Perspectives

America, When Will You Stand Up for Veterans?

Military Retirees, under 65, probably have another job that can pay their Health Insurance Costs.  We need to convince them to use that Insurance plan instead of the one they earned by 20+ years in the Military.  Obama Administration. (paraphrased, they would never say it that clearly.)

This is what the Administration calls "not breaking faith" with Our Troops and Veterans.  I had a rather heated discussion about this with a civilian friend, who happens to support Obama.  She felt that the disgust I voiced with the Administration, and with those that continue to justify his slashes makes Veterans and Troops appear to be just a whiny special interest group.  She didn't understand how I could confuse her Support of the Troops, with annoyance that she attempted to justify the Administration's calls for culling the force.  And she typed the same lines the Obama Campaign has used to justify the cuts.  The Proposals include:

Increasing and adding new enrollment fees for retirees (for Tricare)
Establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE-­‐for-­‐Life program
Implementing additional increases in pharmacy co-­‐pays
Obama proposals in January 2012, in the DoD "Defense Budget Priorities" previously proposed in the Obama Budget Proposal in September 2011 which was marketed as raising taxes on "the rich" while "raising revenue" to a greater extent from Military Retirees & Veterans.

So, how do I express myself better?  How do I better explain why it is wrong for the American Government to break its contract with the Veterans that have protected this Nation?  Why is it morally and legally wrong to charge Military Retirees for Health Care?  Why is it the responsibility of the American People to stop this?  Who can do that and How?

Strategic American Wargaming

I just came across this strategic, long-term, war game, designed for the future Generals to test their skills at prioritizing Defense spending, Future Force.  You can buy and play the war game for yourself, as can our strategic enemies.  I would expect they already have.  I have not, so I have to rely on the words of the left aligned "Foreign Policy" organization for what Michael Peck found out about the game.  In turn, he relies on the left aligned CNAS, for his "strategy" in the game.

From what I gather, there are only a few things that the game player can influence in the war game.  It appears that one cannot choose their enemies, or alter the budget allocated to fight those enemies.  As such, it has value to the intended users of the game, i.e. Generals who must work with the resources politicians allot them to fight the enemies they've foreseen.  We don't choose who will attack us, but there would be value in allowing strategic planners to test their skills against different sets of enemies.

The game was designed prior to the announcement by the Obama Administration that it wants to cut another Half-Trillion from the Department of Defence, but implements the calls by the left to abandon the ability to fight against Standing Armies, as we did in 2003.  Michael Peck, of Foreign Policy, played by the left-leaning playbook, with the forces that will be available after the currently approved Troop cuts. 

Beginning the game with two conflicts: a major groundwar, and a counter-insurgency, along with 3 peacekeeping deployments, this is very similar to the situation of 2007.  So too, are the locations: Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and two he doesn't name.  Using the doctrines of the left-leaning CNAS, he discovers he must cede one of the 5 to the enemy.  He discovers that based on the current policies, he can't maintain the peace in 3 locations, AND win the two conflicts.

Media Matters: Front Page News

On the front pages of the international msm this past week:

Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, Md.
Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, Mich.
Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, Pa
Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Ind.
Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind.
Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill.
Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind.
Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, Ky
Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va
Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, Wash

You might be excused if you missed the msm headlines on these Fallen American Heroes this past week.

Maybe you saw these stories on the front pages of the international msm:

TF Spartan Paratroopers Rescue Afghan Child
UK and Afghan Troops help open critical new school

I'm sure you saw these on the front pages:

Ghazni District Transfers Security
Afghan boy with severe cleft palate has reason to smile - courtesy of Coalition Forces

How about combat news from our Troops?

ANA, Marines clear out last insurgency from southern Helmand
New ANA elite snipers graduate course
Operation Tageer Shamal: Afghans, Marines take control west of Helmand River


Did you miss this story of our British Troops 'just doing their job,' making a difference for the people of Afghanistan?

YORKS soldiers on patrol in Helmand

I am *sure* you all saw this video as the top story of the broadcast media last week. It is an interview with a Security Chief in Marjah, on how things have changed since the Taleban has been thrown out - defeated.

Video: Marjah after the Taleban - Security Chief Tells of Progress


No, you saw none of these on the international front pages, BUT I found them and posted these (and others) on War On Terror News.

What we all saw on the msm front page news, and as top story on the broadcast media, was a story about four Marines who filmed themselves doing something very stupid. Whether or not you agree with the act they did is not at issue for me, but the fact they recorded it? Yes, THAT was stupid, and I have to wonder how they ever thought such a film would not become 'news,' given the 24/7 insatiable appetite of our msm, who seem to salivate at every opportunity to show OUR Military in a bad light.

Military Cuts are 'strategic guidance'???

The BHO administration is at it again: renaming their actions, and world events, to further their own political agenda. Their latest efforts to deflect and defuse miltary analysts and commenters/critics' responses to their latest round of slashing of the US Military budgets - while their Troops are at war, and while their Veterans are returning from those wars - is to call their knife wielding abomination "strategic guidance."

Strategic guidance???? This fits the BHO MO perfectly, and is line with such things as his renaming the Global War on Terror some benign mumbo jumbo, which nobody I know bought into.

Since BHO went before the cameras for a press conference the other day at the Pentagon - something no other president in US history has done - flanked by 'supporting' Military personnel, I have watched as the media has dutifully repeated his words, and joined the chorus of calling these dangerous cuts something they are not! The DoD is working overtime to convince the public that there is "nothing to see (or worry about) here. Move along now!" but make no mistake. What BHO is set to have our Defense Dept do, has nothing to do with US National Defense needs, and is partisan, all politics, all the time. If that were not the case, why does he so often preface his announcements of Military issues with "I kept my promise'? Don't believe me? Do your own research. It wouldn't take you long to prove my point. Courtesy of the internet, there are lots of videos of his "I kept my promise.'...

Today from the DoD, as article as another Military leader is interviewed about the US 'strategic guidance':

Official: Strategic Guidance Recognizes U.S. NATO Commitments

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 2012 – As the United States implements new strategic guidance that increases its focus on Asia and the Pacific, it also needs to pursue “smart defense initiatives” as it continues to honor its NATO commitments, a senior defense official said today.

Budget constraints will demand new efficiencies and new approaches to collective defense, Julianne Smith, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO policy, told reporters at the Foreign Press Center here.

Smith joined Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Phillip Gordon in explaining how the new strategic guidance will impact defense in the European theater.

“The trans-Atlantic relationship remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world,” Gordon said, with Europe remaining the United States’ principal partner in promoting global and economic security.

“And so the strategy outlined last week reaffirms our commitment to European security,” he said, and continued commitment to the so-called Article 5 responsibility to aid any NATO ally in the event of an attack....

More here, if you must. "...reaffirms our commitment to [... ]security...' Really? As I said to a Veteran the other day, 'can these politicans be serious'? Same for some of the Military bigwigs I have seen and heard, as the Mouth In Chief shares oh so sincerely with the msm his vision of America's future. I understand very well that our Military leaders have to be seen to being in step with the MIC if they want to keep their jobs, but the politicians? Even those of us non-Military types, and with even one brain cell with which to read, know that now is not the time to be slashing Military or Defense budgets to the extent that BHO is planning. No.

War On Terror News can always be relied on to give the straight goods:

01/07/2012

The Latest Obama Purges of the Military

 

I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube. What does this statement mean?

"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.

I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced. This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration. So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.

The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion. Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned. DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused. ...

[...]

The Obama Administration tells us that he plans to increase commitments in the Pacific, while at the same time cutting the number of Troops & Equipment available for these new commitments. It says we're going to rely on alliances for our security, and specifically mentions NATO, which has also cut its defenses significantly in the last decades, to the point that during the Libyan War, the US had to give them munitions to fight the "non-war" that Obama never consulted Congress for, though it was our munitions being launched from our ships and airplanes destroying Libyan buildings and TV stations, because they were "supporting the regime" in a dangerous manner...

 

GO read the rest of this here.

Just in case that wasn't clear enough for anyone, WOTN revisits the issue of slashing Defense budgets - oooops, I mean 'strategic guidance' of course! - in this:

01/07/2012

As Politicians Abandon Our Troops & National Security

In 2008, candidate Obama told us he would make Afghanistan his top priority. In 2009, he told us he would listen to the Generals, that he would "fully support our Troops." In 2010, he told us the situation on the ground would shape his decisions on how many Troops to authorize the Generals to have to fight the enemy. In 2011, he told us he would "keep faith" with the Troops who have fought our Wars.

"We will back you up to the hilt, because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done." President Obama 10/26/2009, Florida

The situation in Afghanistan did NOT dictate the reduction of forces there. Not only did he not send the Troops General McChrystal, and General McKiernan before him, requested, but he announced the "drawdown" when he announced the half-stepping measures. As a result, General McChrystal & General Petraeus had only enough Troops to surge into Helmand and Kandahar, keeping only enough Troops in Paktika, Paktia, Jalalabad, and Khowst, to hope it wouldn't get worse.

General Allen has promised to use whatever resources the politicians allow him to fight for Victory. That means he is now pushing into the Eastern Provinces, while attempting to hold on to the Victories in the South. The War in Afghanistan has become its own version of the 1+1 policy of the Clinton Administration. That policy decision was also budget driven to decrease the size of the military to a point that the Nation would "be able to win one war, while holding another to a stalemate," until forces were available from the first war. General McChrystal, General Petraeus, & General Allen have been forced by politicians to fight the War in Afghanistan the same way, trying to win in one region of the country, while holding others to a stalemate.

And if this Nation, combined with our NATO allies, cannot win the War in Afghanistan alone, then we must abandon the myth that we could hold a second war to a stalemate long enough to win the first War in Afghanistan. And that is occuring before his cuts. The new policy can't be considered a 1+1 policy, but a +1 Defense posture. The Administration hopes that the military can fight to a stalemate long enough for someone to "end the war."...

 

GO read it here

WOTN also has video proof of BHO the candidate, who was singing a very different tune then as he aspired to the highest office in the land. Go! To some of us, it doesn't matter what words BHO or his minions spout. We know it is all about politics, and money. We know that slashing things like Military budgets speaks to those supporters to whom candidate Obama promised 'hope and change.'...We also know - because we pay attention - that yes, all budgets need to be cut in these austere times, as deficits and debtloads rise globally, a trillion here, another trillion there. We get that, but cutting Defence budgets to the point of insanity in such dangerous times, even if the 'Taleban is not our enemy'? There is NO 'splaining that away as a smart move.

In case you think that only Americans are being subjected to this insanity of ensuring National INsecurity, you should know that Canada has also been going full steam ahead with slashing critical budgets. Since Prime Minister Harper finally got his long-sought majority government this last election, the knives have been out as all federal departments were told to cut their budgets by 5% over a 3 year period..This week comes word that some of those departments have now been told to cut their budgets by 10% over a one year timeframe. Care to hazard a guess as to which departments have been given these 10% goals? I'll tell you: Defence, CSIS - the department whose mandate is supposedly Canada's Security - AND Foreign Affairs. Read more on this over at the CBC, where these details could be lost in a story whose main focus is the unions bellyaching about job loss. These cuts all the while the government is going to give a $5million private contract for an assessment of global threats! Hello? And yes, while Canadian Veterans are having to fight their government when they return from the sandbox, for benefits that they have earned in service to their country. THAT story another day. Again, though, politicians both side of the border (and in Britain, I might add) slashing Military and Defence budgets with apparently very little regard for a) their side of the contracts they made with our Troops and Veterans, not to mention our allies, and b) at a time when the threats are gaining momentum worldwide, slashing the very people trained to counteract such threats.

So if we believe that it is ALL about the money, and I do, (and BHO's constant election campaign promises, of course) it seems to me that there are many other places that budgets in America could be slashed, without jeopardising the US national security. Wouldn't you know it, that with very little internet searching (and a little help from my friends....) I found some funding projects, that should be cut to save the sadsack US economy that would have zero effect on national security.

Daily Caller has this list of what they call (and I have to agree) Top Ten Stupidest Government Spending items:

By Taylor Bigler - The Daily Caller 12/20/2011

As the fight over how to fix America’s overspending habit ended in a stalemate this year, the federal government spent billions of dollars in 2011 on some unusual projects. And according to a new report from Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, $6.5 billion of it was wasted.

The list includes more than $100,000 on a video game “preservation” center, $120 million in salaries to dead employees and $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere — all in a year when the federal deficit rose by nearly $2 trillion.

Coburn’s “Wastebook 2011″ report lists 100 of the most egregious spending boondoggles.

Here are the top 10 most ridiculous things the federal government paid for this year:

10. $764,825 for a study on how college students use cell phones and social media

The National Science Foundation awarded the University of Notre Dame this grant to study the mobile and social media habits of college freshmen. We can tell you exactly how college freshmen use mobile phones and social media: for 3 a.m. texts and phone calls to that girl in American History. We could have saved the government a lot of money. Just ask us.

9. $136,555 for teachers to retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England

This grant, awarded to teachers from Kent State and Eastern Illinois Universities, allowed Middle English lit fanatics to take the trip outlined in Canterbury Tales. We’re betting £10 that the tour guides just make up half of the landmarks.

8. $55,660 on butter packaging

Kriemhild Dairy Farms received this chunk of change to package their grass-fed cow butter. The funding isn’t the only thing that’s too big: The butter itself is 85 percent fat.

7. $606,000 for a study about online dating

Columbia University researchers received over a half-million dollars to study online dating. Maybe the Ivy League nerds who conducted this study should put down the lab coats and go to a bar — or at least the library....

 

Yes, there is more here. Really? Yes, really. Almost defies belief, doesn't it? Just those items taken off the gravy train would save a bundle, and their demise would leave more dollars free for the National Defense budget. One of my favourites from that list? $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail...No, you can't make this stuff up!

These may be a Top Ten, but there is no shortage of 'special' projects that Americans' tax dollars pay for, that apparently the feds deem so important that they would rather cut Military and Defense budgets than do away with such things as the mating habits for quails.

While reading for this column, I learned that earmarking as we know it, in its present form, was not always a seemingly obligatory sneaky way to add ridiculous pet projects onto important bills, and hope that nobody notices. Over at SwineList in a column called: Time to End Earmarks Once and For all, I found this bit of history:

[...] Even as federal power vastly expanded during the twentieth century, Congress did not earmark extensively until the 1980s. Instead, Congress would fund general grant programs and let federal and state agencies select individual recipients through a competitive process or formula. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees named specific projects only when they had been vetted and approved by authorizing committees. Members of Congress with local concerns would lobby the president and federal agencies for consideration. The process was aimed at preventing abuse and allocating resources on the basis of merit and need.

From 1991 until the enactment of the moratorium for the 112th Congress, earmarks steadily increased in frequency and size. A 2007 report from the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Inspector General found that between 1996 and 2005, DOT earmarks increased in number by 1,150 percent and in value by 314 percent. As vocal critics such as Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) have noted, earmarks have greased the skids for runaway spending and bad policy for decades. Politically powerful politicians in Washington began using earmarks as a currency to buy votes on bills that members would not otherwise vote for. The secrecy involved in this process invited the use of earmarks to fund wasteful projects, such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” that was included in the 2005 transportation bill.

Taxpayers were hopeful that this practice would come to an end with the passage of the earmark moratorium for the 112th Congress. Unfortunately, that hope was misplaced. Analysis of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Citizens Against Government Waste identified 111 earmarks – 59 of which matched exact language from previous earmarks. A December 12, 2011 report produced by Sen. McCaskill’s office identified 115 earmarks worth $834 million in the NDAA. Twenty Republican freshmen who campaigned against earmarks were among the requesters....

Imagine that! This is a must read here for very enlightening facts on the practice of earmarking. The final paragraph on it says what needs to be done, but remains pessimistic that there is any political will to actually do something about the absurd projects being funded while serious matters - oh, like National Defense and the health of our Veterans - go on the Obama chopping block.


As referenced above, Senator Tom Coburn keeps track of these things. In his December 2010 edition of WasteBook: A Guide to Some of the Most Wasteful and Low Priority Govenment Spending of 2011, he has this:

Dear Taxpayer,

Robot dragons, video games, Christmas trees, snow cone machines, and chocolate.

This is not a Christmas wish list.

These are just some of the ways the federal government spent your tax dollars this year.

Over the past 12 months, Washington politicians
argued, debated and lamented about how to reign
in the federal government‘s out of control spending.
All the while, Washington was on a shopping
binge, spending money we do not have on things
we do not need, like the $6.9 billion worth of
examples provided in this report. The result:
Instead of cutting wasteful spending, nearly $2.5
billion was added each day in 2011 to our national
debt, which now exceeds $15 trillion....

You may well ask - or at least you should be asking - what sort of projects does your government see fit to fund, all the while making sure that the Military has to argue for every dime they get? Take a look:

1) Politicians Partying on the Taxpayer Dime – (Presidential Election
Campaign Fund) $35.38 Million

2) Mangled Mango Effort Could Hurt Farmers It Meant to Help –
(Pakistan) $30 Million

In 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) undertook a four-year, $90 million effort to spur hiring and sales among Pakistani businesses. Two years later, the USAID Inspector General (USAID OIG) found ―no measurable increases in sales and employment....

 

You think I'm kidding? There is more:

 

5) Paying for Pancakes – (D.C) $765,828
Almost $800,000 of federal taxpayer funds went to subsidize ―pancakes for yuppies in the nation‘s capital. [That was paid to IHOP, and you really have to go read to find out why.

One of my personal favourites (but no surprise to me) is this one:

7) Dead Federal Employees Continue to Get Benefits Checks – (U.S. Office of Personnel Management) $120 Million

The federal government sent an average of $120 million in retirement and disability payments to deceased former federal employees every year for at least the past five years.

In a September 2011 report, the Inspector General (IG) for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management found that ―the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually, totaling over $601 million in the last five years.

In one example the IG found, an annuitant‘s son cashed his dead father‘s checks for 37 years. The son‘s scheme, which cost taxpayers more than $500,000, was discovered in 2008, when he himself died. ―The improper payment was not recovered, the IG reported...

I am sure that most of my readers already know that the US pays millions in aid to China, and that is included in this list. To read the details is almost jawdropping. Really.


How about almost half a million dollars to this project?:

11) Drug-Themed “Mellow Mushroom” Pizza Restaurant – (TX) $484,000

Our nation currently faces many challenges; a shortage of beer and pizza, however, is rarely cited as one of them. Still, a private developer received nearly half a million dollars in federal funds to build Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers, a nationwide pizza chain, in Arlington, Texas.

Okay, I have to ask, WTH are the feds smoking to think that this kind of funding is acceptable? Hello?

Another gem:

19) Children, Prisoners, and Others Who Don’t Own Homes Awarded
Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credits (Internal Revenue
Service) – $1 Billion

As much as $1 billion or more in tax credits for energy efficient residential improvements109 are being claimed by individuals with no record of owning a home, including prisoners and underage children.

 

How about funding for a Magic Museum, or over $500,000 to make a documentary about, and I quote, How Rock and Roll Contributed to the Collapse of the Soviet Union. That's number 16 on the list. Oh the name of this movie? Rockin' the Kremlin. These projects are included in a 98 page pdf document, and the other examples are equally outrageous, unless of course you think that Rockin' the Kremlin, or TVs for rural Vietnamese villagers are more important than, let's say, funding the Troops, or ensuring the VA is adequately funded so it can function at optimal levels for our returning Wounded Warriors, for just one example.

These items listed here are just the tip of a very big iceberg, and I haven't even gone into to all the assinine 'green' projects that have been funded to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars, before they go on to fail miserably. Every American should be screaming from the rooftops, and demanding accountability from every politician who snuffles up to what they see as a bottomless public trough. For the complete document, go here.


If that list is not enough, try here for another list of even more areas that could be cut to help the US money problems. That is Citizens Against Government Waste. Read these sites, bookmark them, start getting really angry, America.

Nobody denies that in these times that belt tightening is a must, on all levels of government. However, it seems to me that if BHO can stand at the Pentagon and say the Military and Defense budgets must be so drastically cut, he should first take a look at what America should be cutting, and yes, Americans should be demanding such a process be implemented before one more Military-designated dime, one more Troop, is chopped from the budget.

It is more than time for every American to start demanding their politicians get serious about solving the budgetary issues, and cut the budget to the bone, on items that do not directly impact the safety and security of ALL Americans - even those who don't eat pancakes. As this very short glimpse here shows, to continue funding absurd projects is NOT the way to address the bottom line.

Wake UP, America.

As Politicians Abandon Our Troops & National Security

In 2008, candidate Obama told us he would make Afghanistan his top priority.  In 2009, he told us he would listen to the Generals, that he would "fully support our Troops."  In 2010, he told us the situation on the ground would shape his decisions on how many Troops to authorize the Generals to have to fight the enemy.  In 2011, he told us he would "keep faith" with the Troops who have fought our Wars.

"We will back you up to the hilt, because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done." President Obama 10/26/2009, Florida

The situation in Afghanistan did NOT dictate the reduction of forces there.  Not only did he not send the Troops General McChrystal, and General McKiernan before him, requested, but he announced the "drawdown" when he announced the half-stepping measures.  As a result, General McChrystal & General Petraeus had only enough Troops to surge into Helmand and Kandahar, keeping only enough Troops in Paktika, Paktia, Jalalabad, and Khowst, to hope it wouldn't get worse.

General Allen has promised to use whatever resources the politicians allow him to fight for Victory.  That means he is now pushing into the Eastern Provinces, while attempting to hold on to the Victories in the South.  The War in Afghanistan has become its own version of the 1+1 policy of the Clinton Administration.  That policy decision was also budget driven to decrease the size of the military to a point that the Nation would "be able to win one war, while holding another to a stalemate," until forces were available from the first war.  General McChrystal, General Petraeus, & General Allen have been forced by politicians to fight the War in Afghanistan the same way, trying to win in one region of the country, while holding others to a stalemate.

And if this Nation, combined with our NATO allies, cannot win the War in Afghanistan alone, then we must abandon the myth that we could hold a second war to a stalemate long enough to win the first War in Afghanistan.  And that is occuring before his cuts.  The new policy can't be considered a 1+1 policy, but a +1 Defense posture.  The Administration hopes that the military can fight to a stalemate long enough for someone to "end the war."

"The 2nd goal of my new plan will be taking the fight to enemy in Afghanistan & Pakistan."  "The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan."  "I will make the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be."  "This is a war we have to win." "Lasting peace will come only if we heed General Marshall's words and grow the Afghan economy from the bottom."  "We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary." "While ensuring the military aid (to Pakistan) is used to take the fight to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."  Senator Obama, 15 July 2008

Fatalities in Afghanistan were three times higher in 2011 than they were in 2008.  The War is not "over."  Our Troops have performed well, but partisan political decisions in Washington, continue to dictate that the war will "be ended" instead of won.  The Administration announced on Thursday that the strategies and tactics (COIN/Counter-Insurgency) that stabilized Helmand, and defeated the enemy there, would be abandoned, in favor of the policies (Counter-Terrorism) used in Pakistan to alienate the population and politicians there.

And just as General Allen attempts to apply pressure to the enemy in the Eastern Provinces, politicians are cutting his resources.  The decision was made in 2009, by President Obama, as he promised it would be made based on the situation on the ground.  Not only did he decide to give General McChrystal fewer resources than he needed in 2009, but to remove those resources (Troops) before they could finish the job, meaning that as General Allen needs those Troops now, in Eastern Afghanistan, they're being pulled out by Obama's dictates, for political reasons, despite the "consultations with Commanders."  Not only are Troops being pulled out of Afghanistan, but being cut from the Army; 22,000 this year and another 27,000 in the next few years.  And on the 6th of January, Obama announced even more would be cut; thrown into the unemployment lines.

The Administration tells us the budget cuts are the result of the strategy changes, but the opposite is true.  The "new strategy" or rather political policies were shaped by his decision to cut the Defense budget.  His budget policies have prevented the military from winning one war while fighting a second to a stalemate and forced the Generals in charge of wars to instead to win one region of one war, while holding another to a stalemate.  The President won't even use the word Victory in relation to Afghanistan, because even he knows his policies undermine the Generals' ability to achieve it.

If Afghanistan were his first priority as he promised in 2008, if he had listened to the Generals as he promised he would in 2009, if the situation on the ground were the basis of those decisions, if National Security were the reason for his DoD budget requests, if he were bearing "true faith" with Our Troops, he would be sending more Warriors to Afghanistan to Win across that Nation, not cutting Troops from the Military, and pulling Troops out of Afghanistan.

Instead, he is cutting benefits to the Troops, charging them for Health Care, reducing Retirement benefits, and reducing the number available to replace them on the battlefield.  Instead he had to be shamed into even sending half of the Troops General McChrystal requested and is pulling them out before General Allen can finish the job.  Instead of supporting the winning strategy and tactics of COIN, he is replacing it with the Biden policy of Counter Terrorism which alienated Pakistan.  While his "diplomatic" demands of former allies have given rise to Islamism in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya, he has ignored the slaughter of protestors for democracy in Syria and Iran.

While we face a Middle East now at risk of being unified by Islamist tyrants that hope to ban Women's education, increase the legalized "right" of husbands to beat their wives, Obama is pressuring Afghanistan to open talks with Taliban leaders that presided over the Afghan Government's oppression of Women.  Those terrorists were captured in Afghanistan under the prior Administration, and are to be given offices in Qatar to negotiate their return to power, under this one.  These are the same terrorists that invited Al-Qaeda to train for the 9/11 attacks in the Islamist dictatorship of Afghanistan.  Why is he pressuring the democratically elected leader of an ally to negotiate with terrorists that hate America?  Because Obama wants to "end the War," not to win it.

While this President has demonstrated that he is not afraid to cut the Military or undermine Generals even as they fight Wars against our enemies, there would be less resistance to those cuts if we weren't "at war."  That's why he decided to change the label of war to "overseas contingency operation" in 2009.  But don't think this is an endorsement of the opposing party in Congress.  They've put up little resistance to the cuts this Administration has requested.  It is not just the fault of the Harry Reid Senate and the Pelosi House that Congress has allowed the Military to be slashed.  It is also the responsibility of the Boehner House to say "No More Cuts."

Here, Senator Joe Biden predicts failure in Iraq, complains that too much is being asked of Our Troops, and says General Petraeus is the only one who believes it can be won.  Here he says Iraq can never be a peaceful democracy:

The Latest Obama Purges of the Military

I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube.  What does this statement mean?

"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.

I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service.  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced.  This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration.  So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.

The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion.  Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned.  DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused.