Almost Nobel Material: Obama's Newfound Modesty--and Affirmation of Some Important Truths.

ALMOST.

Obama Uses Noble Peace Prize Speech to Defend Some Oft-Forgotten Principled Reasoning




President Obama speaks the truth to power on this one, dear readers.

Good speech. I'll give credit where due, at least on the merits of the words alone, from the man who ascended to this kind of world stage prominence--on the words alone. This in spite of my sharp disagreements with him on a variety of other issues (mostly domestic) and various statements he's made in the past.

In his acceptance speech for the Noble Prize in Oslo, Norway, the president said what he needed to about the late unpleasantness in Afghanistan, even if for mere political satiation of the "war hawks" in this regard, and laid out in no uncertain terms in this particular the ugly realities of the modern world and the "just war" rationalization. But I don't think this is mere political grandstanding. Or, not completely. Quite honestly, I detect he understands what's at stake in this conflict, even if the tough talk of late is a full engine reverse of what we've come to expect from more accommodationist prose, due in no small part to sagging polls and sagging confidence on the world stage from other leaders. At a time when the world's tougher neighborhoods are getting bolder and even more boisterous, the liberal penchant for outsourcing or farming out our foreign policy to faux global governance eggheads and collective "soft power" bodies like the UN no longer carries any water. Co-operation is a wonderful notion and in much need on some issues, yes, but in the end is only as good in the end as the force that stands ready behind it once we and our European and other allies make the call and pull the trigger (metaphorically as well as literally)

But that's OK for the moment: Not only did Obama need to say it, we and the rest of the world really needed to hear it.

Acknowledging that his accomplishments on the world stage are thin so far, and a Milli Vanilli Nobel Award Pitches For Things Not Even Done At The Time notwithstanding, on the merits of the current war in Afghanistan, the president hit the nail on the head and partially redeemed the Prize. Not sure he made up for the vacuum of accomplishment in this one speech, but his excellent, well-reasoned point came across crisply, loud, and clear; peace sometimes requires actions that are--on the surface--seemingly very unpeaceful. Such is the nasty reality of international politics, and might I add welcome to the real world, Mr. President.

So, he said what he needed to say--and what was needed in general--even if contradictory to previous statements during campaign mode about wrapping up both wars, particularly the war in Iraq (apparently under his opinion that the Iraq conflict was an unnecessary distraction from the "real" need in Afghanistan, and that Iraq was supposedly non-proximate to the War on Terror) and setting artificial time tables more recently regarding Afghanistan.

I disagree with Obama on his assessment about Iraq, but still. He's right to defend the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan IF we can see this conflict though, provide a more stable governance for the people of Afghanistan and thus hopefully the region, drastically reduce and hopefully annihilate al-Quaida influence there as well as neighboring Pakistan, and avoid artificial (RE: domestic political considerations) time tables.

Per Reuters News Agency's analysis, "By pledging to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for foreign terrorism suspects on Cuba and outlawing harsh interrogation techniques, Obama has attempted to recover the moral high ground that critics accused his predecessor George W. Bush of surrendering by waging a no-holds-barred war on terrorism", and that also that the president emphasized that those regimes that break moral laws can and should be held accountable for their actions, and that sanctions must have teeth in them. And to the end of providing global security, the United States cannot act alone, even if the mission of peace and war is very unpleasant to our allies.

Not sure that harsh interrogation was all that much over the top, or that he understands that the Geneva Conventions' rules of treatment do not apply to non-uniformed belligerents, and that this disincentive to commit acts of terror has solid reasoning behind it. but I agree with him on the last part. There must be more accountability for the would-be Neo-Nuke tinhorn rulers of the world that would threaten global peace. I also think he's incorrect in that there was never a Third World War. I understand of course he's praising the vigilance of our soldiers and leaders in the post WWII world--the modern era--for staving off nuclear conflict and major conflict between great power, and that's probably what he's referring to. But there IS a WWIII. It is the War on Terror. And it is very real, and very global in scope, and thus a world conflict. And it remains real even if some US politicians stateside still think in the Post 911 world the phrase "War on Terror" amounts to little more than a cheap bumper sticker. He also mentioned, regarding said terrorism--because much terror in the world today is as religiously based as it is political--that true faith does not, or at least should not, make carnage out of innocents, or seek to destroy nations or their citizenry on behalf of one's religion, or otherwise inculcate climates of fear.

But in any case, this is war, we ARE at war, and sometimes it's not really "Orwellian" to say that justice, both nationally and internationally, demands response of this level to the scourge of terrorism, even if this conclusion is not universally admired by the Left. Nor, for that matter, some "realists" on the Paleoconservative Right who also think we can just make Fortress America and bring home the boys, stop defending Israel and monkeying around with the terrorists, and we'll be left alone. Of course.

One particularly prescient example from the President's speech that all would do well to remember:

"I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace."

Average Federal Saleries Now 76% More Than Average Private Sector Salaries

Average Federal Saleries Now 76% More Than Average Private Sector Salaries

ClimateGate II: Sympathy for the (ClimateGate) Devil?

OK. Now comes more happy fun time!

In the spirit of the Holidays, I'm going to be more than fair to the Alarmosphere of Climate Panic out there in Net Land.

And, just out of sheer curiosity (OK, really to play the Devil's Advocate here and pull out info, since I'm neither a climatologist nor computer expert) what could be our "Denialist" response to THIS, from the likes of Sharon Begely.

Seems her chief argument is that the hacked emails of so-called ClimateGate in the first place contained nothing damning other than the very real and difficult/tedious work of REAL climate scientists, who got quite understandably frustrated with the dumbbunny denialist crowd, and some email correspondence detailing said frustration.

Many of us would sooner not have some emails revealed and aired out in broad daylight, no?

About the same line of thinking, it seems (though they no longer allow new registrations for comments) showed up on Little Green Footballs, which in turn references an article in New Scientist.

Says LGF:

Despite efforts by the climate change denial industry to promote this as the definitive proof that global warming is a “hoax” by evil scientists trying to get rich and dominate the world, the fact is that there is nothing in the emails that even comes close to this exaggerated, hysterical claim. It’s a phony scandal, based on stolen and cherry-picked emails, and pumped up like a Macy’s clown balloon by dishonest people.

From another LGF post with more links, there is THIS regarding the allegation that CRU "dumped" or "destroyed" their climate-modeling temperature data. Apparently NOT:

"Just one little problem with this latest tempest in a teapot — no data was destroyed. And the article at The Times, oddly enough, just happens to leave out that part of Phil Jones’ explanation.

According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

“When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.”

Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”  By the way, here’s some information on the group spreading the “destroyed data” claim: Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI is a think tank funded by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. CEI does not accept government funding. Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation[5][6]. …

CEI is also active in the legal aspects of antitrust and government regulation. As part of its “Control Abuse of Power” (CAP) project, CEI launched lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), respectively.

Again, the connection to energy industries and big tobacco. Almost every one of the main anti-AGW front groups is connected to either big energy or big tobacco, and often both.

Now, some excepts from that aforementioned New Scientist article:

"Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you'll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago.

You can't fake spring coming earlier, or trees growing higher up on mountains, or glaciers retreating for kilometres up valleys, or shrinking ice cover in the Arctic, or birds changing their migration times, or permafrost melting in Alaska, or the tropics expanding, or ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula breaking up, or peak river flow occurring earlier in summer because of earlier snowmelt, or sea level rising faster and faster, or any of the thousands of similar examples.

None of these observations by themselves prove the world is warming; they could simply be regional effects, for instance. But put all the data from around the world together, and you have overwhelming evidence of a long-term warming trend."

And then we have, from the same article:

"So why are scientists "fixing" the temperature data?

Some of the contents of the hacked material, such as the "Harry_read_me.txt" file, might appear shocking, with its talk of manipulation and "tricks". But raw data almost always has to be "fixed".

For example, suppose you and your neighbour keep a record of the temperature where you live, and decide to combine your records to create an "official" record for your locality. When you compare records, however, you're surprised to find they are very different.

There are many reasons why this might be so. One or other thermometer might be faulty. Perhaps you placed your thermometer in an inherently warmer place, or where it was sometimes in direct sunshine, or took measurements at a different time of day, and so on. To combine the two records in any meaningful way, you'll need to adjust the raw data to account for any such factors.

Not doing so would be pretty dumb. Where possible, scientists should always look at their data in the context of other, comparable data. Such scrutiny can often reveal problems in the way one or other set of data was acquired, meaning it needs adjusting or discarding. Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real-world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites"

"But what about that 'trick' to 'hide the decline'?

One of the leaked emails refers the "trick" of adding the real temperatures, as recorded by thermometers, to reconstructions of past temperatures based on looking at things such as growth rings in trees.

The problem is that some sets of tree-ring data suggest temperatures start falling towards the end of the 20th century, which direct temperature measurements show was not the case. So the researchers instead replaced the reconstructed temperature data for this period with the directly measured temperature data.

Is this an unjustified "fix"? No, because some sets of tree-ring data can be compared with the direct records of local temperature for the past century. Up until the 1960s, there is a very close correlation between the density of growth rings in trees in northern latitudes and summer temperatures, but after this it starts to break down."

As to the other condemnations of faux outrage (this time, morals of the methodology and "suppressing" dissenting papers):

 "Some of the leaked emails reveal the climate researchers' unhappiness with the publication of certain scientific papers questioning the global warming consensus, and discuss removing journal editors they perceived as being sympathetic to global warming sceptics. This sounds horrifying to some non-scientists. But many are confusing two very different things: attempting to block publication in certain scientific journals and the suppression of information.

"But surely any attempt to block publication of sceptical scientific papers is indefensible?

Scientific journals are only supposed to publish papers that meet certain scientific standards. Researchers work for years on papers and then submit them to the top journals in their field. The editors select the ones they think are most important or noteworthy, and send them to a handful of reviewers - scientists working in the same areas. Each reviewer sends back a report suggesting acceptance, rejection or revisions, and the editor decides whether to publish based on these reports. Most papers sent to leading journals get rejected.

This system of "peer review" has its critics, but is generally regarded as the least-worst system to ensure the quality of published scientific research. Researchers whose work is rejected can resubmit their papers to other, less high-profile journals. Failing that, anyone is free to publish their views on global warming online, or in books and newspapers if they can.

Many leading scientists think that the papers mentioned in the emails had serious scientific flaws and possibly should not have been accepted by the journals in question. If this were the case, it would raise questions about the role of the editors at those journals. It is hardly outrageous behaviour to call for the replacement of people who are, in your personal view, not doing their jobs properly."

Also noteworthy to point out, while we're at it, since this claim from Denialists has come up before:  Said one commenter to the NS article, in response to the glib notion that some Denialists posted that at least we'll have lots of CO2 "plant food" in reserve to help with crops, etc:

"Like many of the arguments made by global warming deniers, this is simplistic. Plants will consume more food--up to a point--then, like an over-fed goldfish's bowl, they'll die. In the case of over-feeding the goldfish, algae will consume the excess "food" and you'll get a mini-dead zone like those that have been forming at the mouths of major river basins over the last forty years. But the same thing happens to land plants--the soil and the plants can only absorb so much CO2 and when the limit is reached, it has detrimental effects. What is worse, most trees like to maintain their leaves at a steady temperature and when it gets too hot, they suffer. This temperature is about 25 degrees Celsius. Over 30 degrees Celsius and even tropical trees suffer. Increasing CO2 threatens tropical rainforests which are at the limits of viability for trees. It also forms carbolic acid in water, which threatens shellfish, bony fish and corals. Anybody living in the developed world should know that there is such a thing as too much food--and that's not just for people and pets.

See also Elizabeth May's piece on all this, who--to her undying credit--has apparently done what the vast majority of the Denialist Crowd has not:  She read ALL of the damned emails.

Any input from the us "Denialists"?  Good, cuz there's more to come.

I'm a piker on climate issues, and yet was able to pull these fairly good retorts to the Denialists in the space, of, oh, about 30 minutes of casual Net wandering.  Not looking good for the Denialist crowd even with just a simple search.

Said one commenter, at the bottom of the article, this whole allegation of "ClimateGate" is really little more than a Right Wing tabloid "feeding frenzy" for dummies, the scientifically illiterate rednecks of Jesusland, and the moronic.

Regarding the faux moral outrage over the FOI (Freedom of Information) requests, from New Scientist we also have the claim that per the letter of the law, things were followed to a T in regards to the abusive requests (50 in one week) for information:

What about apparent attempts to avoid freedom of information requests?

In some emails, Jones – who has stepped down pending a review of what went on – discusses ways not to fulfil requests made under the UK's freedom of information laws. In one, he calls on other researchers to delete certain emails. While on the face of it this does not look good, whether any researchers broke any laws or breached any university guidelines remains to be determined.

In other cases, however, it is clear that researchers could not comply with freedom of information requests because they did not have the right to release all the data in question. There is also no doubt that climate change deniers have been using freedom of information requests to harass researchers and waste their time, with the CRU receiving more than 50 such requests in one week alone this year.

What's more, individual researchers have little to gain from giving away data and software they have spent years working on. Scientific careers depend on how many papers you publish. If you keep data to yourself, no one else can publish papers based on it before you do.

This does not mean researchers should be allowed to hold onto their data. It is undoubtedly in the public interest for there to be full disclosure of the measurements upon which climate scientists are basing their conclusions. In fact, much of it is already freely available. But the pressures climate researchers are under does help to explain why many are so reluctant to make all data public.

Clearly, the leaked emails have caused disquiet in some quarters. There's no doubt there are concerns about the content of some of the emails – even when you know the way science really works – as laid out above. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia are now holding investigations to determine if anything unethical did go on. But nothing in them justifies claims of a massive conspiracy, or undermines the certainty about climate change and its causes.

Lastly, the good thing about being late on the draw here is that it's given some time for many others to chime in.  Thus for example FactCheck.Org seems to feel the issue of climate change is settled and there is no conspiracy or "gate" to climategate.  It's just a non-issue.

Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

ClimateGate I--One Stop Shopping Link of Links

Who knows?

Might come in handy. Just maybe.



Go to http://www.climategate.be/, or just click on the title of this post.

Thanks for Playing the Race Card, Dirty Harry

Gosh. What will Democrats think of next when comparing detractors of whatever glorified and astonishingly expensive milkwater socialist glop plans to "racism" in the Antebellum South?

Oh yeah. Same old playbook.



"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

Welcome to The United States of the Easily Offended

It happened before, and so it will now happen again.

The claim, that is, that Christians are but a bunch of Grinches and Scrooges for wanting to have the term "Christmas" mean something other than stuff to buy and pretty lights hung on trees.

And now it seems even the trees are too overtly....well..."Christmasy"--and, therefore, too Christian for the comfort of some.

Good Grief, Charlie Brown. And Bah, Humbug!

So, let's all just say a hearty Winter Season, Happy Festivus Holidays Something, or another...

But seriously, note that I don't have a category called "Season's Greetings."  I like seasonal changes and celebrate the changeover, yes, but certainly don't equate seasons or winter solstaces with the real meaning of Christmas. An historical association that continues to the day in people's minds, and as it regards the excitement in the air around this time of year? Yeah. Sure. But an association is not the same as reverance for the Holy.

(The tag "Holiday Cheer" found below, and in some other posts about various Holiday ("faith-based") celebrations and recognitions, is a term more than ample to fill in as a verbal compromise that not only covers numerous types of "Holy Days", but at least keeps the "Holy" part relatively intact.)

Cultural diversity is grand and desirable, but fussy PCness and ticky "multiculturalism" are not.

And don't try the phooey with me about Christmas being "pagan" in origin. It is not. Or, at least not completely; the more serious concern for Christians is the overcommercialization of Christmas, not the historical significance to the Church, which we know was very important despite all the arguments and bickering among various sects who grumbled about it.

From now on, folks, for me it's just "Christmas" when speaking of December 25th,  and a shout out of "Merry Christmas!" in honor of that very Holy day to passersby on the street and on the Net, and certainly this blog.

Thank You, Honduras

A victory for the Honduran people for freedom, and against usurpation.

At last.
Would that we could learn these lessons here.

Happy Pearl Harbor Day: A Time to Remember Those Who Gave All

..and after yet more costly and bloody conflict with the Empire of Japan and their Nazi and Italitan Allies in Europe, ultimately led us later to victory.

I also recommend what is probably the most comprehensive documentation of that tragic day in US military history, with detailed background analyses from both sides about what really transpired, minus the conspiratorial takes that have become all too common in recent decades:   A book entitled At Dawn We Slept. Read it. Learn it. Cogitate on it. Great reading, and a good reminder that nothing is to be taken for granted.

Left Should NOT Cheer the BDS/Kerry Report on bin Laden's "Escape"

This is not Bush's war.

Certainly it is no longer; that ship has sailed. Caving in to the Left's desire to pin all this on Bush once again for whatever perceived strategic failures is a fool's errand in the long run.

Time to move on, folks.

Nor is it Obama's, to be honest on both accounts. Or, at least not Obama's alone. 

(President Obama just owns the moment about what to do next, whether he likes being put in this spot or not. Such is the job description. Welcome to the Office of the Presidency, Mr. Obama.)

It's OUR war--American and indeed the whole Western world--and like it or not, someone, if not this president, will eventually have to find a way to prosecute the war, withdraw, or otherwise bring some other conclusion.  No doubt the president's reluctant emphasis in his recent speech on Afghanistan detailing the sending of additional troops is not welcome news in some Leftist quarters. It is the opposite of what they wanted to hear and see happen--complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Hopefully, and sooner rather than later,  that "other" includes the very notion of "victory" rather than some politically motivated timetable having more to do with election time posture and compromises with the far left rather than real strategy; "victory" being a term this administration is loathe to even utter. And the whole world knows it.  (It would be refreshing to be taken seriously again, despite the ever-so-horrid risk of seeming out of sync with creepy Euroelite snots, or considered vulgar and icky by liberal foreign policy.

Not just for us, but for the people of Afghanistan who, for all OUR very real suffering, have suffered the worse brunt of the war along with Talib governance; a radical Islamist caliphate with internationalist terror ties to al-Quaida and beyond that, though once rapidly removed early on by Bush, now attempts a retaking of Afghanistan now that the war effort has stalled.

More Wonderful News...Navy Seals' Prosecution (sigh)

Borrowing from the radical climatologist alarmheads, there is talk of "tipping" points everywhere. Everything is a stinkin' sandpile, or some such metaphor.

Well, the Earth is a little bit tougher than that, but if they'd made that argument regarding politics, ideology, or the multi-culti PC glop that now passes for justice these days, I'd have to agree. I was wondering what the "tipping point" in politics might be that tells us the whole culture is down the tubes, and Western Society no longer deems it necessary to defend itself, or could care less.

Well, for one thing, when politics or PCsm gets their Kraken-ugly tentacles into vital military operations.

At the point in our culture when the "powers-that-be" deem it necessary to appease the Sons of Allah's delicate hothouse senses (the headnippers' sensitivities at that, mind ya) over a bloody lip (what kid has not had that in his life at some point?) then I'd say the military has joined PCism in making the West into a little lamb of a creature. Ready for the harvest from sterner creatures.

We're culturally cooked, unless we can turn these kinds of things around. Quickly.

Sparkman Apologies Now Being Accepted....err...well....EXCEPTED.

Some things just don't change all that quickly with our liberal friends, now do they?

However, pace Janet Napolitano, it seems hers and the Left's attempt to smear the Tea Partiers and Townhallers and other conservative activists as fomenting a seething political backlash that endangers people's very lives (particularly government officials) is floundering on the shoals of reality. 

Michael Fumento: Show Me The Warming

Michael Fumento: Show Me The Warming

Posted using ShareThis

Obama's Afghanistan Exit, Stage Left.

12/03/2009  SOMEWHERE IN THE MOUNTAINS OF AFGHANISTAN, IN A DARK CAVE LIT BY FLICKERING FIRELIGHT (From Associated Press Wire Reports)

"Taliban and al-Quida leaders today reiterated their resolve for the war against the Infidel forces in Afghanistan, but outlined a nine-point plan that includes a new timetable and "Exit Strategy" for pulling out of the nation completely and retreating to Pakistan's hilly regions by 2011. Citing budgetary concerns, cost overruns, domestic issues that need attending, and other logistical problems that have plagued the region as well as the Talib expeditionary forces leading attacks on "Allied" forces for almost 9 years, the Sons of Allah stated plainly their desire for peace, and a restructuring of the region and extended co-operation of the type that will allow a final resolution to the conflict to everyone's favor and liking."

Just kidding. (The Talibs and their terrorist allies wouldn't say such things, of course)

In real life you don't talk openly about "exit strategies" in open view and earshot of your enemies. Enemies who just might get the unhelpful notion that this is an "elective" war, or that despite much well-deserved confidence in your own military prowess, the setting of such timetables also indicates this war is wearing you thin--mentally, militarily, fiscally, and emotionally. Or that such statements are shoehorned into strategy in order to appease various sides who are not on board with your strategic goals and thus renders your consideration of the importance of the conflict problematic.

The Taliban/al-Quaida axis is evil. But they're not dumb.

Or, certainly not obtuse enough to make repetitive, pious-sounding statements consisting mostly of hot air, with the only new substance of a major foreign policy speech--made available to the whole planet--being the outline of politically arranged "timetables" and "exit strategies."

Why would they? They plan on winning this war, whether we have a timetable or budgetary concerns (dwarfed by domestic spending at that, BTW)--or not. An "exit strategy" is not really a strategy for anything other than announcing when you plan to get out of Dodge.  Except that, "strategically", it is a boost of encouragement to one's enemies to know that if they just hunker down in the hovels and ride the storm, they might just live to see the new era they plan to bring about. That's spells victory, even if GI Joe is safe and home with the family for Thanksgiving 2011.

I'm glad the president's speech last night seemed to indicate he understands just what is at state in Afghanistan. This IS a war that is, as he said before, very proximate to the goal of stanching terror in the region. True enough. And much else is at stake in the region regarding Pakistan (a nuclear state, in case we all forget) stability, and the prevention of a more-or-less permanent "staging area" for further terrorist acts. The president knows that Afghanistan will not simply be unfree of Taliban and terrorist elements and never prosper as a society under their tutelage, but that the situation for the rest of the world is dicey until these jackals are removed.

But is any of this really news?

No, not really. We've known this strategic situation--what is at stake--for some time now. Almost nine years. Soon to be ten.

The sad situation is that in the opinion of yours truly and some others looking the strategic situation over, other than the dumb "timetable" issue of "exit strategies", the president said something close to nothing last night. But along with the virtual nothingness and rehash of the painfully obvious and the glittering generalities and platitudes this administration is known for, if you're going to reveal the fact that you're concerned with time issues (which the enemy is certainly NOT) which in turn are the result of furrowed brows about budgeting, bean-counting, and obviously pacifying one's allies on the Far Left as well as your conservative critics and military advisors begging for more troops, then you may as well just truly say nothing at all and get on with the business of losing, and having American soldiers killed for literally nothing.

Do--or do not. Win this war, or let's just leave already.

That is, if the war itself, or the issue of just what to do about terrorism's haven in this region of the world is really so elective, or we know for certain that 2011 is the upper limit of our tolerance and purse strings, then let's just leave the rat's nest of mountainous hell that has killed off the soldiers of other empires and leave them be, and just play Whack-a-Mole with the terrorists when they regroups and hit us later. That IS, after all, the enlightened vision of many of the president's left wing supporters anyhow, and why he's setting "time tables" for a war that--like most wars--could defeat those timetables with numerous variables. Was this war supposed to be a "quickie"?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates defended the president's timetable strategy for Afghanistan by saying the reason for the 18 month timetable for withdrawal is to "light a fire" under the nascent Afghan regime to "encourage" democratic reforms and let them understand our presence in their land will not be eternal. True enough, they need prodding, and we will not be there all eternity. But this is a cart and horse scenario. We'll not see real reforms and the very ability to leave until and unless the Taliban is crushed or chased out permanently or fairly much out of commission to everyone's satisfaction. Period. It's that simple. As Bob Schieffer commented the other day, this is not some football game where the clock is ticking down.

Of course, as George Will and others have stated, it is painfully obvious the whole timetable issue is less about Afghanistan than about politics back home, as are the budgetary concerns and upper limits of the American people's patience--for which al-Quaida and the Talibs know they can thoroughly wear us out--pacifying his more hawkish critics at a time when confidence about American projection of willpower is waning, and the setting of artificial deadlines for action to make sure that the president will not end up owning an unwinnable conflict come election time in 2012. Ironic that Obama's advisors are comparing this Afghan version of the Surge to what worked in Iraq, when the current White House occupant was a loud critic of that same policy. Such is the fairly good evidence that we might be about to witness Obama's version of the notorious "Mission Accomplished" banner of Bush days that the Left had so much fun (and Keith Olbermann to this day) in mocking.

And if none of these considerations turn out to be the case? Then let's do what it takes, whether the calendar flips past some odd date in 2011 or not. Like it or not, this is not a referendum on Bush. Nor Obama per se, for that matter. It is not "Bush's War", as some have tried to place the issue. Nor is it now Obama's. Or at least not totally his. It's his to make the chief play calls on, yes. But the importance of this conflict cannot be overstated. It is a referendum on the Western World's commitment to fostering representative governance and the rule of law. Without these, ultimately peace is just a notion that has no metaphysical reality. For peace, as someone observed, is not just the absence of violence or conflict, but the rule of law.

It belongs to all of us who wish to see yet another haven for terrorism be taken away, and those who desire--as do hopefully the Afghan people themselves--a somewhat brighter and more prosperous and peaceful future for that entire region. It was always thus since the war began.

Guns and Grub...

I had a great time firing large caliber weapons and eating ultra-food amounts over Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends, but should have stayed out of the cold air up in North Ga. Sick as a dog.

Strike that. Sicker.

Would post some pics, but the camera flaked out for some reason.

Oh well...

Happy Thanksgiving

Nothing much to add this time except very tired and not able to post much else.

But it might do good to take a peek at last year's  post on Thanksgiving, which has some lessons on spirituality and thrift and even economics that go beyond what most of us were taught or think about.

Happy Thanksgiving!