Obama and Iraq

So… Senator Obama publishes his “Plan for Iraq” as an op-ed in today’s New York Times. And, as might be expected, the ‘sphere erupts in comment. Here's some of the best I’ve read in this space today, beginning with Uncle Jimbo, writing at Blackfive:

(Ed: Quoting Obama’s Op-ed)

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

And there you show why you are unfit to be Commander in Chief. You don't even understand the fundamental concept of war and you would give the military a mission that doesn't exist. You want them to "end" the war which to you means simply pack up our toys and come home so your kids don't have to see those awful stories on the news. Well let me make one thing perfectly clear to you Senator. You can't end wars, you either win them or lose them. Your shameful naivete would endanger the lives of every military member worldwide. Once oue enemies know we have a clueless muppet at the helm, they will be empowered to act without fear of retribution.

Hmm. That sounds a lil bit familiar, nu?

And then Captain Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006, and is the executive director of Vets for Freedom, weighs in at National Review Online:

As someone who monitors the Iraq-war-policy debate closely, I was puzzled to open the New York Times and see an oped authored by Sen. Barack Obama entitled “My Plan for Iraq.” Besides the seemingly moderate tone — and calling for an Afghanistan “surge” (an idea I agree, and one proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman in March) — not much in the piece is new or newsworthy. In the final analysis, the oped is another dogmatic addendum to Obama’s “withdrawal at any cost” position.

In fact, just one question entered my head when I finished reading: Why now? Why would Sen. Obama — or any legislator, for that matter — write such a piece before visiting the country for himself, seeing the situation with his own eyes, and speaking with commanders and troops who actually know what’s going on?

It strikes me that only someone who is signaling no interest in consulting with commanders on the ground would spell out his “plan” for Iraq just one week before he visits the country for the first time in 918 days. Only someone who is arrogant enough to believe he always knows best would outline his Iraq policy before once meeting one-on-one with General David Petraeus.

The only conceivable answer to the question is that Sen. Obama believes he can capitalize on Prime Minister Maliki’s recent comments about a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Maliki’s comments, important primarily because they demonstrate increased Iraqi strength and confidence, have been diluted by the fact that he didn’t actually call for a timeline after all. All withdrawal talks will be tied to conditions on the ground.

Yeah, the timing is strange, innit? Obama is going to Iraq this week, so why release an op-ed today, which amounts to nothing more than the “same ol’, same ol’”? Why not wait until next week… a mere eight or ten days… when the op-ed could have included the words “I’ve just returned from Iraq, where I consulted with General Petraeus and other commanders on the ground…”? Is there more here than meets the eye? Is this op-ed a way for Obama to re-focus the nutroots after his FISA vote? Or, are they (the Obama camp) just totally confused? Dean Barnett, writing in The Weekly Standard’s “The Blog:”

On Iraq, Team Obama has become stuck in a quagmire of confusion. On Meet the Press yesterday, leading Obama surrogate Claire McCaskill said that Obama’s 16 month surrender plan in Iraq is a “goal” and added it would be “irresponsible for a commander-in-chief to set a date in stone.”

And yet today, the titular head of Team Obama took to the pages of New York Times and declared:

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

That sounds sort of “set in stone” to me. Meanwhile Obama is trotting off to Iraq this week with “Republican” Chuck Hagel in tow to lend the voyage some military bona fides. Hagel’s the guy who long ago called the surge, “The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." Then again, I guess Hagel still makes a far more credible traveling companion than Harry Reid would.

And what’s the purpose of this trip? Ostensibly to talk to the commanders so Obama can further refine his plan which isn’t set in stone. Unless you like it as is, in which case you may consider it set in stone. Until further notice.

There’s much more in the “Required Reading” entry linked above, including some comment on that Barry – Michelle New Yorker cover that’s causing a lot of buzz elsewhere today. Even though it’s off-topic for this post, I liked the following:

It (ed: the cover) doesn’t mock the Obamas – it mocks idiots who see the Obamas as the type of people who burn the American flag in their study while engaging in a terrorist fist-bump.

Not everyone has gotten the joke. My favorite reaction to date has come from Pandagon.net, the blogging home of Amanda Marcotte, the Edwards campaign’s controversial blogger that you may remember from last year. Pandagon is home to perhaps the shrillest version of feminism on the web, and yet the site’s Jesse Taylor responded to the cartoon with a lecture on humor. “The hallmark of good satire,” Taylor scolds, “is that it’s good enough to perhaps be taken credulously by those who aren’t too swift, but also ridiculous enough to show that whoever does take it seriously is a bit slow in the head. This is not good satire.” Strident and perennially outraged feminists posing as the arbiters of good humor? Take it from one who knows – if those comments were themselves intended as satire, they would be the equivalent of satire gold.

Going even further a field… Barnett’s comment about the oxymoron-ish nature of “feminist humor” struck me as particularly observant, if not unique. There are NO more humorless people on the face of God’s Green Earth than supposedly “radical” feminists. OTOH, Barnett makes a pretty convincing case that BHO is just as humorless. And that’s not a Good Thing in a leader, Gentle Reader. Particularly one who aspires to leading the entire Free World.

So… we end with a massive digression, eh? But… if you’re in need of more and better comment on The Obamanon and his “Iraq Plan,” there’s all these guys (via memeorandum, some of which already linked above):

Firedoglake, MoJoBlog, The Carpetbagger Report, Washington Post, The Swamp, The Hill's Blog Briefing Room, The New Republic, Marc Ambinder, USA Today, Informed Comment, The Trail, The Moderate Voice, MSNBC, Taylor Marsh, TownHall Blog, Comedy Central, Think Progress, Newshoggers.com, Weekly Standard Blog, TalkLeft, Political Radar, Swampland, democracyarsenal.org, The Reaction, Pajamas Media, Commentary, Matthew Yglesias, The Corner, Hot Air, Riehl World View, Booman Tribune, All Spin Zone, protein wisdom, The Glittering Eye, Needlenose, BLACKFIVE, Democrats.com, The Strata-Sphere, Veterans For America, MyDD, GregsOpinion.com, The Washington Note, Gateway Pundit, Confederate Yankee and Political Machine

That ought to hold ya for an hour or ten.

Sunday's Small Stuff

Just one man’s opinion… but Joshua Khan at InventorSpot.com published a list of “The Top 10 Best Sports Logos” this past Thursday. Here’s Numero Uno:

Best Sports Logo #1. A Simple Design That Established A Team

Despite its prestige logo, the Detroit Red Wings were known as under other names, such as the Cougars and the Falcons. But in 1932, a millionaire named Jim Morris (sic) bought the team and decided to name it after another organization. Norris decided that the “winged logo” was perfect for Detroit as they are the Motor City.

The organization the turned around as the Detroit Red Wings made the playoffs for the first time a few years later and won the Stanley Cup in 1936.

As I said: “one man’s opinion.” Don’t shoot the messenger, even if said messenger agrees completely with Mr. Khan’s selection. The Winged Wheel: Best. Sports. Logo. Ever.

(h/t: Kukla's Korner)

―:☺:―

Ya know how I’m on about all that fruit salad that decorates the chests…to overflow… of our illustrious military members these days? Well, SN2 sends along a four-slide PowerPoint presentation with “Forgotten Navy Ribbons.” Here's the first slide:

(click for larger)

I’m thinking these ribbons haven’t been forgotten at all, they’re just “pending approval” by the Navy’s Uniform Board. I assume the Navy has such a board, but I really don’t know. The Air Force certainly does. In the interests of full disclosure, I don't think the AF Uniform Board is the approval authority for ribbons and medals... they're just the guys who tell ya how and how not to wear your decorations.

Just a quick note about this slide: Being the Language Nazi I am and will always be, I was appalled at the many usage and grammar errors on the four-slide presentation. Just because one is creating humor doesn’t mean one shouldn’t take the time to proofread their work. Or, if one has doubts about one’s expertise in this area, get someone else to proofread. It doesn’t take a whole Helluva lot of time, ya know. And yeah, I could have corrected the errors in the presentation before I posted this. I still have PowerPoint on my PeeSee, after all. That fact should make ya wonder, Gentle Reader.

We Are SO Deprived...

...when it comes to creative (and humorous) teevee advertising in this country. Via Blog-Bud Morgan, here's a lil over eight minutes of allegedly banned advertisements...



OK, some of the ads ARE American, and I've even seen a couple of 'em on teevee myownself. But the umbrella/condom and Ikea "new bed" ads simply cracked me up, and I've never seen those on MY teevee, and likely never will. Why can't we have humorous entertainment in our ads? Enquiring Minds wanna know...

USAF's Dark Clouds... and a Silver Lining

Both of you frequent readers know I’ve been saddened and chagrined by the negative press the Air Force has been getting in the last year or so, and a lot of that bad press was brought on by the Air Force itself. Things like mismanaging a multi-billion dollar tanker procurement, unknowingly flying “live” nuclear cruise missiles under the wings of a B-52 from North Dakota to Louisiana, and nuclear surety issues in Europe, all of which contributed to the recent firings of SecAF and USAF’s Chief of Staff. USAF is truly beginning to look like “The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight” if you believe everything you read, and most of what you read in this space is fact, not opinion. But USAF is doing some things right.

Enter Mike Dunn, President and CEO of the Air Force Association (and a retired USAF three-star). In a relatively short piece published by the AFA yesterday, Mr. Dunn takes on the Air Force’s critics. His lede:

When a company doesn’t meet its earning numbers, it is popular to look at management for someone to blame. Over the last few weeks numerous articles and editorials have been featured in the press about the “downfall” of the US Air Force – a Service besotted with so-called systemic, cultural, leadership, ... and even moral problems. The way this story line goes is the writer bundles every perceived “wrong-doing” – often over many years – into a big package and applauds DOD leadership for firing the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff. (“Everything” being tanker selection process, nuclear issues, lack of focus on today’s war, “next war-it is,” the number of UAVs deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, officer pilots versus enlisted pilots, etc. Some media even add in the tanker lease contract, proselytizing at the Air Force Academy, sexual assaults at USAFA, and a host of others). Usually the author throws so much mud on the wall, it is difficult to refute much of what is said … and trying to point out the many inaccuracies only brings more attention to pieces which have titles like: “Clean up the Air Force.” Also, most publications limit responses to 100 words or less. And with so many items to refute, it is impossible to do so.

What follows is a point-by-point refutation of some of the criticisms leveled at the Air Force…not all, but some. Two key accusations cited in almost every negative article I’ve read lately concerns the availability of UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever-popular whipping-boy, F-22 procurement. First, on UAVs:

Third, the supposed AF bias against UAVs is often cited as why the AF is not paying attention. Again, the facts don’t bear this out. It is important to remember that it was the AF which embraced the Predator … this after the Army refused to field it. It was the AF which modified it to add anti-icing capability so it could fly in the winter over Bosnia, the AF which modified it to carry Hellfire missiles; the AF which designed and built the distribution system to ensure the intelligence got to the warfighter; the AF which repeatedly called for increased production and a second line. Every Chief of Staff in the last 10 years has sought increased numbers of UAVs – and it was the AF which fielded both the Global Hawk and the Reaper. The AF has 88% of its UAVs deployed to the AOR … this as opposed to the Army, whose Ops concept is to organically assign them to its fighting units – only 30% of which are deployed. And … the AF has beat the DOD requirement for 21 CAPs. They now have 23 CAPs – two years ahead of schedule. [For more see: http://www.afa.org/EdOp/edop_5-6-08.asp]

And about the F-22:

Fourth, is the AF’s strong advocacy of the F-22. This is true. The Service believes that the tasks given to it by DOD requires this advanced technology. We’re heard lots about why the AF should stop buying F-22s, but nothing about DOD changing its defense strategy to reflect a different threat set in the future. In fact, an attempt to do so was non-concurred by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [see: http://www.afa.org/GatesApproves.pdf]. Moreover the critics often cite the expense of the F-22 and compare the performance of the F-35 favorably against it. Both are factually inaccurate. The F-22 flyaway cost is about $130M and it has a much better capability than the F-35. The more relevant question is what is the cost of all the conventional systems required to penetrate denied airspace to accomplish what one F-22 can accomplish? The answer is the F-22 is a bargain in that regard. Most critics don’t know it has an air-to-ground and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability. Likewise most don’t realize the F-35 costs are likely to grow. [For a short tutorial on why we need the F-22, see the film at this site: http://www.afa.org/MPEG/Air_Supremacy.asp]. Secretary Gates says the AF has not even deployed the F-22 to Iraq with the implication that we don’t need it. The fact is that the theater commander has requested the F-22, the AF has agreed, and the Secretary has refused to send it forward … reportedly for fear of scaring Iran, but more likely because if he did approve that request, the value of the F-22 would become very obvious, validating the demand for the F-22. Further, this “test” of whether a weapon system is worthy is a false one. There are lots of systems which are not deployed in Iraq … e.g. nuclear subs, P-3s, ICBMs, etc etc. It is clear that the F-22 is needed for the future, and if we stop building it, we will wished we had not … much like we did when DOD made the AF stop buying the B-2. (Ed: links left as found)

There’s more at the original link in my second paragraph, above. There’s some stuff in Mr. Dunn’s piece I didn’t know, and I’m fairly well informed about things USAF (for a guy over 20 years removed from active duty, that is). Mr. Dunn points out that there are good things going on in the Air Force right now and the Air Force is indeed carrying its weight, perhaps more than its weight, in the nation’s current wars.

Even though “things” may not be as bad as they seem, my take-away from Mr. Dunn’s article is that the power struggles in the Pentagon are very intense at the moment, and are likely to get much MORE intense as time moves on. Perhaps not as intense as the Revolt of the Admirals, but pretty danged close. Except this time the shoe is on the other foot, and it ain’t all about one particular weapons system. There are serious “roles and missions” discussions going on right now in the Pentagon and amongst our most senior civilian leaders. These discussions will affect the shape and structure of our forces for the next 20 years and beyond. The Air Force’s most senior leaders need to make their case, both within and outside of the Department of Defense, for the importance and relevance of airpower in our present and future conflicts. I think Mr. Dunn’s piece is a good start.

Terrible News

Lin, the proprietress of Creek Journal, lost her life partner and best friend Terry (aka Mark, on Creek Journal) to a heart attack yesterday. I received the news this morning in an e-mail Lin sent late last night.

I'm simply stunned and overwhelmed. Life, and our relationships, are so very fragile and ultimately transitory. Say a prayer for Lin today and keep her in your thoughts, please.

(The characters are Japanese kanji for sadness; sorrow; grief. This post will remain "on top" for the day. Scroll down for updates.)

Yet Another Meme

Jim The Suldog tagged me with this one…

The meme has the following rules:

1 – Write the title to your own memoir using exactly six words.

2 – Post it on your blog.

3 – Link to the person who tagged you.

4 – Tag five other bloggers.

Hmmm. A memoir. Is that like an armoire, only smaller? Or bigger, as the case might be? So… after giving this much thought (really: ten minutes worth, at least) I came up with a few options. First:

Bikes. Broads. Beer. That was IT!

But that makes me sound like some sort of n’eer-do-well “Wild One” type. Which isn’t entirely true. Close, but not entirely true. A variation on that theme occurred to me:

Wine. Women. Song. Other stuff, too.

Nah. What about:

There and Back Again. Many Times.

Nah, again. I think Tolkien owns the copyright, anyway. So… there’s this:

A Life In Shades o’ Blue.

That’s getting closer! USAF blue, EDS blue (It’s a color. Really. I had a swatch pinned to my cube wall, once upon a time.), Da Blooze, and too MUCH blue in later life. But I think it's waaay too...ummm... cute. So, we finally came upon this:

Celebrating 60 Years of Absolute Mediocrity!

Hey! Does that work, or what? But I think it’s too self-deprecating. So… the winner is…

Bikes. Broads. Beer. That was IT!

Never second-guess inspiration.

Now for the five tag-ees…

Jenny

Jay

Doc

Susan

Phlegmmy

Feel free to play along, even if I didn’t tag ya! You know you want to...

Inverted... And Other Complaints

Yesterday was a total bust for me. Mind you, nothing bad happened… nothing happened at all, actually. I’m in yet another one of my circadian rhythm upside-down periods. As a matter of fact, I’d be the quintessential out-of-time, off-the-beat White Boy if you needed circadian rhythm to dance. Wait… I AM the quintessential White Boy when it comes to dancing, so…never mind. So, there I was yesterday morning, watching the sun come up after being awake all night and trying to decide whether to (a) put the coffee on and blow this sleep thingie off altogether or (b) go to bed. I opted for Plan B and slept until 1300 hrs. The upshot of all this is the day was truly GONE after I’d finished my “morning” coffee, which was just after 1600 hrs (it takes me at least three hours to drink that whole pot, ya know).

And today? Only slightly better…awake until 0300 (or so) and up at 1100 hrs. The Boys tell me not to worry about this because I’m retired, aren’t I? I have nowhere to be, nowhere to go, no one to answer to, and all that (TSMP’s final words of the day to me… more often than not… were almost always spoken as I laid asleep on the couch: “Come to bed, Buck”). But I DO worry. Being out of phase with the rest of the civilized world isn’t a Good Thing, in my book. And it’s definitely raised havoc with my blogging. Which, of course, begs the question: “Well, if you’re up all night, why not blog?” The answer is similar to what any whiny, petulant two-year old would give: “Because I don’t want to!” (You may add a couple of imaginary foot-stomps to increase the street-cred of that statement, if you like. I did.)

{sigh} This, too, shall pass. I think.

―:☺:―

The weather has been strange over the last 48 hours, as well. The sky has been cloudy all day for the last two days, and that’s very unusual for my home on the range. Cloudy… as in a continuous, horizon-to-horizon cover of dark gray, low-scudding clouds that threaten rain but never deliver. The radar picture around Portales these past two days has shown lots of precip all around us, but not ON us. The constant cloud cover has made it unseasonably cool, too. Our high yesterday was only 80; today it’s supposed to be 74. The average temp for this time of year is 91. So, it’s nice to get a break in one respect, but it would be nicer yet if the coolness was accompanied by rain. It would be perfect, as a matter of fact.

―:☺:―

We seem to be on something of a bitch-moan-complain roll here, so let’s add one more thing. I finally received my Detroit Red Wings 2008 Stanley Cup Champions Locker Room T-shirt (yep, that’s the full title) last week, which was ordered from NHL.com the day after the Wings won The Cup. I’m not complaining about how long it took the shirt to get here… I expected some sort of delay, as the shirt was back-ordered the day I bought it. Nope, it’s the quality of the shirt, or lack of same. First of all, Honduras (where the shirt was made) must be a veritable Land O’ Giants, coz I’m swimming in my Medium sized shirt, which appears to be half again as large as other “medium” tee shirts I’ve bought recently. That’s bad enough, but the neck hole is also waaay too large, resembling a woman’s scoop-necked blouse rather than a tee shirt. And the shirt hasn’t even made its first journey to the Laundromat yet.

I have a feeling this will be one souvenir tee shirt that will last, mainly because I won’t be wearing such a poorly-made garment much, if at all. I hate it, and I mean really HATE it, when this happens.

OTOH, SN1 has no complaints about his shirt… which is different than mine. Maybe I’ll buy one of those.

―:☺:―

OK, enough personal bitching. Let’s get on to some bitching, nation-wide. The Obamanon’s widely-commented on “move to the center” continues apace. Now that Barack has pissed off the loony-left with his apparent reversal on the FISA Bill (MFC Greenwald has a new rant on this subject today), he’s trying to make nice with the entire US military. That’s all well and good, I suppose, but Barack is gonna have a long, hard road gaining the trust he needs after making statements like this:

Obama says he’ll call the Joint Chiefs in once he’s inaugurated and give them a new mission: “End the war.” Not WIN the war, but end it. Words mean something, and Obama’s word choice on this subject doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Obama also says his position has remained consistent over the last few months (and years) and I believe him on this one point, at least. He’s been consistent and wrong on the subject of Iraq for as long as I’ve been paying attention to him and his speeches. And he’s certainly not above mischaracterizing Senator McCain’s position, either… when he uses words that accuse McCain of wanting to perpetuate the war. McCain is quite clear: he wants to WIN. Obama is much less clear, but “ending the war” without mentioning (or apparently even considering) the outcome…whether we win or lose… is shallow and irresponsible in the extreme.

Good luck gaining that “trust” thing with the military, Senator O. You’ll need lots of it. Luck, that is.