Oddly enough, though, there is no priority given to Christians or Yazdis, who have been the chief targets of the terrorists. Almost none have been admitted.

James Carafano, writing for Fox News, uses this analogy: “Imagine if, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, FDR had taken to the radio and declared everything was under control. The Nov. 13 terrorist attack on Paris, paired with [the] attacks in Brussels, is the European equivalent of back-to-back Pearl Harbors. Yet, the U.S. administration sits as sanguine as ever, arguing it has everything in hand.”

As ISIS rose to power in the Middle East, President Obama insisted that they were an insignificant threat, dismissing them as a “JV team.”  Against the advice of his own military advisors, he withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq, creating the vacuum that gave ISIS the opportunity to thrive.  He is on the verge of repeating the mistake in Afghanistan.

President Obama won’t even use the term “Islamic terrorism.” In the drug-addled era of the 1960’s, there was a cliché that went, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.” Under President Obama, a war has been declared by radical Islam that the U.S. has barely shown up for. The answer to the question raised by ‘60’s cliché is, innocents will die.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Giving victory a chance in the War on Terror

Think about this alternative history idea for a few moments: following years of war, President Roosevelt surveys the dramatically high casualty count of the D-Day invasion on the Normandy beaches in France and decides to focus on repairing U.S. relations with the Germany. He apologizes for any insults America may have made to the German people. He expresses willingness, however, to work with allies on ongoing military efforts, but declines to have the U.S. take a leadership role. He subsequently slashes the U.S. defense budget.

The Obama Administration’s premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, its announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan, its failure to respond to the Benghazi assault, its lack of effective action against ISIS, the release of key personnel from Guantanamo Bay, and its support of Muslim Brotherhood movements throughout the Middle East has reinvigorated and strengthened the terrorist movement. It has combined those actions with significant tactical errors, such as deposing the Gaddafi regime in Libya which provided al Qaeda with a significant advantage in that nation.

The central concept behind the White House strategy is that victory in this conflict is unattainable, or too costly.  There may also be a perception that the idea of winning is offensive to the larger Islamic population.  In a speech at the National Defense University in 2013, President Obama stated that “Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror.”

Mr. Obama has subsequently issued delusional statements.  In his 2015 State of the Union address, while ISIS was rampaging through Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram was advancing in Africa, the Taliban was gaining strength in Afghanistan, and extremist rebels were attacking the government of Yemen, he alleged that “the shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed.”  There were and are no facts whatsoever to support his comment.

Clearly, the public has grown far less confident about America’s strategy. In a Rasmussen poll conducted earlier this month http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update

“The number of voters who believe terrorists are winning the fight against the United States and its allies continues to grow, while views of Muslims in general and U.S. relations with the Islamic world have worsened. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s down from the 33% measured in March, but still above findings for most of last year. But now 39% think the terrorists are winning the war, up from 33% in the previous survey and the highest level of pessimism since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Since, there has been for sale levitra continuous increment in the population of senior citizens, mainly men and it is an incurable disease. It is unsafe to use drumstick fruits and leaves during pregnancy and lactation period regencygrandenursing.com viagra generika as it can lead to side effects and complications. These effects can be useful for those who don’t have any problem with erectile dysfunction, but simply want to get that extra edge, then enrolling for a Texas adult driving ed class would make a person attains his harder erection in just tadalafil without prescriptions 30 minutes. Talk therapy, counseling and interpersonal therapy are most widely used to cialis tablets uk address the ’emotional’, or ‘feelings’ side of the person.
The Center for Security Policy https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ recently assembled a team of military, diplomatic, and national security experts to analyze the challenges imposed by terrorism.  According to their report, the fight can be successful if multi-faceted tactics similar to those employed by the Reagan Administration against the Soviet Union are employed.  The strategies include:

  1. Strengthening the U.S. military. The diminished state of America’s armed forces has  emboldened both terrorists and adversarial states, including Iran, to engage in hostile behavior.
  2. Counter-ideological warfare. The concept of freedom was a powerful weapon in toppling the USSR’s leadership.  The U.S. must again use the concept to convince Muslims that the radical leaders who seek to subject both fellow believers and others into submission to their extremist views is an unhealthy path.
  3. Extensive use of intelligence operations, cyber warfare, psychological endeavors, and clandestine and special operations should be employed against terrorists.
  4. Economic warfighting. The use of a central/financial component to stigmatize Shariah adherents.
  5. Confronting pre-violent jihadist. Muslim Brotherhood operations that seek to legitimize extremist views must be countered.

The concept of actually winning the war against terrorism seems strange to  a certain wing  of political leaders, just as the idea that the Soviet Union could actually be toppled seemed odd to, generally, the same ideological group. Without a sense that victory is attainable, however, the chances of ending the threat may not come about.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Negotiating America’s surrender in the war on terror

The BBC has reported that the Taliban had cut off the fingers of at least eleven Afghans who participated in that nations’ presidential run-off election. The terrorists did not want the voters to participate in that exercise in democracy.

This is the organization that the Obama Administration has been in negotiations with since June of 2013, in violation of U.S. law.  It is the same organization that has wrecked havoc in Iraq, and that, worldwide, assaults and kills women for seeking education or basic civil rights.  The same organization that bears responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Americans in the 9/11/01 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.

In addition to the legal issues surrounding the White House’s decision to negotiate, very significant moral questions abound, as well as matters of diplomatic precedent.  Washington had, in the past, held to a wise policy of not negotiating with terrorists. To do invites more acts of terror by groups and individuals who see those acts as a path to extorting demands from governments.

That’s why the ideal dosage is one pill a unica-web.com buy cialis tablets day. In 1764, an inexpensive process was found out that created it feasible to distribute the real Karlovy Differ thermal spring salt had identical healing properties as generic sale viagra for the spring. One is not truly satisfied with what he has so they opt for more work and work load which in turn lead them to stress. online viagra mastercard The problem is tadalafil for women that most men do not submit to seeing a doctor even for health reasons. * a physical defect of the penis (such as Peyronie’s disease); or * retinitis pigmentosa (an inherited condition of the eye) If you experience vision loss,you should discontinue use and consult a doctor. The Obama Administration abandoned the precedent of not negotiating with terrorists, and did so without consulting Congress, or with much discussion with the American public.

Added to this is the fact of the very public announced departure date of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.  By elevating the Taliban to the status of a negotiating partner, it has given that terrorist organization a very substantial boost in its bid to return to power after America withdraws. The disaster that will befall that nation is similar to the fate of Iraq following the President’s premature withdrawal there. With al Qaeda making gains throughout the world, and the Taliban restored to the status quo that existed at the time of the 9/11/01 attacks, the safety of the American people has been placed in severe jeopardy.

In essence, the Administration has effectively negotiated a U.S. surrender in the war on terror.