Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

The pullout raises some questions. If the original purpose of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM was to hunt down Osam bin Laden, then the mission was completed once he was killed. Why continue the military presence? Unlike Iraq which had its government destroyed by the US invasion, Afghanistan has a government in place. Continuing our military presence in Afghanistan invites escalation as Taliban forces or Al Qaeda plot revenge. Pakistan is an unpredictable environment and raises additional potential of escalation.

The other question is, are these troops needed elsewhere? The obvious is Libya but with Syria and Turkey having skirmishes, could the Obama administration be concerned about hostilities in the Middle East? Iran remains committed to their pursuit of nuclear weapons, however with now Germany, France, China and Russia all condemning the initiative the United States may feel it can deal with Iran on a more unilateral basis. Therefore, the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan becomes even more crucial.

The bump in poll numbers President Obama received as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden seems to have faded. The elections are still a long way off and pulling troops out of Afghanistan, regardless of their eventual use, could be a way for the President to still make good on one of his campaign promises.

The Guardian

Exactly what are our goals?

Coalition forces (read NATO) have established a no-fly zone to protect the rebels. However, simply keeping Gaddafi's aircraft grounded has produced the necessary results so no AC-130 gunships and A-10s are being introduced to the campaign. These aircraft give more flexibility in engaging ground forces (and subsequently the opportunity to strike the very civilians Odyssey Dawn seeks to protect). Airpower, as I wrote about previously, cannot occupy territory. At some point, ground troops are going to be deployed if nothing more than as "advisors" to the rebels. President Obama's message on Odyssey Dawn doesn't seem to be convincing anyone and has left his military leaders pondering the disconnects:

Adm. James Stavridis, head of US European Command, said Tuesday the coalition's military goals in Libya are clear, but he acknowledged that they aren't necessarily configured to bring about the stated political goal of the Obama Administration and many world leaders in seeing Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi step down from power. "I don't think the two are directly linked, but they may connect over time," Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee. The coalition's military operations are concentrated on protecting Libyan civilians from violent attack by Qaddafi forces. Even with the present disconnect, Stavridis said the military activities may indeed end up laying the groundwork for Qaddafi's ouster. "[B]y our participation in protecting the people of Libya, we create a safe and secure environment in which the people of Libya can make a determination, and . . . have the ability to undertake the kind of effort that would, in effect, create regime change, as we've seen in other nations in the Middle East." That is particularly the case if the coalition applies additional elements of statecraft such as a "financial squeeze" and travel restrictions, he said. Source: AFA Daily Digest

In Vietnam, the goal in Washington was to stop the spread of Communism. The goal of senior military leaders was victory through attrition. The goal of the troops on the ground was to survive their tour and go home. Libya is beginning to look like President Obama's version of the Vietnam War.

Obama to use teleprompter for Hindi speech - Hindustan Times

The great Greek orators used the techniques detail in "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci" to to memorize huge amounts of information and recall it effortlessly. Lincoln, Churchill, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King were all great orators who were able to deliver moving speeches without the aid of technology. Now we have a President who is so inept at speaking that he takes pathetic shortcuts such as a Telepromper. The President is the greatest symbol of the United States and as such needs to convey a greatness about this country that reading from a prepared scripts does not convey. It is hard enough to convince our students of the need to memorize information when they can always Google it or look it up on Wikipedia. The ability to compare and contrast information is rapidly become a lost art. The human mind is still superior to any computer at comprehending information an creating something that hasn't existed before. Watching an American President resort to such a blatantly lazy approach to projecting his thoughts and ideals is disheartening. It further magnifies the ridiculous excesses of his trip to India.

Link

EPA policy chief steps down - Robin Bravender

The midterm exodus continues unabated. You can spin this however you like but the bottom line is President Obama is going into the second half of his term with a new team. He will take this untried team into a battled with a Republican controlled House weakened Senate. The possibility of a second term is still a possibility for the President, especially since the Republicans have yet to determine their 2012 candidate. But the ability for the Presdinet to accomplish anything meaningful in his second half has just become that much harder.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the results of the midterm election make President Obama appear weak and the 34 warships in the Indian Ocean for his visit does nothing to dissuade the notion. Iran and Russia will probably become more aggressive in their rhetoric. Venzuela and North Korea will play Greek chorus to the former. Australia and the United Kingdom, two of the strongest US allies in combating terrorism, will continue to do backstrokes away from a weakened US president. May we live in interesting times....

Link

The American Czar

Why do US presidents try to be Russian monarchs? Every president since George H. Bush has appointed “czars” to overcome bureaucratic delays and streamline their agenda. The term started when the first President Bush appointed Bill Bennett as the first “drug czar”. The term czar originally meant a supreme monarch who had the approval of another monarch or church leader such as the Pope. In keeping with this sense of divine supremacy, Bennett quickly coined the term “war on drugs” to show the US meant business regarding the illegal use and sale of drugs. The war on drugs introduced mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug crimes that in turn flooded our prisons beyond their capacity. Conversely, drugs use remained constant (switching between drugs of choice causes fluctuations statistics) and illegal drugs continue to be smuggled into this country. The power of the “czar” in the United States then becomes questionable. Why continue having these special advisors that can’t implement their bosses political agenda?

President Obama has a record number of “czars” in his administration. In addition to the ubiquitous “drug czar”, he has 31 czars. The following is a list from Politico.com;

1) Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke
2) AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley
3) Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
4) Border Czar: Alan Bersin
5) California Water Czar: David J. Hayes
6) Car Czar: Ron Bloom
7) Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross
8) Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
9) Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
10) Economic Czar: Paul Volcker
11) Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner
12) Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois
13) Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
14) Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones
15) Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
16) Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
17) Information Czar: Vivek Kundra
18) International Climate Czar: Todd Stern
19) Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair
20) Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell
21) Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
22) Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein
23) Science Czar: John Holdren
24) Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney
25) Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration
26) TARP Czar: Herb Allison
27) Terrorism Czar: John Brennan
28) Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra
29) Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
30) Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter
31) WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore

The White House calls these “czars” special advisors to the President. The need for czars seems rather unnecessary as President name their appointees as Secretaries for the various federal agencies. In addition, the President has his Chief of Staff , National Security Advisor, National Security Council and various other executive staffers to help him formulate policy. The other problem is unlike their namesake; the American czars have no real power. They can conduct meetings, symposiums and press conferences but in the end are unable to change the very bureaucracies they are trying to circumvent.

The czars are also over-politicized; the Green Jobs czar Van Jones is getting bogged down by his past more so than by any policies regarding his current position. His comments about white kids and Columbine has polarized the Internet. I’ve listened to his comments and he does make some intriguing observations (why are majority of school shootings conducted primarily by whites?). However, he at the same time skips over the predominance of violent crimes committed by blacks (especially black on black crime). Depending on which side of his argument you find yourself, you either dismiss him for his omission or your praise him for his acumen.

Intellectual discourse is dead and only partisan rhetoric shouted at decibels approaching a jet fighter launching off an aircraft carrier can be heard. Perhaps in the middle of all of this noise, Presidents will learn to be less reliant on czars…and I may win the lottery.

42,500 Security Personnel

Are working to protect the President -elect before, during and after his inaugural speech.  I can't imagine the amount of manpower required for this event.  Uniformed police officers will provide everything from traffic control to counter-sniper surveillance.  Undercover officers will be in the crowds trying to spot and prevent trouble-makers from getting out of hand.  Hundreds of officers will be manning surveillance cameras looking for threats.  Others will have the less glamorous assignment of manning the temporary jails that will house those who try to disrupt the proceedings.  Intelligence analysts from federal law enforcement agencies across the country will be monitoring networks and communications from fusions centers looking for telltale signs of trouble.  

The number above doesn't include the various Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard units performing perimeter defense and surveillance missions.  On Jan 20th, Washington DC will become the most heavenly defended no-fly zone in the world.  USAF and Air National Guard fighters will be conducting combat air patrols directed by AWACS and other radar sensors.  As Army air defenders are given to say, "If it flies, it dies".  Navy and Coast Guard ships will be patrolling all of the waterways.  Marines and Army personnel will be both visible (show of force) as well as invisible.

Reports estimate the cost for all of this protection at $150 million (which may be a conservative figure).  The cost of the inauguration has turned into a political football between the Republicans and Democrats.  What both sides are unwilling to admit is this; as the first African American to become President of the United States nothing can be take for granted.  None of the hundreds of agencies involved in protecting the President wants to be the one that let President-elect Obama to be hurt or killed.  The inauguration may be the first event of his administration but the watch will continue for the next four or eight years.  A successful attack against a President hasn't happened since President Reagan was shot.  Such a record is a testament to the hard work being performed every day by the men and women assigned to protect the President.  Now more than ever, they can't take any threat for granted.  

Terrorist groups, racist groups, anti-American groups, and those with mental disorders all have reasons to target the next President.  Times are especially bad with a failing economy and more people losing jobs everyday.  People are uncertain about the future and may resort to violence as a way of expressing their fear and anger.  Rather than complain about how much the security for the inauguration costs, we should all hope and pray for the safety of President Obama and his family.  It is in all of our interests as Americans that nothing happens to the next President.

Homeland Security in the Obama Administration

I received a copy of a report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) from my friend Claire Rubin a JHSEM. Neither candidate spoke much about issues of homeland security or emergency management during the campaign. The CSIS article is entitled “Homeland Security in an Obama Administration” and covers eight categories the President-elect intends to address during his administration.

Defeating Global Terrorism

• Update strategies/ capabilities to fight terrorism
• Re-equip, retrain, and expand armed forces
• Improve public diplomacy

This seems consistent with his pledges during the campaign to refocus the war on terror more in Afghanistan. These were developed before the attack in Mumbai and the advent of Somali pirates. The attacks in Mumbai could be launched anywhere without the tell-tale signs associated with weapons of mass destruction. The increase threat of pirates means the role of the Navy will have to shift from less of a force-on-force role to something akin to its earlier role of protecting commerce shipping.

Nuclear Security

• Secure and control fissile materials
• Build international capacity to prevent theft and spread of nuclear materials
• Appoint White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
• Set the goal of a nuclear-free world

These are very laudable goals but other than the coordinator, have a low probability of success. Other administrations have tried to reduce or eliminate the spread of nuclear weapons. Russia, China and now Iran will prove especially challenging in trying to meet these goals. Both Russia and China see the United States as a waning superpower, they more than others will not be interested in reducing or eliminating their nuclear weapons programs.

Biosecurity

• Build capacity to mitigate consequences of bio-terror attacks
• Speed development of drugs used to fight bio-terror attacks
• Lead international effort to diminish impact of major biological epidemics

Biological agents are inherently difficult to use. Those producing the weapons face contamination or death before the weapons can be employed. The dissipation of the biological agent once the weapon is used reduces concentration levels. Winds and rain may prevent airborne biological agents from being effective. Chemical agents and high explosives are easier to handle and most likely will be the preferred choice of terrorists seeking WMDs.

Information Network Protection

• Protect IT infrastructure needed for U.S. economy
• Develop comprehensive cyber security and response strategy
• Prevent corporate cyber-espionage
• Mandate private data security standards

The big challenge for IT security lies in that either an external or internal agent can launch attacks. We hear often of lone attackers in India or the Philippines but the real threat of course comes from employees who may be plants or turned by the attackers. Technology moves faster than our ability to legislate standards and develop strategies. Perhaps no other area requires eternal vigilance than in the IT arena.

Infrastructure Modernization

• Improve the efficiency and security of the U.S. electricity grid
• Invest in recapitalizing transportation infrastructure

Of all of the areas, this one perhaps holds the most opportunity to help our economy. I’ve advocated before the need to improve mass transportation. Developing light rail systems between cities and revamping our long neglected long-haul passenger rail lines will increase jobs as well as help reduce the number of cars on the road.

Critical Infrastructure Protection

• Revamp national infrastructure protection plan
• Improve chemical plant security
• Track spent nuclear fuel
• Improve airline security
• Bolster port security and cargo screening
• Protect public transportation
• Protect local water supplies
• Improve border security

I’m only guessing here but with President-elect Obama’s selection of Governor Napolitano as his Secretary of Homeland Security, border security will see a dramatic increase over some of the other critical infrastructure areas. I also don’t’ see the new Secretary of Homeland Secretary erecting static barriers as much as trying to develop policies to reduce immigration issues.

Intelligence Activities and Civil Liberties

• Improve information sharing and analysis
• Revise the PATRIOT act to preserve civil liberties
• Update FISA to provide greater oversight for warrantless wiretapping
• Restore habeas corpus to those deemed enemy combatants

I’ve not been a fan of the Patriot Act since it was first crafted because of the circumstances surrounding its creation. The emotions immediately following 9-11 did not permit proper discourse to be conducted. The same for FISA and terming those suspected of terrorism as “enemy combatants”. It was an expeditious means during the days and months after 9-11 but it is time to relook at these policies.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

• Allocate funds based on risk
• Emergency response plan improvement
• Improve communications systems interoperability

Allocating funds based on risk sounds perfectly sound but is fraught with political angst. I’m not certain how you improve emergency response planning beyond what is already known; getting agencies to sit down together and start planning and then practicing their plan. The one constant is the lack of time agencies can devote to exercises and joint planning sessions. Communications interoperability remains one of the common threads in after action reports. The problem isn’t so much in the upgrade of systems; it is in getting everyone on compatible systems at the same time.

If President-elect Obama can keep his administration focused on accomplishing the above, the country will certainly be better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack.