THE FRONTLINES BULLETIN There have been several interesting articles in the news lately, this is one of the top three:

The Obama Doctrine Defined

The words “vacillating” and “aimless” are commonly used by both left and right to describe President Barack Obama’s approach to the Libya war. His political friends and foes alike lament that he has no clear goal in Libya—and that, by failing to articulate one, he is revealing his unease at having been dragged into the fight to oust the regime of Muammar Qaddafi.

Democratic Senator James Webb of Virginia issued a press release on March 21, 2011, noting that the U.S. mission in Libya “lacks clarity.” Former Republican Senator Slade Gorton wrote in the Washington Post: “We should never enter a war halfway and with an indecisive goal. Regrettably, that is where we stand today.”

The criticism has some validity, but it misses an important point: the administration’s approach has logic and coherence in the service of strategic considerations that extend far beyond Libya.

Since his campaign in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama has declared that he wants to transform America’s role in world affairs. And now, in the third year of his term, we can see how he is bringing about that transformation. The United States under Barack Obama is less assertive, less dominant, less power-minded, less focused on the American people’s particular interests, and less concerned about preserving U.S. freedom of action. It is true that he did not simply pull the plug on the war in Iraq, as he promised he would do, and that he increased the commitment of troops in Afghanistan. But those compromises reflect the president’s pragmatic judgment about the art of the possible, not his conviction about what kind of country America should ultimately become.

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-obama-doctrine-defined/

TASK/CONDITIONS/STANDARDS for THE FRONTLINES BULLETIN

The TASK is to provide valuable information for veterans. The CONDITIONS are information overload of often useless partisan rhetoric which distorts the facts, clutters the environment, and thus prohibits  important information from being distributed to Veterans. The STANDARDS are that The Frontlines Bulletin will be short, concise, and referenced material in order to provide timely and relevant information to Veterans and their families.

To read the entire bulletin please read: The Frontlines Bulletin (122300(S)JUL2011). If you have a different opinion or comment please post it here or email me at [email protected] or visit www.thefrontlines.com. Fronts Change. Memories Don’t.

Thank you.

Very respectfully,

The “Warrant”

Can someone just tell him to SHUTUP? I mean really, the guy is a boob and needs to quit opening his pie-hole about international matters, especially the war in Afghanistan. He keeps this up and my 2012 prediction may very well come true. Oh, you want to know what that is?

Obama dumps Biden as a running mate and is able to convince Colin Powell to run as VP on his ticket. He will have another black man, a supposed “republican” and a guy with a ton of foreign government and military expertise. I see it as a very strong possibility. If it happens, you can betcha that I will be dropping a “I told you so” post. 

The video below is of LTG (RET) W.G. Boykin. LTG Boykin is one of the most combat exprienced Generals still alive today. He has been involved with and on the ground in every known combat action this country has dealt with since the Desert One Raid in 1979 trying to rescue the American hostages in Iran. Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Operation Enduring Freedom, and on and on. He has been involved in some that are not even known. As a former commander of Delta Force and actually in the first training class for Delta force back in 1978 he has been there and done it like nobody else. You can learn more about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin.

I had the privilege of talking to him and interviewing him last year on YouServed Radio soon after his book, Never Surrender, was released. It was a true honor to talk to him and I am still humbled to this day. Watch the video below to learn a little from LTG (ret) Boykin about Marxism and its influence into America today.

I’m not sure why the Republican Party so set against my ever joining common cause with them, but here goes reason number 2,345:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele may be misremembering exactly how and when the Afghanistan war began.
At a Republican Party fundraiser in Connecticut on Thursday, Steele declared that the war in Afghanistan “was a war of Obama’s choosing” that America had not “actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” in a response to an attendee’s question about the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal — which Steele called “very comical.”
“The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. And I think it’s a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders have with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan,” said Steele. “Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama’s choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.”
“It was one of those, one of those areas of the total board of foreign policy ["in the Middle East"? -- Note: The audio is not quite clear in this section.] that we would be in the background, sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops,” Steele continued. “But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan.”
TPM

Mike…..Mike….Have you forgotten the grammatically challenged swaggering CinC who executed the invasion and ‘land war’ in 2001…then turned away to pursue an unrelated military adventure in 2003? Have you forgotten all of the pretend patriotic bluster when anyone came close to questioning the strategies for both? Way to go in illustrating how intellectually stunted your party is to keep you on as head mouthpiece. I mean, we all expect political hacks to lie, deceive and bloviate, but you’ve taken dishonesty to a new level. Bravo….

The CinC made a surprise visit to the combat zone yesterday, as most CinC’s are prone to do…this time to Afghanistan. In his predictable pep rally speech to assembled US forces, he made two statements that caught my eye and made me question the truth behind the rhetoric.

“If this region slides backwards,” Obama told the troops, “if the Taliban retakes this country, al-Qaida can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake, the Afghan people will lose their opportunity for progress and prosperity and the world will be significantly less secure.

“We know there’s going to be some difficult days ahead, there’s going to be setbacks. We face a determined enemy, but we also know this: the United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. We will prevail, I am absolutely confident of that.”

We won’t quit? Ever?

We will never assess a situation as not being worth the national treasure of our nation….that once we start down a path, we shall not waver….even though logic and reason may dictate otherwise?  Where is the rationale for a Taliban regime to again harbor Al Qaeda?  The Taliban and Al Qaeda share little in common strategically, but they are intelligent enough to realize that they would quickly lose power once again by hosting the terror group. Add to this the feelings of betrayal and mistrust between Afghan and the ‘foreign Arabs’.

Recently counter-terrorism analyst turned academic Leah Farrall interviewed Islamic militant Abu Walid al-Masri, a longtime jihadist close to both Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. From this interview Farrall writes:

In his most recent letter to me, where he responded to an article I wrote for The Australian on al-Qa’ida’s Afghanistan strategy, he dropped the loudest bomb of all. He tells me the Taliban will no longer welcome al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan. Their return would make matters more complicated for the Taliban because “the majority of the population is against al-Qa’ida”.

He believes that disassociation is required. He tells me “if the link between the Taliban and al-Qa’ida is not broken the results will be bad for the Taliban and Afghanistan”. And he thinks that the Taliban should also move away from the salafist movement so it can be liberated “from all of the restrictions that hinder its political options”. The Austrailian

A withdrawal would of course provide short term propaganda to Al Qaeda, but in hollow rhetoric. A truly fervent jihadi will be drawn to the cause no matter the situation, but for all other financing and recruitment, a compelling threat must be conveyed to potential fighters and backers. By de-legitimizing Al Qaeda as a military threat, and as the overwhelming threat to western civilization…….and removing the perceived threat to Muslims [occupations], we take away that compelling threat that motivates many jihadi’s.

Here’s the question more Americans should be asking…..why aren’t factually based analysis’ entering into the national debate? Why do we accept the meme that we are escalating in Afghanistan intent on ‘disrupting and destroying terrorist groups’…when we all know that they aren’t there? These reasons for escalation are just as intellectually corrupt as the buildup to invade Iraq.

If someone supports trying to defeat the Taliban simply because of their moral temperature when it comes to human rights, fine. Just don’t frame it as an imperative to our national security.

We’ve come full circle with Obama channeling Bush in his invocation of ‘evil’. Just another statist, mainstream, god fearing political clone. So continues a long American tradition (dating back at least to the insurgency battles in the Philippines) of the United States committing troops [or escalating in this case] against an enemy who neither attacked us nor poses a security threat to us. This decision spotlights the Obama Administration as decidedly un-liberal and bringing about little to no ‘hope’ or ‘change’.

All of this occurs at a time when there exists both the rhetoric of the gravest threat to national security and asking not an iota of tangible support from the populace at large. So can someone….anyone….explain to me the rationale for even tepid support of escalation in Afghanistan? Given that nearly all of the rhetoric provided fails to support the reality…does it simply boil down to ‘well at least we’re doing something?’ Even though that something is counter-productive?

I was planning to write up a huge posting about how the Gaf-master Biden took credit on behalf of the Administration for the success in the Iraq war and then how Robert “I am better than all of you” Gibbs tried to defend this statement. Well in the interest of time and because my friend Jimbo said everything I would have typed, but much more eloquently than I could have, here is Jimbo telling it like it is.

I originally posted this entry last night on my main blog at www.bouhammer.com.

There is no way, NO WAY this is going to happen. In about 5 minutes I will be on a Blogger’s Roundtable talking with Mr. David S. Sedney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, and Brig. Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr. Director, Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, Joint Staff. I am going to ask some hard questions about the timeline that the President just outlined.

Why does he think that a mere 1 year after he surges in 30,000 additional forces, that he can start withdrawing forces. How is that much progress going to happen in 12 months. In Jan, 2007 MG Durbin stated that he wanted Task Force Phoenix to start mentoring and training the Afghan Police and wanted them up to the level of the Afghan Army (which we had been embedded with for the last 5 years). We said then that MG Durbin was on crack to think we could turn around the ANP that fast. Well I am starting to think that again now of the President.

I wrote earlier about how there is no way they can have the logistics in place support this surge in the next six months. But despite that, they have to find enough ANA and ANP candidates that are going to stay around, that are not going to go AWOL, that are not going to run at the first bullets launched at them. Oh and then have to get them trained up to a competent level of performance so that a drawdown can start just 12 months after all the forces get there. No FRIGGEN WAY!! It is not going to happen. I am telling you there is no way.

But let me also say that I don’t except the drawdown to happen in Jun of 2011. He is hoping that that can happen, but the President said the “situation must allow it”. Lets call it like we see it. 2011 will be in the heart of the next Presidential Campaign window and it is all in his best interest for re-election to try and pull out of Iraq by end of 2011 and start a pull out of Afghanistan by mid-2011. He is “hoping” that he can do that, just like he is “hoping” that the NATO countries will pony up the additional 10,000 forces that are missing from Gen McChrystal’s original request. Just like my old Battalion Commander, COL Forney, used to say, ‘hope is not a method’.

The ‘Best Man for the Job’ (GEN McChrystal) asked for 40,000 troops, yet he is only getting 30,000, which is 3/4 of what he asked for. It took something like 83 days to come up with that? It only took 50+ something days to overthrow the Taliban and Al-Queda in 2001. Not giving the General who was noted as the “best man” what he asked for is a slap in the face of the General and of all the military.

The President is playing politics with our military and with our country. Shame on him with trying to appease both sides of the aisle. Don’t tell certain groups of Americans what you think they want to hear, tell them the truth.

There is NO WAY this is going to happen in the next 18 months.

If you read this article http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/13/morale-troops-afghanistan-army-says
and read what they have there you can walk away with one of two impressions. You can take it at face value and think based on the comments from this report that the soldiers are worn out from years of combat. Don’t get me wrong, many are tired. Others are motivated. But if you really read the article and go a little between the lines I think what you will notice is that it is not the combat that has them worn out, it is leadership that has their morale down.

I don’t mean their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd levels of leadership. I mean much higher than that. In fact I would say it is the highest levels of command in the military….The Commander in Chief. Last week I interviewed Tom Neely while he was down in Gitmo playing for the troops and he talked about how morale is the lowest among the troops there that he has ever seen in 3 years. They aren’t in combat every day. He talked about it really being a problem just this year.

In my conversations with those in Afghanistan, I am hearing the same thing. The troops do have low morale. They are depressed, and they question why they are there when their own CiC does not have their back. There has been no strategy set, and there is no clear direction. All troops want is a goal or mission to accomplish. That is the way we do things in the military. Give us a mission and the tools to accomplish it, and we will do it. They have the tools for the most part.

What they don’t have is a clear direction, and when they are asking for some tools (like more troops) the request is being delayed at that same level…the highest level. I can tell you how I would feel if I was there right now (which means this is coming from some in country and how I would feel). Tell me what to do and let me do it or bring me home so I am not getting blown up and let me be with my family.

In other words the low morale is not from too many IEDs, or firefights, or being away from loved ones. It is becuase of a President that needs to decide what he wants to do…LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.

Morale was not down in Iraq in 2005-2007 when is was some of the worst violence ever. Morale was not down in Afghanistan any prior years. However it is down now. The American soldier relies on support from family, friends, community, and leadership to stay focused, maintain high morale and to get the job done. If any of those begin to get flimsy or fail then it will effect the quality of the soldier.

So whether it is directly by not authorizing the number of troops requested or indirectly by contributing to the low morale of the soldiers in combat. The actions of the President of this United States are contributing to the increased risk of death and injury of our brave men and women in combat.

Which one is it? The President has told so many lies and repeated whatever the teleprompter tells him to so many times that he has stepped all over himself. Here is Charles Krauthammer making it pretty clear in 92 seconds.

I am convinced of it. She has to be. Who does this self-proclaimed sniper-dodging twit think she is to question the “best man for the job”. That was the quote from the SecDef and from the President himself after they abruptly fired GEN McKeirnan and disrespected him in front of the world. They put in GEN McChrystal to get the war in Afghanistan on track. They said he was the best man for the job. They told him to go into country and do a 60 day assessment and then come back and tell the Administration what is needed to win.

He has done everything asked of him. He gave the assessment to the SecDef last month, and only one meeting has supposedly happened since about the matter.

He is the BEST MAN FOR THE JOB, and the best man came back to say he needed more troops within the year or else we risk losing in Afghanistan. What does the enlightened wife of a disgraced and cheating ex-president say?

"But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite," she said.

Yes she says she “respects” McChrystal’s assessment, but she does not believe it. Maybe she should call Oprah and ask her what she thinks, or Sean Penn, or maybe Alec Baldwin. I am sure she still has Marc Rich on speed dial, maybe she could ask him.

She is the friggen Secretary of State who is only there as a thank you gift and to keep her quiet from running against Obama in 2012. She has been largely ignored by her boss on foreign matters and in fact it took her husband to get two captured Americans back from the North Koreans.

She should keep her pie-hole shut and listen to the guy with a military record longer than her husband’s little black book.

Read the whole story HERE.