The Good Stuff Is At 3:30

What Republicans believe starts at 3:30 (the stuff before it is pretty good too).

H/T Instapundit

An Epiphany On The Left?

The Belmont Club was discussing the McChrystal letter and the President's response to it.

The Wall Street Journal says Secretary Gates has passed on a request for more men for the Afghan campaign from General McChrystal. Gates had attempted to delay the formal transmission, but mounting public interest in the issue made it pointless to hold it back.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates has forwarded a request for more troops in Afghanistan to President Barack Obama, the Pentagon said Wednesday, as divisions within the administration and Congress continued despite Mr. Obama’s high-profile meeting with congressional leaders the day before … in the end, the defense chief feared that the document — already widely reported on — would leak to the press before Mr. Obama had a chance to read it, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The request outlines several options ranging up to 40,000 troops added to the 68,000 now stationed or headed there.

Interestingly Fox News reports: Code Pink Supports Afghan War?

But one report says the group is now rethinking its position on the Afghanistan war. The Christian Science Monitor reports that during a recent trip to Kabul, local Afghan women told Code Pinkers the situation is a lot more complicated than they think. Afghan member of Parliament and women’s activist Shinkai Karokhail told the group's founders: "In the current situation of terrorism, we cannot say troops should be withdrawn."

Those concerns convinced the founders that setting a deadline is not in Afghanistan's best interest. Medea Benjamin, Code Pink co-founder, said: "We would leave with the same parameters of an exit strategy but we might perhaps be more flexible about a timeline... So many people are saying that, 'If the U.S. troops left — the country would collapse. We'd go into a civil war.' A palpable sense of fear, that is making us start to reconsider that."

It is amazing what even accepting a little responsibility can do.

Let us not forget that a lot of vets (Ds as well as Rs - The founder of Swift Boats was a D) caused Kerry to lose to Bush. If Obama turns his back on the troops he loses them.

And then with responsibility for the women of Afghanistan adopted by Code Pink (they actually want to live up to their highest ideals - even if it tarnishes some of their others - as long as it is they who care and not Bush)

A debacle in Afghanistan for the women of that country (more videoed stonings of women) would not just be a point for the opposition. It would ruin what is left of Obama's self image. The guy has got to be really hurting. The knife to the gut from Medea Benjamin has got to be his "Et Tu Brutus" moment.

My friend Alex sent me an e-mail with a link to this piece from another Code Pinker (or a fellow traveler) who was in Afghanistan.

I have come to Kabul because I want to experience for myself what is happening here, eight years after the U.S. ousted the Taliban. I have spent the past 40 years of my life protesting war and working for peace in conflict areas. I don’t believe that killing leads to peace.

I came here as part of a small peace delegation of mostly women who share my conviction that President Obama must not send more troops and should set a timeline for withdrawal of the 60,000 that are here.

But now - after seven intense days and nights of interviews and meetings in Kabul - I no longer have that conviction.

The best path to peace may not be the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops. And since the troops here now are not able to provide enough security for the Afghans to rebuild their country, it is possible more troops may be needed.

It shocks me to admit this. But the voices I have heard – local and international NGO workers, reconciliation activists, ex-Taliban members, warlords, women in homeless shelters and in governmental positions – clearly do not want a withdrawal of troops now. They are under attack. The great majority of the people I listened to – not all but the great majority – feel that additional troops are necessary to train a viable Afghan army and a national police force and to secure the country so that development projects can proceed. Yes, we should have accomplished those goals by now, but we have not.

Now if you go to the site you will see some drivel about Palestine to begin the post. But I have to tell you that even a little honesty and honor among the left is a big surprise and was the very best I could expect after the election of our current President. Now if only our President was listening. One can only HOPE.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Seeds Of Stupidity

Here is a link to the Ravi Khanna piece mentioned in the video. Here is what Gretchen Peters has to say:

She says the U.S. must disrupt the Taliban's heroin money trail.

"While the insurgents earn some money from collecting taxes from the farmers, the bulk of the earnings come from protecting the trade, protecting the convoys and protecting the refineries and taxing the refineries and yet we are not going after that element of it," Peters said. "Even the US military resisted that until very recently."

Yeah. All that has been tried in the USA for over 90 years. None of it has worked. Why? There are estimates out there that for every 1% increase in the interdiction budget drug profits rise 3%. So how much would we have to spend to drive the criminals and terrorists out of the narcotics business? NOTHING. Well obviously we can't afford it.

And you can get more of Ms Peters at YouTube and Pajamas TV.

And if that is not enough she has written a book: Seeds of Terror: How Heroin Is Bankrolling the Taliban and al Qaeda.

In the Pajama's TV video Ms Peters suggests that going after the Taliban labs, convoys, and money shuffling network can stop the Taliban from profiting from the opium trade. However, she fails to notice that those very same types of efforts have been going on in the USA for some 90+ years with no noticeable effect on the trade. Why something that has not worked in the friendly USA will work in unfriendly Afghanistan goes unexplained. When the Boston Globe comes out in favor of a policy Boston Globe - End Heroin Prohibition for defeating the Taliban as I do it just may be possible I'm on to something.

Other articles discussing this:
Defeating The War On Terror
From Drug War To Real War
The War Lords of Afghanistan
Shoot the Europeans First
The Source of the Problem is not in Afghanistan
Supply side economics

Now if a guy like me can figure it out, and even the Boston Globe gets it, what exactly is wrong with Ms Peters? And especially what is wrong with the Obama administration? I mean besides every thing else.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Boston Globe - End Heroin Prohibition

Yes. You read that right. The Boston Globe says end heroin prohibition.

THE OBAMA administration is committing 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Yet as the United States works to stabilize that country, the most important decisions don't just involve troop and funding levels. Also vital is ending the prohibition on growing opium poppies - for the policy is a key factor in Afghanistan's economic and security crisis.

Of course the paper is only suggesting ending opium and heroin prohibition in Afghanistan. But still. It is a start.

Since the US invasion in 2001, the American and Afghan governments have made the poppy-growing areas of Afghanistan, which produce 90 percent of the world's opium, a major front in the war on drugs. Yet despite eight years of efforts to eliminate the crop, farmers keep growing poppies, and the crop still reaches the black market.

Earlier this month, the United Nations released a report anticipating lower poppy production in 2009 and touting the fact that some provinces have been declared poppy-free as a sign of success. This claim is deceptive. While some provinces that were comparatively new at growing poppy are now poppy-free, the crop is still entrenched in areas of southern Afghanistan, where it has historically been a significant part of the economy. In these areas, eradication will be much more difficult if not impossible.

Eradication is not just an ineffective strategy, but also hurts the security interests of Afghanistan and Western governments. While the United States invests $1 billion in eradication efforts each year, the Taliban profits by purchasing poppy from farmers who have no one else to sell to, and selling it to the black market. Also, the eradication policy fuels anti-Western hatred when farmers become sympathetic to insurgent groups after the US and Afghan governments burn or spray their only source of income.

You destroy people's livelihood and they get mad at you. Murderously mad. Who could have guessed it? Me for one. Here in March of 2005 and here in May of 2006 and here in October of 2006 and here in November of 2006 and here in November of 2008 and another one here in November of 2008 and here in January of 2009.

Good to see the national press in the US finally figuring out something any reasonable person should have seen 3 or 4 years ago. Better late than never.

And what was I saying not long after 9/11? "Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home, or because it finances terrorists abroad?" So if you were really awake you could have seen this coming over seven years ago. Our war on drugs was bound to clash with our war on terror. The war on drugs finances terrorists (among others) and is incommensurate with defeating them.

As is usual in life: choices must be made.

And do not forget that the opium poppy was very much intertwined with an earlier war the US was involved in. You can read all about it in: The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. This is not the first war where people we were trying to ally with were involved in the opiate trade. Perhaps we are smarter now. I hope so.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Obama Be

Team Obama has figured out a way to stop his slide in the polls. Summer Camp.

The BHO campaign has sent out emails to me and probably millions of other lucky recipients encouraging us to sign up for a local "Camp Obama" (my.barackobama.com/page/s/campobamaus, my.barackobama.com/page/s/campobama08la), a two-day session where we'd learn how to be effective organizers for the campaign. Hopefully a citizen reporter will sign up to report back with a critical eye, but for now all we have are the positive and very many negative connotations brought to mind. You can see a full copy of the email here, and if you want to be creeped out even more see the description of last year's "camps" here:

Rivals of Obama know that while he may at times appear to channel Martin Luther King Jr., his methods sometimes give evidence of his allegiance to [Saul Alinsky], who shunned starry-eyed idealists and recommended purging do-gooders from organizations. Alinsky wanted results. And his methods often forced the hands of elected officials... It's not enough to want to help others, [an Obama campaign staffer] says. These campers need to focus on people's self-interests. What do they want? How can Obama help them? ..."We want you to stop thinking about Barack Obama and be Barack Obama," she says.

Did some one say Clone Wars?

Obama has taken Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers and turned it into a national campaign. Can you say reparations?

So let us have a look at Alinsky's handbook Rules For Radicals. Just so we can see the train coming and get off the tracks. Here is a list of the rules.

RULE 1:"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

That would explain a lot of the current campaign's dynamics. Obama is running on the idea that a lot of people fear being called racists. If that fear is not there then his campaign has no power. McCain has neutered that whole line of attack. It may play well among the latte liberals (Tom Wolfe called them the radical chic) but it will not play well against the original anti-slavery party (Abe Lincoln was a Republican).

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

This would explain Obama's One note campaign: "I'm Black. Vote for me or we will brand you a racist." All his other policy positions are amendable (see flip-flop, Obama). Obama might not know math, science, economics, or any number of other things. He does know race and so does his base.

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

Again. This may work for latte liberals but Clinton supporters (whose husband was touted as the first "black" President) are not buying it. Did I mention that Republicans were the original anti-racist party?

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

There may be racists in the Republican Party (as there are racists in the Democrat Party). McCain is not one of them. His strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

This has been turned against Obama with McCain's "Paris Hilton" ad and his "The One" ad.

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

Evidently the Obama Campaign and his mighty minions love calling people racists. I don't see any fun in that. Only sadness. However, to each his own.

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

So far the Obama campaign has been a one note campaign. Besides any tactic that is over used wears out its welcome. The "cry wolf" syndrome. I wonder which way they can turn now? The post racialist candidate has been branded a racialist. Where do they go from here?

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Well they have to find pressure points. Places where the pressure is effective. So what are Obama's choices? Anti-surge? The surge is working. McCain was way out front on that one. More drilling for oil? McCain was at least a month ahead of Obama on that one and Obama's statement was not unequivocal. He wants limited drilling. McCain placed no such limits on his policy. Higher taxes? That has been death for any candidate pushing that proposition hard. So what can he come up with that will keep his team on side and make advances on his opposition? This is going to be interesting to watch.

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

Ah yes. "We will call you a racist if you keep attacking our positions. How is that working out Barry? That threat is gone. He is going to have to come up with a new one. Fear of labeling McCain a war monger? I think Obama is weak on that. He called for pulling out of Iraq and attacks on Pakistan in August of 2007. He labeled McCain McSame. So what has Bush done? Well he has attacked the terrorists in Pakistan and threatened further attacks if Pakistan didn't straighten out. Preempting Obama's whole line on that front. I wonder if Bush and McSame are working together? They are both Republicans. What are the odds? In any case warmongering does not play well to Obama's base. He will have to tread lightly. So far he has not come out with "we were right all along" on this one. No need to remind the base about it, because for him it is a double edged sword.

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

How is that racism thing working out? McCain has refused to take the bait. In turn he has counter attacked making Obama look obsessed with race. And he is obsessed with race. Just read his books.

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

Of course the alternative to racism is the post racialist candidate. Obama needed to present himself as anti-racist not anti-white. He screwed the pooch on that one with this primary attacks on Clinton. Ooops.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Well he has gone after McCain in particular AND the Republicans in general. McCain blunted the attack, and counter attacked. Republicans are not buying it at all.

McCain, the fighter pilot, has gotten inside Obama's OODA loop. Something the Navy teaches fighter pilots to do.

The OODA Loop, often called Boyd's Cycle, is a creation of Col. John Boyd, USAF (Ret.). Col. Boyd was a student of tactical operations and observed a similarity in many battles and campaigns. He noted that in many of the engagements, one side presented the other with a series of unexpected and threatening situations with which they had not been able to keep pace. The slower side was eventually defeated. What Col. Boyd observed was the fact that conflicts are time competitive.

Elections are nothing if they are not time competitive. Evidently the "freezing of the opponent" that Alinsky recommends has not worked on McCain. He was not frozen. Once that happened McCain was operating inside Obama's decision loop.

Evidently Boyd is beating Alinsky. Or to put it another way. The fighter pilot is beating the community organizer. As a Navy man myself, I'm not surprised.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

War Stories - 3

Q and O has the details.

As Emanuel notes, the odds were set. 500 vs. 70. Even so, Emanuel entitled his article, “An Alamo With a Different Ending.” The 500 terrorists apparently didn’t realize they were attacking US Army paratroopers.

The unit in question was 2nd Platoon, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, led by 1LT Jonathan Brostrom.

The first RPG and machine gun fire came at dawn, strategically striking the forward operating base’s mortar pit. The insurgents next sighted their RPGs on the tow truck inside the combat outpost, taking it out. That was around 4:30 a.m.

This was not a haphazard attack. The reportedly 500 insurgents fought from several positions. They aimed to overrun the new base. The U.S. soldiers knew it and fought like hell. They knew their lives were on the line.

The next target was the FOB’s observation post, where nine soldiers were positioned on a tiny hill about 50 to 75 meters from the base. Of those nine, five died, and at least three others — Spc. Tyler Stafford among them — were wounded.

When the attack began, Stafford grabbed his M-240 machine gun off a north-facing sandbag wall and moved it to an east-facing sandbag wall. Moments later, RPGs struck the north-facing wall, knocking Stafford out of the fighting position and wounding another soldier.

Go read the whole thing to find out what happened.

H/T Irons in the Fire

Cross Posted at Classical Values

It Didn't Work Out

Well isn't this special. Obama says a visit to wounded troops would be inappropriate.

BERLIN (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.

Well isn't that interesting.

So what would be more appropriate? Putting On The Ritz.

++ Obama Takes Time to Work Out ++

4:49 p.m.: Obama enters the luxury Ritz Carlton hotel wearing a T-shirt, black sweatpants and white trainers -- apparantly to work out in the hotel's gym. He kept up the campaigning on the way there, smiling and waving at tourists and other onlookers.

What a guy. Lifting weights is more important to him than lifting the spirits of wounded troops. Sounds like a different kind of politics all right. I'm not sure I like it. It is not the kind of change I was hoping for.

Atlas Shrugs may have some insight about what was behind the change in plans.

A very interesting email from a source I must protect suggests that Obama's visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center had the green light until a campaign staffer raised a stink about going with Obama. (There are rules meant to ensure candidates do not use soldiers or military bases for campaign purposes, and they state that personal and committee staff may accompany a sitting senator on a visit but campaign staff may not.) I am told that when one of Obama's campaign staff was told he or she would be denied access, the visit was canceled.

The last-minute cancellation speaks more poorly of this unidentified staffer than of Obama himself. But in the end, shouldn't Obama have been able to say, "fine, the staffer stays in Berlin (or where-ever) and I'm going to Landstuhl? Can he still say so?

I'm sceptical of unnamed sources. However, the military rule is that he could visit the military as long as he brought only his personal staff and not his campaign staff with him. After all he visited the military in Afghanistan without a problem.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of an evolution in his campaign tactics to prevent gaffs. Keeping Obama from making public appearances without his paid minders is something I can understand. How will he know what to say without some one whispering in his ear? Which probably says something unflattering about Obama's (57) states of mind.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Joke Of The Day 16 May 008

From Manufacturing Business Technology.

Successive EU enlargements, the Union's growing reputation as a global defence and security actor, and its continued strong economic performance have also become key reasons for India's increased interest in Europe.

Let me see. They couldn't handle the Yugoslavia problem in their own back yard. They depend on USA logistics to maintain troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And unemployment in France and Germany has been in the 10% range for many years. Other than the value of the Euro what have they got?

Not a Victim

There is an ABC report out that US troops may have Osama bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials declined to identify who the operation was targeting, but indicated they were after a "High Value Target" (HVT) . Official sources would not rule out that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself was the intended victim. Afghan officials said the target could be another senior ranking al Qaeda leader.

Osama is a terrorist. He is not a victim of American bombs. He is a recipient.

H/T LGF

Rapid Social Change

I was doing my daily read of LGF and came across an interesting item on the Burka Band. An all girl band from Afghanistan. The music is kind of a bland techno, but the words of social commentary are in english and the visuals are interesting.

So I went looking in the comments to see if I could find out more. Commenter Peacekeeper gave a link to this site: Girl band in burka.

Here is the most interesting quote from the article.

The Burka Band has never performed in Afghanistan and at the moment the band is not active. During the Taliban regime music was totally forbidden, and women were not allowed to work. To sing in public could carry a death sentence. Today the country is still very conservative, and there is no market in Afghanistan for the Burka Band's music. The band members have to wait for a European or American record label to help them if they are to make a whole album one day.

- I'd like to play again, but right now it is not possible. Last year there was a big bomb at a concert here in Kabul , and lots of people are still against female singers because the religous leaders condemn it. It will probably take 10 years before we will have real girl bands here in Afghanistan , says Nargiz, who now works in an international organisation in Kabul.

From no music allowed to all girl bands in 10 or even 15 years is amazingly fast progress for a culture.

Given that this song was popular in Germany in 2003 it means that Afghanistan is well on the way to becoming at least a semi-modern country. It also points out the irresistability of Western and especially American culture. The old ways are dying.

The War Lords of Afghanistan - Part II

Afghanistan's member of parliament, Mrs. Malalai Joya, says American policy in Afghanistan is all wrong.

The so-called "Northern Alliance," a coalition of regional and religious organizations, governed Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996 before one of its member groups, the Taliban, took over the government. After a U.S.-led coalition in 2001 ousted the Taliban regime in response to the 9/11 attacks, Northern Alliance figures were appointed to government positions despite their extensive and well-documented history of human rights abuses.

And from Joya's perspective, that's the biggest problem Afghanistan now faces.

Malalai Joya says the former Mujahideen - "warlords who have now learned how to talk about democracy and women and how to wear a suit and a tie" - are no better than the Taliban: "Every country that wants to prove itself as real and honest friends of the Afghan people must stop following the policy of the U.S., because this is not a real democracy and this is not a real war on terror. At one hand they are saying 'we fight the Taliban' and on the other we have members of parliament who are Taliban. The only way is to stop this policy. If they don't stop this policy, I am sure that one day there will be another September 11. Another September 11 will happen — because they are like the Taliban [and] they will act like the Taliban."

She couldn't have told us this sooner?

I suppose we really knew this all along. You can only impose a form of government on a defeated people. Other wise all you have is pressure and not much of that if the Afghanis want to assert their independence.

Like it or not the warlords are power centers. Loyalties change slowly. The American Indians are a case in point.

As one example of the approach that Joya objects to, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., while visiting Afghanistan two weeks ago, voiced his support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."

She says these are the same "warlords and drug lords [who] committed lots of crimes when they were in power under the name of jihad and even now are committing lots of crimes under the name of jihad and Islam."

We could reduce the profit in growing drugs by at least 90% to 95% by ending prohibition. I cover that in The War Lords of Afghanistan.

Who uses Heroin? About 70% of female heroin users were sexually molested. If heroin helps them get by I'm all for it. I think that being under a doctor's supervision would be a sufficient control of the market. Besides, the NIDA says that addiction has a genetic component. Only a small fraction of the population is susceptable.

In any case it looks like the outsiders in Afghanistan are backing the wrong crowd. Nothing new here. I think the Afghanis are going to have to sort this out. With our support. We have to resist the tendency to go native.

H/T Afghan LORD