How not to fight a war

McClatchy has a long, pessimistic piece about the war in Afghanistan. It begins with a conversation between Gen. McChrystal and an aide. McChrystal is lamenting the situation in Marjah.

Aide: You've got to be patient, we've only been here 90 days.

McChrystal: How many days do you think we have before we run out of support by the international community?

Aide: I can't tell you sir.

McChrystal: I'm telling you. We don't have as many days as we'd like.

In this conversation, as reported by McClatchy, McChrystal is being diplomatic. The issue isn't the number of days before support from the international community runs out; the issue, as the remainder of the McClatchy article makes clear, is the number of days before support from the Obama adminstration expires.

That number isn't uncertain. Under President Obama's announced timetable, McChrystal has 13 months before the president begins bringing the troops home. Nor is there any indication that Obama plans to alter this timetable. Earlier in the month, he stated: 'I am confident that we're going to be able to reduce our troop strength in Afghanistan starting in July 2011, and I am in constant discussions with General McChrystal, as well as Ambassador Eikenberry, about the execution of that time frame.'

Only a modern-day techocrat or lawyer could believe that it makes sense to fight wars pursuant to timetables, and to be 'constantly' discussing withdrawal while the fight heats up. As the McClatchy story points out, 'the tension between political and military timetables [is] apparent' as Obama's withdrawal plans 'collide with the realities of the war.'

Consider the situation in Marjah. Our military campaign, designed to be the first blow in a decisive campaign to oust the Taliban from their spiritual homeland in adjacent Kandahar province, is faltering in large part because we cannot persuade the Afghans in the area to side with the government against the Taliban. This, in turn, is due in part to threats by the Taliban to kill residents who cooperate with the U.S. and the government. That threat is entirely credible, given the fact that we plan to begin withdrawing in about a year. If the U.S. were more committed, the threat would be far less credible.

The president's timetable also gives the new British government, which has no more desire to be fighting in Afghanistan than Obama does, a pretext for excusing itself from the fight at a time of its choosing. Thus, William Hague, the new foreign secretary, told the BBC during a visit to Afghanistan, 'I don't think setting a deadline helps anybody; so much of what we're doing in Afghanistan, setting targets for people then to jump through hoops towards, doesn't help them in their work.'

Mark Sedwill, Britain's former ambassador to Afghanistan and NATO's current representative there, was more direct:

If there are politicians anywhere in the alliance who are making a judgment that we shouldn't have gone for the surge unless we could have been confident by the end of 2010 it would all look completely different, then we shouldn't have gone for the surge, because that was never practical,'

After dithering throughout much of 2009, Obama may well have delivered a plan for Afghanistan that 'was never practical.'

Don’t let them tell you they don’t want to censor the Internet

They do. Oh boy do they ever want to censor the Internet. Why else would the FCC take the radical step of deem-and-pass Title II reclassification of ISPs to regulate them like phone companies? It’s because the endgame of Net Neutrality is total control.

Today I came across two slipups that give up the game, despite the FCC’s promises of “forbearance” and the greater left’s assurances that the War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and Regulation is Liberty.

Cass Sunstein, legal professor and currently the head of Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said this as far back as 2001, per Althouse:

Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word “voluntary” is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.

Yeah, a member of the White House in charge of regulation thinks that a government mandate to control political content is something that could be done in a “neutral” way. And the FCC, a regulatory body, just claimed the ability to regulate content from Internet Service Providers in the name of Net Neutrality. File under “Things that make you go Hmm.”

I was all ready to post on just that tonight when I ran into something even more blatant. Don’t take it from me that the FCC has all this in mind. Take it from Jennifer Schneider via Reason. She is after all the legal adviser to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, and she says that “Commissioner Copps would love to have jurisdiction over everything.”

Hmm. Yeah, some “jokes” are just too revealing, much like when Dick Armey made his little joke on Barney Frank’s name. Armey clearly had no love for Frank, and the Copps office has plenty of love for total Internet regulation.

We’ve got to get a Congress that will stop this runaway FCC.

Michigan’s 1st District: An Awakening

We’ve been traveling this week. We’ve logged hundreds of miles and gone from town to town, meeting people of Main Street, America. I’ve talked to them in coffee shops, private homes, businesses, Republican dinners and Tea Party events. Everywhere I’ve gone, the people are speaking out and I am listening.

I’ve been extremely impressed with how well-informed the people are. The topics we’ve discussed, the questions that have been asked, all show that the citizenry of our 1st District is paying attention, educating themselves and tackling the concerns we have about our country’s direction, head on. This renewed interest by regular Americans has been kindled by the negative impact that the current Democrat administration has had on their lives. They see that they have been caught in the cross-hairs, and they are learning how government is meant to work, not just the politics involved. They’ve asked me about the 1st, 2nd, 10th and 17th Amendments. My fellow citizens are reading for themselves, the Constitution, learning the how and why, what Washington should not be doing vs. what they have done. Our current legislators and this administration do not want the populace to know or speak out, but we are not going to stop. That is the message I am receiving from the people.

We are all concerned about this country’s current course. Policies have been set in place that will have disastrous economic consequences unless we stop and take corrective action. This administration has brought even higher unemployment rates, which we are now all too familiar with here in the 1^st District. President Obama and his administration’s efforts to intrude upon and control the individual citizen’s life cannot continue. The only way we can stop this is by using the energy and common sense of the people themselves to set us on the right course.

While people have legitimate concerns, they also have demonstrated an incredible spirit. The American spirit, the one of “can do” and “will do,” forms the core of our traditional American character. It is this awakening and renewal that I saw as I traveled, and the people of the 1^st District are echoing their fellow Americans across the land. Something else I see; people aren’t leaving this job to others; they are rolling up their sleeves and willing to do it themselves. I am with them on this. I’m a husband, father and physician, but I am also an American seeking to restore this land to her Constitutional foundations.

RedState has an outstanding writer, Vassar Bushmills. Not too long ago he wrote a blog post that illuminated the awakening of the American spirit. He called it America “getting all philosophical again.” He noted the common man and woman, ordinary folks like you and me, looking up the true meaning of the word Liberty; and reminding themselves of the real purpose of citizenship.

Meanwhile, the administration in Washington doesn’t seem to get it. They have a stranglehold on our district, our state, and our country, and it must be loosened. We have to start cutting the strings, breaking out of the web that has trapped us for so long in dependency, dependency on government, dependency on Washington.

The people, you and I, are the backbone of this nation. We will find the strength, the spirit; we’ll reach into ourselves to stop Washington, stop the arrogance and indifference. You will find that spirit in Michigan’s 1st District. I am one of them - just an ordinary citizen who decided to step up and confront these issues head on. It gives me joy and I consider it an honor to do this work, with the support of my fellow citizens, to stop Washington, help others share in the opportunity for prosperity this nation has always represented, and I am willing to risk and sacrifice to do it.

The American awakening is here, and it is the people who are saying, “Enough is Enough.”

P.S. Obviously Michigan’s 1st District is very important to me, but we can’t forget PA-12 next week.

48 Hours. Have You Done What You Can?

48 Hours. Have You Done What You Can?: "

“Freedom means you take chances. Freedom means you fight. Let’s send Jim DeMint some reinforcements. Let’s send Jim DeMint Marlin Stutzman.”

48 hours from now, people head to the polls in Indiana.

Let me let you in on a little secret. When I endorse and support a candidate, I get a lot more angry emails than I do supportive. That’s the way it works.

For the past several months I have gotten the crap kicked out of me for supporting a guy too young to run for the Senate and too conservative to play well with others.

People did not like me endorsing Marlin Stutzman, but I did because I believe in him.

There are three good men in the race, but Marlin Stutzman is the best man to send to the Senate. I am proud to endorse him. I’m proud to stand with Jim DeMint on this one. But we need your help to get him the nomination.

Here’s the problem — this is a race between Coats and Stutzman now. A lot of people like Dan Coats. That’s fine. I get beat up every day from people thinking I’m too hard on him. Never mind his actual record in the Senate or that he fled Indiana ten years ago to become a lobbyist and live in North Carolina.

I get it. Most of you do too.

We’re in a fight for our future. How does voting for Coats help in that fight when we’re going to have to fight for his seat all over again in six years. Do you really think he’s going to serve twelve in the Senate? He’ll be 73 at the end of his term should he win. The same guys who told us he’s the best choice for Republicans also told us Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter were the best choices.

You know, I pick candidates because they are not just conservative in temperament or in instinct, but they are conservatives through and through. We got into the mess we are now in because of Republicans. Read that last sentence again.

Republicans became about the party, not the principle. They lost their way. And many of them don’t even want to head back to their principles. They are comfy. They are cushy. And we are all just a minor annoyance soon to burn out and go away.

I get flack, a lot of flack, for this from Republicans, from friends, from colleagues — but the fight for freedom is too important to not sometimes say, “Hey, I found this candidate and we should support him even though there are other people running.” Part of my job, and I’m not sure how I fell into it, but part of my job is to catapult good men and women into the arena to fight for freedom. And I’ve done that with my friend Marlin Stutzman like I did with my friend Marco Rubio — neither were high in polls when I picked them and now Marco has won his primary by default and Marlin has victory within reach.

Marlin is pro-life. He’s pro-second amendment. He’s for small businesses and families. He has the potential to be in the arena a lot longer than those he is running against and his record compared to theirs shows me that he is consistently right on our issues and will fight unapologetically — not cave or fold or waver or bend or yield when the winds from Washington blow a different way. The other candidates say that too, but they all have records and I’ve studied them. Marlin is the best. Marlin is most likely to stand with conservatives even when that means standing up to Republican leaders.

In 48 hours, we have the opportunity to raise up a new conservative leader. We have the opportunity to raise up one of those guys we always say we want to run for office and who did run for office. Let’s not now turn our back on Marlin because I assure you he will not turn his back on us.

Have you done all you could? Will you do all you can? Freedom means you take chances. Freedom means you fight. Let’s send Jim DeMint some reinforcements. Let’s send Jim DeMint Marlin Stutzman.

"