Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2006, 18:01   #16
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,827
One of the best analysis and analogies I have seen.

TR

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06092/678571-108.stm

Jack Kelly: National security, Democratic style
A strategy in which slogans triumph over substance
Sunday, April 02, 2006

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The mood in Washington has been sour lately, so many were grateful when the Democrats in Congress provided a little levity Wednesday by issuing their national security strategy.

Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).

On Feb. 3, the Defense Department issued its quadrennial report on defense strategy. It was 92 pages long. The Democrats' plan -- "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World" -- is six pages long. Half of these repeat in Spanish what was said in English. And there is a cover page in each language. So the actual "plan" is just two pages long, presented in bullet points in large type, with plenty of white space between them. Party elders must have burned the midnight oil for months to produce this opus.

The first pledge Democrats make is to "Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary."

This would be a welcome change from past Democratic practice. A majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against the B-2 bomber, the Patriot missile, the M-1 tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, ballistic missile defense and virtually every other weapon system that brought us victory in the Cold War, the Gulf war and the march on Baghdad.

The plan doesn't say by how much Democrats would like to increase the size of our military. But after the press conference at which the plan was unveiled, an aide said Democrats would add 140,000 troops to the active forces and National Guard.

Again, this would be a welcome departure from past Democratic practice. When President Clinton took office, there were 17 divisions in the active U.S. Army. When he left office, there were only 10.

But since an aide also told reporters the plan doesn't commit Democrats "to any specific increase in defense spending," it is unclear how Democrats plan to pay for a larger, better equipped military. Perhaps Teresa Heinz Kerry could make a donation?

In the section on the War on Terror, Democrats pledge to "eliminate Osama bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaida, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban."

Since eliminating Osama bin Laden isn't exactly a radical departure from the policy President Bush is pursuing, Democratic stress on this objective suggests they think they could be more successful in obtaining it than the president so far has been. But the Democratic "plan" provides no hint of what Democrats would do differently to catch bin Laden.

Perhaps what Democrats have in mind is to build a time machine, and go back to February 1996, when Sudan, where bin Laden was then residing, offered to turn him over to the United States, and the Clinton administration refused to take him. Where's H.G. Wells when you need him?

Democrats pledge to "double the size of our Special Forces." This indicates Democrats don't have a clue about what it takes to make a Green Beret or a Navy SEAL. The average idiot knows what would happen to the quality of play in the NFL if it were expanded overnight from 32 to 64 teams. Democrats have yet to figure this out.

Democrats pledge to "increase our human intelligence capabilities." Again, this would be a welcome departure from past Democratic practices. A robust human intelligence capability was all but obliterated during the Carter administration. Our humint capabilities were partially rebuilt by CIA Director William Casey under Reagan, only to be sandbagged again in the Clinton administration.

President Clinton met more often with Monica Lewinsky than with his CIA directors, one of whom was caught mishandling classified information. And perhaps Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., could explain how shutting down the NSA intercept program will improve intelligence gathering?

The Democratic "plan" consists of slogans, not substance. Most simply restate what is already U.S. policy as if it were a dramatic new insight. What little is new is idiotic.

Hassan Abbasi is the national security adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad. Mr. Abbasi thinks George W. Bush is an aberration, said Amir Taheri in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.

"For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of [Iranian officers] with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of 'running away,' leaving Afghanistan and Iraq ... to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies," Mr. Taheri said.

Nothing in the Democrats' "national security strategy" suggests Mr. Abbasi is wrong.
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2006, 19:14   #17
Gypsy
Area Commander
 
Gypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Midwest
Posts: 7,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Party elders must have burned the midnight oil for months to produce this opus.
Excellent find TR.

While the subject matter is extremely serious, and the analysis resonates with clear truth...that statement above actually made me laugh.
__________________
My Heroes wear camouflage.
Gypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2006, 23:32   #18
dennisw
Area Commander
 
dennisw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pinehurst,NC
Posts: 1,091
This is not exactly on point, but more fuel for the fire. The whole thing about Hilary not wanted military uniforms in the White House is pretty much public knowledge. This fact is mentioned in the book Deriliction of Duty, which was written by the Air Force officer who carried the nuclear football during a portion of the Clinton Administration. Probably the most bizarre story this gentleman relayed in the book was about Al Gore.

On his first day on the job, he happened to enter the elevator at the same time as the vice president. He immediately said good morning sir, to the VP. He said Al Gore looked at him, turned and looked straight ahead, saying nothing. As you can imagine, the guy was blown away.

During the next week, it happened again, with the same results. After that, he never said a word to the VP. I mean how much of an ass must Gore be not to even acknowledge this gentleman?

It reminds me of the Yankee game John Kerry attended during the last campaign. During one inning, Kerry sat next to a soldier. As the camera settled on Kerry, he never once said anything to the soldier. The next inning a good looking young lady who assisted in the campaign sat next to Kerry. He was all over her. Ok, so he's not gay. But what a sh... bag.

Now some may say that focusing on these two innocuous incidents is trivial and petty. I believe it speaks volumes about these two politicians and the party they serve. Thats why the info TR posted is not suprising. With them it's all form over substance. A car in every garage, a chicken in every pot and we're going to double the SF.

Best bs line yet. Sharon Stone said Hilary is too sexy to be elected. Too sexy. The hits just keep on coming.
__________________
Let us conduct ourselves in such a fashion that all nations wish to be our friends and all fear to be our enemies. The Virtues of War - Steven Pressfield
dennisw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 08:23   #19
TFM
Guerrilla
 
TFM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 181
Democrats grasping at straws again. God help us come next election. It seems they can't make a firm unwaivering stance on anything except what they think people want to hear. They have yet to produce a sound plan for anything since the last election, and they continue to make empty promises. They were all up in arms about a total withdrawl from Iraq not too long ago, yet they plan to beef up SF, Intel, and everthing else. Pityful.
TFM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 14:00   #20
Mud Puppy
Asset
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinister
The Democrat Solution might be a combination of different things:

Mandate elimination of restrictive selection criteria (water down the standards to graduate more);

Mandate opening SOCOM combat positions to all genders and orientations;

Mandate USSOCOM accept and fund Marine MEU-SOCs.

See -- easy!
just like they have done at BCT/IET. You forgot the "stress pass". As a training BN XO stated " after 2 or 3 years of mentoring these people you are trying to remove will make good soldiers"... Not on MY watch
Off soapbox back to lurking

Last edited by Mud Puppy; 04-13-2006 at 14:03.
Mud Puppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 15:00   #21
MtnGoat
Quiet Professional
 
MtnGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Asscrackistan
Posts: 4,289
Nice Find

Great Post TR, Nice article
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
One of the best analysis and analogies I have seen.

TR

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06092/678571-108.stm

Jack Kelly: National security, Democratic style
A strategy in which slogans triumph over substance
Sunday, April 02, 2006

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In the section on the War on Terror, Democrats pledge to "eliminate Osama bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaida, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban."

Since eliminating Osama bin Laden isn't exactly a radical departure from the policy President Bush is pursuing, Democratic stress on this objective suggests they think they could be more successful in obtaining it than the president so far has been. But the Democratic "plan" provides no hint of what Democrats would do differently to catch bin Laden.

Perhaps what Democrats have in mind is to build a time machine, and go back to February 1996, when Sudan, where bin Laden was then residing, offered to turn him over to the United States, and the Clinton administration refused to take him. Where's H.G. Wells when you need him?
If I remember read once that in the 1994 or so the Clinton Admin had yet put out their NSC report or in a DOS Foreign policy on Terrorism that listed the Terrorism states that we were concerned with. UBL was never listed, he stay off any reports until just before the Cole bombing. Most within the CIA and FBI looked at him as a "leader".

Also the FBI was put in the lead for CT by the Amin; the CIA had FBI agents within the CT Center but the laws that stopped a lot of info exchange are now change.

Keep in mind that the WTC had been bombed by Yousef.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Democrats pledge to "increase our human intelligence capabilities." Again, this would be a welcome departure from past Democratic practices. A robust human intelligence capability was all but obliterated during the Carter administration. Our humint capabilities were partially rebuilt by CIA Director William Casey under Reagan, only to be sandbagged again in the Clinton administration.

President Clinton met more often with Monica Lewinsky than with his CIA directors, one of whom was caught mishandling classified information. And perhaps Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., could explain how shutting down the NSA intercept program will improve intelligence gathering?
Clinton pick Woolsey as the Director for him. Becuase of Common Roots. BS - just Yale law was all. They were both anti- war protestors for the Vietnam War, just like Lake and Clinton.

Also Clinton never sat down with his Director, correct me, but for like two years or so.

In the 80's, Woolsey was a arms control negotiator who used Satellites, so he became to believe that America's Spy Statellites Capabillity had decayed or something. Under him we up our SIGNET Capabillities not our HUMMIT.
__________________
"Berg Heil"

History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over."

COLONEL BULL SIMONS

Intelligence failures are failures of command [just] as operations failures are command failures.”
MtnGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:01.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies