You get the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Iraq. So much for loyalty to country.

Somalia is no place for President Obama to begin his foreign policy. Given that he inherited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama will take ownership of any decisions he makes on the pirate menace in the waters of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. Unless he gets a significant commitment from a bevy of interested nations, Obama should stay away from committing forces to Somalia. With no true government in the impoverished nation, there is not much reward to military action. The pirates are part of a warlord culture whereby those doing the actual pirating are simply pawns in the business of seizing ships. Though the 90s incursion by US forces was botched due to a lack of heavy weapons, the real lesson was a political one. The warlords of Somalia are like gang leaders. You kill one and another simply takes their place. Unless we are willing to take and hold ground in Somalia we should not commit forces there. And it would be foolish to contemplate such a pointless military endeavor. That was a lesson we should have learned from the Battle of Mogadishu.

For the most part the notion we should do something about Somali pirates is media driven. Just like Bush Sr. got sucked into the humanitarian crisis in Somalia in the early 90s by images of starving people in the Horn of Africa. The threat posed by a rag tag group of undernourished Somalis is not a threat to US security. That doesn’t mean we should do nothing. If insurance risk is keeping the tankers from being armed then do what was done in the World Wars: work out a convoy system. Ships could sail intermittently with destroyers or gunboats as protectors. The companies whose ships are being protected could pay for the maintenance and cost of the protection.

The United States has already bitten off more than is feasible to chew in our military incursions in the the Middle East. Somalia is a nation where military action will never result in long term dividends. Therefore Obama should either use his international clout to form a large coalition to help stabilize Somalia without a significant US presence or create a defensive strategy to combat pirating in the region with minimal US assets.

On June 25th 1950 the Cold War turned hot. A large North Korean force invaded South Korea with the moral backing of the Soviet Union. Dean Acheson, US Secretary of State, had placed Korea outside of America’s defense perimeter in Asia and Kim Il Sung took this as a sign that South Korea was ripe for the taking. The US quickly responded, sending a detachment of soldiers known as Task Force Smith from Japan. This small under-equipped and vastly outnumbered blocking force was quickly swallowed up by the massive North Korean communist army. Thus began a war that would last for three years and consume the lives of 36,000 Americans with another 103,000 wounded. The war would end just where it began with both sides staring each other down across the 38th parallel. The US military never left Korea. Today over 29,000 servicemen and women protect prosperous South Korea from their destitute kin in the north.  

With the economic situation as it is, now would be the moment to begin to engage North Korea in a lasting peace to eliminate the threat of war between the two Koreas. South Korea, since the war, has had one of the most effective armies in the region. Stories of South Korean bravery in action alongside the US military during the Vietnam War is legendary. South Korea’s industry is progressive and it is time they begin to use this wealth to provide for their own defense. Fifty Eight years has been enough of a buffer for South Korea. This is not to say we wouldn’t come to their aid if North Korea got obstreperous but the time of the current large scale US commitment in Korea has passed. The United States could use those assets elsewhere and the drag on our budget is high. Coming in at number six is a need to draw down our forces in South Korea.

New information is being revealed in regards to America’s war against our true enemy, Al Qaeda. In one of those “The emperor has no clothes” moments, President Bush is apparently fuming from the fact this information has surfaced. It tells the story of President Musharaf cutting deals with the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in essence appeasing the terrorists. Also revealed are inter-agency turf battles that left key strategic operations on the planning board. Highlighted in these latest reports is the impact the Iraq War had on the real “war on terror”. Key assets that were required to aggressively go against Al Qaeda and Taliban elements in Pakistan were sent to Iraq. Even CIA operatives were diverted to the Iraq War in the years following 2003. As a result the terrorist organization that was responsible for the death of 3000 US civilians has effectively reconstituted itself several hundred miles from where they planned the 2001 attacks. The following article details the facts of how the current administration has duped the American people into believing we are safer as a result of their leadership and how their use of fear as a reason to be elected is nothing short of a sham. George Bush has done very little since taking office in 2001. The engine of his presidency has been the Iraq War, and as it sucked out all the oxygen from the room, the real threat continues to burn brightly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

Amid policy disputes, Qaeda grows in Pakistan

By Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde

Monday, June 30, 2008

WASHINGTON: Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to authorize the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was designed to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave an easier path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

Read More

The hot button in the Presidential race these days revolves around the new “GI Bill”. This bill gives us a window on the soul of those who are waging the so called “War on Terror”. By any measure Democratic Senator Jim Webb’s version of the bill (and co-sponsored by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel) is quite generous. It would allow any serviceman who completed three years of active duty (or activated reservists or national guard) the ability to be compensated for four years of public university tuition. Sen. and Republican nominee John McCain is against Webb’s bill. McCain, like Bush, believes the bill would cause military retention rates to decrease. Many of America’s finest have served three, four and five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan (and sometimes swapping between the two theaters) and those who rightfully engaged the enemy in Afghanistan and those who wrongly invaded Iraq are now denying those who have sacrificed the most the ability to brighten their future; a future that for as long as they were serving in harms way was always in doubt. A future for some involves a life without a leg or an arm. Shame on George Bush, shame on John McCain and shame on any politician who doesn’t stand up in Congress and give these boys (and girls) what they deserve. For McCain to use his lack of support of this bill as a means to attack Barack Obama (who supports this bill) for not serving in the military shows a lack of integrity; a word I would never have used to define McCain in the past. Jim Webb’s bill may have an opposite effect. The prospect of having a full paid college scholarship may very well cause a number of kids to sign up for the military. These would be men who aspire to be college graduates, just the type of people we would like to fill the ranks of the US military. Those who have put their lives on the line for this country are exactly those we want to replace the aging baby boomers in the workplaces throughout this country. Jim Webb’s GI Bill is a start but in my opinion they deserve way more than that. Unfortunately those who most wanted to wage these wars don’t see it that way.

Breaking:  Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary breaks ranks with President Bush in new book.