Obama's New War Priorities Deceiving, Maybe Wrongheaded

-By Guest Blogger Warner Todd Huston (see Warner's columns at Redstate and at NewsBusters.com) 

Some may look at Obama's defense funding request coming in at about $144.6 billion as a welcome reduction over the 2008 budget of $186 billion. Some may also be tempted to claim that Obama is ramping down America's war efforts. But that would be a hasty conclusion because the numbers are a bit deceiving. On top of that some of the areas that Obama wants to shift the money to shows that the president is heading down the wrong path to a successful conclusion of our Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts and that he is perhaps foolishly expecting Pakistan to follow his lead when it is already plain that she won't, maybe even can't.

Pakistan

Obama's negotiation team had already gotten a rude shock last month when Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen were rebuffed by Pakistan when the pair proposed a joint operation against al Qaeda and the Taliban in her violence wracked tribal regions.

At that time, Pakistan also demanded that Obama hand over the hardware and technology of the Predator drone system to them and demanded that the U.S. stop operations of future missions. Pakistan claimed that the drones only fueled extremism.

Regardless, Obama is requesting large increases in funding for operations to battle extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While increases may be good, Obama has spent no time whatever actually creating the political will in either Congress or Pakistan to support this ramped up battle.

Senator Carl Levin (D, Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for instance, expressed concern over the hike in funds saying that he saw only "ambivalent evidence" that there was any political will in Pakistan to support Obama's goals.

Regardless of Pakistan's ire Obama has proposed large increases in the Predator drone programs. Certainly he is right that upgrades in the overtaxed systems is needed, but there is a fear that he may come to rely too heavily on air power and technological superiority imagining that these capabilities alone will win the day. This might become a dangerous reflection of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "small force" theory that imagined that a smaller, lighter force would give the U.S. the edge because our technology was superior to the enemy's capabilities. Granted Rumsfeld was merely reflecting the recommendations of most of our Military brass at the time, but we soon found out in Iraq that this idea was disastrous for our success there. If Obama imagines that Predator drones can easily replace boots on the ground, he will be sorely mistaken.

Troops Strength

As to boots on the ground, it is also easy to say that his increase in men to be sent to the theater in Afghanistan is the answer to the fear I voice above. But this may also be misleading.

During the campaign for the White House, Obama criticized the overuse of National Guard troops in the war effort saying he'd stop the practice. On August 18, 2008, candidate Obama told Stars And Stripes that he wanted to get the National Guard out of the war effort. "I think it's also important that we return our National Guard and reserve to its traditional mission, which is primarily one of homeland security," he said. He also claimed at that time that the National Guard was not ready for a national disaster in our own country because all its equipment was "back in Iraq" and not here for use. This was simply not true, but in any case his point about what he perceived as a "misuse" of Guard forces was plain. At the time Obama was praised by Veterans for America for his stance on the misuse of the National Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, with this budget, Obama is increasing by $1.1 billion the personnel costs for Army Reserves and the Army National Guard forces. This does not speak to a ramping down of the "misuse" of Guard forces in our two wars but an increase. At the same time, Obama is reducing the personnel costs for the regular Army, falling by about $2 billion, forcing the war effort to continue to rely on Army National Guard forces for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Obama was well known to feel that President Bush's surge policy in Iraq was a failure even as it continued its success month after month. In light of that, it is wildly hypocritical of him to claim that the only way to win in Afghanistan is through a surge of his own. But that is a discussion for another time.

Operations and Maintenance

Along with his supposed ramping up of action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama has made no corresponding increase in the funds for operations and maintenance of our current forces. The new budget funds O&M at $91.6 billion a small reduction from the $93.5 billion from the 2008 budget.

In one area Obama is increasing the O&M budget. He is increasing by $2.5 billion the budget for Special Forces Operations Command (SOCOM) signaling that he intends to make greater use of Special Forces units. I find this troubling because it shows that Obama did not learn the "clear and hold" lesson of Iraq. If Obama imagines that roving bands of Special Forces can win the day, he is mistaken because that will leave the cleared areas free and open for enemy forces to simply come right back in after U.S. forces have gone. This, as we have learned in Iraq, leaves a populace unwilling to help us for fear that the returning enemy will punish them severely.

Unfortunately, he is cutting the funds for training and maintaining Iraq's fledgling security forces many of which are just starting to show promise. It is not a good idea to abandon these forces that are only just at the cusp of coming into their own. However, his increase in funds for the same purpose in Afghanistan is a welcome change.

Procurement

One thing worries me greatly with procurement budgeting. Obama is slashing the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP) program -- falling from the 2008 budgeted amount of $16.8 billion to a new level of $12.4 billion. There is no reason to expect that we will need fewer MRAPs as we ramp up our effort in Afghanistan adding that need to what we are already seeing in Iraq but Obama is cutting funds regardless. I find this a troubling move for sure.

Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be much difference in procurement since the previous budget had included a lot of new spending that is likely not used up at this time (these funds do not have to be spent up year-to-year and can sit unused for up to three years. This is unlike most federal budgeting processes).

The Key

The key to Afghanistan currently runs through Pakistan, though. Unfortunately, that troubled nation is in no way prepared to assist the U.S. in eliminating Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremist forces. For one thing she is wracked with internal divisions, some that support the Pakistani government and large numbers of powerful factions that support the terrorists. There simply is not enough political will in Pakistan to destroy these terror organizations. Thus far, Obama has not succeeded in convincing Pakistan to give us her support.

Obama's ramping up of the war effort in Afghanistan may die still born if he is unsuccessful in convincing Pakistan to truly join us in the fight against terror. in the meantime, his abandonment of fledgling success in Iraq may just yet allow extremists and unrest to return there to upset the delicate balance currently existing.

Obama may be setting up the worst of both worlds.

Sphere: Related Content

Over Last 100 Years, Multi-term GOP Presidents = Bank Crisis

OK, correlation does not equal causation; but this is modestly humorous.  Over the last century, any time you had a multi-term GOP president (in other words, long enough to do real damage) you had a pretty substantial collapse in the banking industry (i.e., near fundamental economic collapse).  For the statistics junkies the R does not equal 1...it assuredly can be described as R<>1 but R is notably greater than 1.  Just putting down a list of presidents over the last century and then mapping the major bank panics over the same time period reveals some interesting stuff.

The yellow highlighted line items represent multi-term GOP presidents with banking panics associated with them.  Those in blue/cyan represents multi-term GOP presidents where no such panic occurred.  Eisenhower and Nixon are the two non-panic GOP presidents.  A simple business cycle recession took place near the end of Eisenhower's presidency.  He's also the president to kick-off the largest public works program in world history with the Interstate highway system.  Richard Nixon, of course, was president during the stagflation years of the oil shocks though a lot of his economic woes likely came out of spending for Johnson's Great Society programs.  

The other presidents with panics associated with them are Theodore Roosevelt with the famous bank panic of 1907 where JP Morgan had to step in as the lender of last resort.  His notable power led to demands that a non-private lender of last resort be created.  This was the impetus to create the FED which was established in 1913.  Prior to the creation of the FED the last central bank in the US was abolished by Andrew Jackson in the early part of the 1800s which resulted in most of the 1800s being characterized by constant bank panics and runs.  We then have Coolidge and the Great Depression followed by Reagan and the Savings and Loan crisis.  Finally, we have George Bush and the most recent melt down.  

Again, it's an interesting view; but that's about it.  While the press puts up silly comparisons between Texas secession and 1861, we thought we'd put some silliness up of our own.  

Sphere: Related Content

"Right Wing Extremism" Outrage - Hardly Justified

We've talked a lot about how we're impressed with the clinical case of chronic amnesia the press suffers from.  The symptoms of this malady were on display again during the discussion of the Obama administration's Department of Homeland security report outlining threats from right-wing extremists.  The report pointed to a variety of factors including the economy, the first African-American president being elected, and many veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder having trouble re-integrating into society as potential catalysts for violent activity.  

Many were offended by the reference to veterans as being folks who could be turned to violence in the current political and economic environment.  Fair points of debate.  

However, many rejected the report completely as an example of the Obama administration trying to politicize the Department of Homeland security.  However, many of these critics seem to have forgotten that the Bush administration's Pentagon felt threatened by anti-war protesters earlier this decade.  Such anti-war sentiments were perceived to be destabilizing by the Bush administration.  But forgetting such points is forgivable since that would be reaching back a few years...though we still struggle to understand how people in the press who spend 8 plus hours a day looking at this stuff can't draw back on their own memories much less Google.

A few years ago is forgivable, but not being able to reach back a few days is definitely less so. On April 4th Richard Poplawski killed 3 police men in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (where candidate Obama famously said they cling to their guns and religion).  He was arrested soon after the shootings.  

Based on reviewing Poplawski's online activity, it's clear he had white supremest tendencies, feared the current administration, and was generally an avid consumer of right leaning information.  Despite Dennis Roddy's efforts in Slate to suggest Poplawski's interests were wider ranging than right-wing news, its hard to get away from the fact that his online search history revealed a disturbed individual who easily subscribed to the most extreme perspectives offered by the right (there are similar stories on the left, but for the moment we're speaking of the recently released Department of Homeland security report).   In addition, there was fear of being evicted from his residence.  This fact may line up with the economic pressures the report points to.  

It's not clear that Poplawski's interest in things right-wing led to his killing of 3 police officers.  However, he clearly was interested in stock piling weapons and food in anticipation of the end of society as we know it based on current policies per some of his online comments.  A correlation between his seeming online perspectives and real world actions will likely either be affirmed or rejected through his trial.  

But, when such vocal outrage is expressed at a report that was largely authored during the tenure of the Bush administration; the press should at least point to this juxtaposition of facts - a recent killing(s) seemingly motivated by extremist thought and flabbergasted outrage at a report that suggests such violence could occur.  It would seem that a simple copy/paste technology could have helped the media create that context for the news consuming public.  The ridiculous string of events begs for comments: A right wing extremist kills 3 police officers, a report suggesting such a thing could occur comes out, and outrage at the suggestion that this possibility which has already occurred could occur would seemingly be an obvious story.  The absurdity of the logic and chain of evens would demand some comment in the media. 

Sphere: Related Content

Does Texas Governor Rick Perry Hate America More Than Reverend Wright?

During the election there was a lot of concern over the patriotism of Obama associate Reverend Wright. His "infectious hate" for America delivered during his many sermons was considered unpatriotic, unAmerican, and unacceptable. Obama disavowed his relationship with Wright. 

Now, Rick Perry (governor of Texas) has threatened to destroy the union with threats of Texas secession. GOP association with secessionists is well established. Sarah Palin's husband Todd was a member of the Alaskan secession party. In the mid-1990s Texas secessionists holed themselves up and lives were lost.  Perry, facing a primary against K. Hutchinson leading up to the 2010 gubernatorial election, is pulling out all the stops to court the Texas far right. The "true Americans" seem quick to quit the union they profess to love so much. Both Wright and Perry served in the military. Wright seems more like Grant and Perry more like Lee these days...  The true Americans have a strange way of showing their love.  Too quick to quit.  Liberals accepted the rules of the game and decided to "flee to Canada" when things didn't go their way.  Conservatives want to take whole states with them. 

Of course all of this talk is foolish.  Rick Perry is a politician being a politician.  He's firming up his right flank ahead of some tough primaries.  Wright was reflecting the anger of his congregation regarding government policies they did not agree with (Iraq war, etc.).  Both sets of commentary were over the top.  However, Perry is an elected official of a notable state.  He should be more responsible with his words.  If he truly believes what he says, he's no better than Wright.  He's creating an us versus them framework between himself and the US just as Wright was.  There is equivalency that many may not recognize or be comfortable with.  Such absurdities should be pointed out by the press versus pandering to.  Perry's comments should be pointed out for their irresponsibility versus the titillation they provide.  

Sphere: Related Content

World's Largest Democracy Continues It's Experiment

There was a lot of talk about spreading democracy throughout the world for the better part of the last decade.  Efforts met with mixed success, but inspiration can be taken from India's "experiment" with democracy.  The results are in and after more than 50 years of smooth transitions of power, we can say the "experiment" has been largely a success.  India's massive democracy has matured with: 

1.  A significant reduction in political violence
2. The evolution of a vibrant multi-party system with competitive options at the local, state, and national levels
3. The integration of 1.2 billion people into a functioning political order
4. The assimilation of 8 major religions
5. The accomodation of 28 major languages and hundreds of dialects
6. The dampening of hundreds of sectarian divisions
7. The ability to overcome all of the above in the face of a transitioning population with barely 65% literacy rates moving away from subsistence farming scattered across over 1 million small villages 

Just the logistics of the elections are shocking and impressive:

1.  1.2 Billion people
2. 714 million eligible voters (more than twice the entire population of the US) 
3. Low literacy rates of 65% (many vote by selecting pictures)
4. Voting machines distributed to remote jungle locations on the backs of elephants
5. 1.3 million voting machines
6. Nearly 850,000 voting locations
7. Multiple phases to accomodate the massive logistics

Despite the seemingly overwhelming process and the many miles countless voters have to trek to polling stations, Indian's turn out in high rates for elections - nearly 60% versus roughly 50% for the US.  It's a truly inspiring process as one of the world's largest emerging economies goes through this ritual.  It likely deserves a bit more attention that it is getting given the triumph of democracy in the face of so many obstacles.

Sphere: Related Content

Biggest Teabaggers in Socialist "Red" States - Like South Carolina

Some of the biggest teabagger protests took place in socialist red states. Impressive rallies occurred in on-the-dole states like South Carolina. In addition, bailout babies in Texas threatened to secede. It's ironic that Texas bailout babies became so vocal as Texas was the biggest recipient of bailout funds as part of the Resolution Trust Corporation efforts in the late 1980s. For those that need a refresher course, the Savings and Loan crisis that took place after years of deregulation and poor lending (sound familiar) during the 1980s. The government put together a bailout for the Savings and Loan industry to address the biggest bank failures since the Great Depression (sound familiar). Fully 50% of these institutions were in the bailout baby state of Texas. Folks in Texas probably have forgotten about recent requests for federal money to help with wild fires and hurricane clean up.

Interestingly, most of the states where teabagging was the most popular past time are also the states that contribute the least and receive the most in terms of federal support. These on-the-dole socialist welfare states should start by rejecting the handouts that they receive.

Sphere: Related Content

Texas Forgets Its Big Bad Bailout Legacy

This was the banner on the page of the Huffington Post just moments ago.  Texas' governor Rick Perry just did something that radical Reverend Wright may never have thought about...destroy the union.  Yes, he's threatened to secede.

But with all the anger towards bailouts, Texas should just send a thank you note before they head out of the union (let's not get started on the oil depreciation tax credit that allowed Texas to pay less in taxes than almost any other state...sorry California).  In 1989 when the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was set up to deal with the Savings and Loan crisis that culminated after a period in the 1980s (read Reagan years) when deregulation, bad lending, and lax supervision led to a collapse in these banking institutions (sound familiar).  At the time, the government enacted a public-private bailout mechanism to resolve the situation (sound familiar again).  

Fully half of those institutions were in the "great" state of Texas.  You're welcome Texas.  You have a strange way of showing it.  This is a bit of context the press probably should provide.

Sphere: Related Content