The iffy exit plan.

The war in Afghanistan entered a new and possibly decisive stage a week ago, following requests by American leaders for Afghanistan's elected officials to come to a settlement with Taliban leaders to end the war. The Americans had even assisted Taliban leaders in making it to meetings. Coupled with increased and heavier attacks by American and NATO forces, it is believed that American leaders are attempting to force the Taliban into an agreement by putting them in a diminished position. Leaders are skeptical that the settlements will be agreed upon by all Taliban leaders, or if the officials are just going to end up making deals with individual commanders. However, it's possible that these efforts might just fail and the American troops with just have to withdraw again next year with fewer prospects for a successful end.

Neither of the last two commander's in Afghanistan, Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, made the point of saying that the objective was to destroy the Taliban. Rather, they pointed out that it was an attempt to break their will, to break up their movements, and to settle with as many leaders as were willing to deal. That particular strategy appears similar to the one that brought Petraeus great success in Iraq. After American leaders negotiated with insurgent leaders in Iraq in 2007, the violence dropped dramatically. It may be that they hope to accomplish the same here. However, the number of ordinance being sent at the insurgents has increased by half of the original amount since negotiations were announced. Seeing as how one can expect some Taliban leaders to go back on their agreements and for their soldiers to defect, sounds like blowing them all to smithereens if they don't accept peace is a decent plan.

Problems aplenty.

For the upcoming elections, it would appear that one piece of news is all the rage: the splintering of the Republican Party into the moderates and the Tea Party. There's a lot of talk about tensions between the establishment and their new trouble-maker of a child. But then again, it can't really be all that bad. They could be the Democrats. Tensions between President Obama and his own party have become apparent. In a recent interview with the Rolling Stone, President Obama took aim at those in his party that he sees as abandoning ship: "It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progeressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election... People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up... If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious [about change] in the first place." So basically, in short, the President decided that instead of being the repsonsible leader and trying to pull his party back in, he was going to start a little high-schoolesque drama.

Mr. Obama must not have gone to school as a child (relax, I'm not making any accusations toward his place of birth and education thereof), because if children learn anything growing up, it's that if you want someone to be friends with you, you're better off not trashing them. He went with the old sports coach technique, if you're not willing to play the game, go home. Unfortunately for him, not everybody enjoys athletic competition. The response from his own party has been pretty ferocious, making it seem like their President has let them down. One fellow leftist even went so far as to say it's a tactic to shift the blame should the election not go their way (There was also something about "hippie-punching," but that one's over my head). It's fairly clear that the Democratic party isn't in a much better position than the Republicans, as thirty-nine, yes, thirty-nine, Democrats voted with the Republicans against the decision to adjourn in the House. Coach Obama, you've got some issues you might want to look after.

Just a little flavor of the elections around the nation.

Show some emotion.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal explained the current situation that our President is in. As Obama was in the middle of a town hall meeting on Monday, September the twentieth, a woman stood up to speak to him. The woman can be described as a dignified African American, and appears to be what she is, an Obama supporter from 2008. It appeared as though she would give Obama an easy question, but instead she dropped a bombshell, explaining that she was exhausted of defending him and his administration, and she was disappointed with where they were. Being the cool, detached President that he is, Obama responded by listing all of his achievements, such as tuition assistance (really?), and health care. True to his form, Obama was once again off-topic.

The word that sticks out most out of what the woman said would have to be "exhausted." And as far as I can see, it would appear that most Democrats are exhausted. It seems even they can get tired of waiting for the change they were promised. The battle between the Democrats and the Republicans can pretty much be described as the battle between the burnt out and the revved up. It has been noted that voters are attending rallies with something new. Information. They have in their hands, fresh from the internet, copies of bills and roll call votes. With the internet, it is now impossible for the government to escape the eyes of the people as often as they used to. And as much as I hate, HATE, the Tea Party, they're not stupid. They're just angry. Which is more emotion than Obama has ever shown.

Mind games.

I couldn't really decide on a single topic for tonight's blog, so as I looked through Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Sac Bee, and various news websites (mostly BBC), I settled on basing this blog on pretty much nothing. Nothing in particular that is. I'll start with the attempted repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This week, the Republicans stopped the bill from passing in the Senate, though it has already passed the House. Led by Sen. McCain, the Republicans said the issue should wait for the outcome of a Pentagon survey of service members on the repeal. The Republicans see the bill as a political ploy, based on some of the amendments involved. One such amendment would grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants if they graduate from high school and spend two years in college or the military. The Democrats argue that it could strengthen the military, but the Republicans have called it out as a ploy by the Senator that propsed it to graner votes in his heavily Hispanic district. Which, if I were to think about it, which I did, does make some sense. A bill that is centered on the military equality of gays shouldn't really have included a section about immigration, should it? I'm all for the repeal of the law, truly I am. Anyone that is willing to risk their life for the country is good in my book, but drop all the political BS and pass the bill. On a sidenote, Obama promised to have this issue settled a while ago. Woops.

In other news, just in case anyone hasn't noticed, there's a new thing called the Tea Party. The TP is group of what are basically anti-government, and perhaps anti-just-about-everything. Sarah Palin jumped on as a "founder," though in reality she's just along for the ride. A Republican senator from South Carolina has also joined in, and has begun running his own group of Partier's, going against his own party members. The new Party members have begun causing problems for the Republicans, creating issues in the primaries. The result could be a very unmanageable GOP, one which might be divided on grounds as simple as spending bills. The problems could spread to war, Medicare, and Social Security. Love'em or hate'em, they're here to stay for at least a little while. And yes Democrats, you can love them too, as they might just swing the Independent votes in your favor.

Lastly, the "President" of Iran made another scathing speech about American capitalism and the evil Israelis. He ended up preaching to what was basically an empty room at the UN. But what else is new, right?

And now for a completely unrelated political funny.

P.S. - Sorry for any errors, I was exhausted while writing this as I was in the midst of a family emergency.

Leaving them out to dry.

A lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, claiming that Obama was too much like President G.W. Bush when it came to targeted killing of terrorists. The focus of the lawsuit is the alleged targeting of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, but it has been indicated that their objections are more wide-ranging. They object to treating the whole world as a battlefield (which they feel both presidents have done), to lethal actions outside of accepted theaters of conflict, and to the killing of individuals who do not represent an imminent threat. Legal scholars do not give the suit much of a chance, and the administration gave a robust defense of its actions through a speech by the State department's top lawyer.

So, in essence, the actions were approved as legal, and authorized by the President. Sounds solid. However. In a major disconinuity between the administrations, Obama allowed his attorney general to disclose classified details of one of Bush's anti-terror operations (actions of which were deemed legal and authorized), and to reopen investigations of CIA officers involved. This is not about the release of interrgotaion techniques (of which waterboarding was publicly disclosed by the CIA, and NOT used). The argument can then be made that the exposing of a previously authorized program was done on a purely political agenda. This bothers me, because the CIA has (technically) the authorization to do things that no one else is asked or is able to do, and that should not change along iwth an administration. When CIA officers agree to do these things we don't know about, they believe they are entering into a contract with the government, not the current administration. In order for those officers to perform to the best of their abilities and with the most zeal, they must be able to be confident that they will not be thrown under the bus by way of a new President. Personally, I believe that nothing done by the CIA should be disclosed, as it almost always deals with national security, and make that public is ridiculous. It's no wonder that senior CIA officials are now asking for more legal guarantees concerning the secrecy of their operations. I support that idea, and am completely against the need of one administration to sabotage the operatons of the last. Doing that creates a lack of trust with our most important intelligence force, and that's just irresponsible.

It's constitutional to be an idiot.

Recently, Pastor Terry Jones of a small Florida church and his congregation had planned to have a bonfire of burning Korans to commemorate the September 11 attacks. The planning has garnered international interest and worldwide anti-American protests. The White House feared that the bonfire would lead to violence against U.S. embassies and an increase in general anti-American feelings. However, on September 9, Pastor Jones announced that his "Burn a Koran Day" was "on hold" following a disclosure of possible negotiations between the pastor and a New York based Muslim Imam linked with the mosque plans at Ground Zero. The negotiations supposedly included a deal to move the mosque, which the Imam said was an incorrect announcement. According to Jones, their final decision about whether or not to hold the burning will come after a 24-hour period during which they will be confirming a meeting between Jones and the New York Imam.

The cancellation of the Koran burning was settled as part of a supposed agreement, although neither side seems to be in much agreement at this point, and Jones has gone so far as to refer to the Imam as a liar. The really troubling part is that the federal government had absolutely no ability to stop the burning, because, as it would have been no private grounds, the pastor and his congregation would have been perfectly within their constitutional right to freedom of speech. As put by David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington DC, "Generally, the first amendment protects offensive, repugnant, and even hateful speech." The root of the issue is that fact that America prides iself on holding true to this freedom, along with other freedoms given by the Constitution, and it has become almost a national identity, as a "free country." As much as I'm for a little freedom, such as voicing ones political opinions or even smack talking the opponents a little, I believe that at some point the line needs to be drawn. As voiced by American military officials, the Koran burning will only intensify the will of insurgents, and will lead to increased violence against American soldiers. And to knowlingly put soldiers at unnecssary risk is completely absurd.

However, fair's fair. The amendment also protects the burning of the American flag and symbols of other religions. In order for the demonstrator to be arrested, there must be an immediacy of harm, such as having the bonfire on the dorrstep of a mosque. Much good comes from our freedoms, but all it gives people like the congregation in Florida the ability to do is be idiots.

Smaller is still something.

As President Obama was announcing the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq, U.S. soldiers were sealing a village in the north while Iraqi soldiers raided the houses and arrested dozens of suspected insurgents. As previously stated in my other post, although tens of thousands of troops have exited the country, 50,000 U.S. troops will remain until the end of the year to assist the Iraqi army. In a change-of-command ceremony in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces outside Baghdad that the American military now uses as its headquarters, officials warned of a tough road head as the United States moves into the final phase of this seven and a half year war. The largest concern is that of the Iraqi leaders' continuing bickering over the formation of a new government, a conflict that could add fuel to the insurgency fire. According to Vice-President Biden, the U.S. troops will be as combat ready as any other forces in the military. Of those who remain, 10% are special forces (roughly 4,500) who will conduct raids and capture terrorists.

So as I am now going to make custom, I will use this paragraph to state my opinions following the first paragraph containing facts. My biggest concern is the state of the Iraqi government, or better yet, the lackthereof. For Obama to state that our responsibility's are complete and that now is an okay time to withdraw seems a little absurd. To upset a country's government by deposing their leader, however brutal, and then leaving that country without any form of government is blatantly irresponsible. To leave a group of political workers and a smaller force of American troops in a politically unstable country is equally irresponsible. Furthermore, to say that troops that are authorized to raid are not combat troops seems a little far-fetched. With operations like the village raid in Hawija, troops are most likely going to involved in combat. Thus, making them combat troops. Their mission statement may be different, but the effect is the same. Obama has declared that the operation is finished, when it appears to have just gotten smaller. IN my opinion, combat won't officially be over until everyone is out.