Operation: Just Cause

In December of 1989, George H.W. Bush (or Bush Senior for the liberals who do not know the proper application of a generational?suffix) sent the XVII Airborne Corps, Joint Special Operations Command and numerous other Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units into the country of Panama.? The operation was launched in an effort by then-President Bush to depose of Manuel Noriega (the de facto leader of the Panamanian government at the time) and rescue Americans who had been trapped in the country during those turbulent times.? The operation was named Operation Just Cause, leaving some critics of the engagement to quip that the operation’s name was the only argument H.W. Bush had to justify the action (I will leave the conspiracy theories about Skulls and Bones, Mena Airport, Bush, the CIA and aliens out for the sake of time, much to the chagrin of Alex Jones supporters).

What makes a war “just”?? Surely this is a topic that has been debated and mulled over for as long as men have been around on this earth (because women do not go to war, of course; war is a bi-product if irrational manliness).? Can anyone truly justify a war to every one’s liking?? Is the nature of the state to do what is right for the population of that state, no matter what that means for other states (as the term state is understood post-Machiavelli) as we see with the realists?? Or can a state only be justified in going to war if such an engagement is for the benefit of humanity as a whole (by asking “pretty please” from the UN)?? Then again, it was once said that “those who invoke humanity on their side mean to cheat” (Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political).?

Apparently, Americans are having a sort of crisis of conscience.? According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, only 50% percent of our fellow countrymen and women feel that the War in Afghanistan is a “Just” war.? This goes along with the Quinnipiac University poll that came out about a week and a half ago, which nearly reaches the exact same conclusion.? Support for the war in the first year preceding the September 11th attacks of 2001 was close to near unanimous approval, with Gallup showing 89-93% stating that Afghanistan was not a mistake in January of 2002.? So it appears that Americans (Democrats and Republicans mind you) are waning on their support for a war that they felt was necessary in 2001 and 2002.? What has changed?

If the Afghan War was justified then, what makes it less so now?? Surely we are there for the same reason, since we did not go over and overthrow the Taliban and then leave only to return as “occupiers”.? What is it that makes this war “unjust” then?? What is “justice” to these people who?have decided that it is no more than a mere term to be thrown around in the height of passion following an attack on 3,000 innocent people?? Was it only then just because we went in and overthrew a tyrannical regime that was directly tied to forces responsible for bloodshed on our own soil?? Now is it “unjust” solely for the reason that we are being told by the news and liberal (and libertarian and some conservative) influences that we have overstayed our welcome?? Which is the more justified action: going in and sacking the regime of a country to leave it in anarchy and decay; or staying and building it up to the point that their government can run effectively and more justly than before?? Who are the 21% of voters that have obtained this retroactive prescience? and decided they are against it after they were for it?? I can understand those people who were against it from the beginning, and that is because they feel that no war is ever justified.? They should be acknowledged and applauded for their principled stand, but let us not forget the ignorance that must be evident in such a dogmatic stance.?

I must admit that it is polls like these that create a feeling of futility in the pit of my stomach.? Perhaps a majority of Americans should not be asked a question about wars and their relation to justice until they better understand what justice is.? The slow decay of support for this necessary war is a sad barometer of the fortitude possessed by the American people to support the men and women overseas, their families at home, and the mission we sent them to do eight years ago.? In the end, those 50% of Americans who now question the mission and its necessity, are not doing those soldiers or their families justice.?

-rj

Not “Obama’s War,” But OUR War…

“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” – G.K. Chesterton

?

There has been considerable analysis laid out by much more cognitively endowed people than I regarding President Obama?s Tuesday night West Point speech.? Any attempt to separate reactions based solely on ideological grounds (or the traditional ?right?/?left? spectrum) seems fairly futile.? It seems to me that those who are more middle-of-the-road are inclined to favor the President?s recent decision regarding troop levels in Afghanistan and subsequent policy; while those who are considered on the more outer fringes (of both the left and right) ?are none too pleased with the outcome.?

Those who have been critical of President Obama?s speech tend to be critical on two matters.? One is the length of time it took President Obama to come up with a decision, and the second being the substance of his speech.? On the former point, I will refrain from commenting.? This is not an article for me to be a polemicist.? On the latter point, I do not see the importance as it pertains to the policy announcement.? People seemed disappointed in our rhetorically gifted President?s lack of rhetorical flair.? I only mention this briefly, because there is a greater meaning to his delivery.? He may not feel it necessarily, but it was the vibe collectively felt by many who watched: uncertainty.? He was at the ?enemy camp? according to Chris Matthews, a la the symbol of the military class: West Point, our miniature Spartan community.? With all of the pomp and circumstance, postulating and analyzing, and finally, the postponement of A Charlie Brown Christmas; he stood before America and her warriors to announce the direction of a policy that didn?t merely affect numbers and graphs and charts.? This affects people and families and communities and countries far greater than any other markers in history.?

Don?t let this fool you.? The delivery was poor, and perhaps unenthusiastic.? What President Obama did, however, was make the right decision.? He will take shots from people within his ranks, and there are some particulars that many of us Conservatives?may disagree with.? However, it is at this moment that President Obama was asked to make the life altering decision for hundreds of thousands of Americans attached to the military, about whether or not their sacrifices were to have been made in vain.? He chose not.? He chose a step toward a victorious end instead of a mild defeat.? He came out and gave our men and women in uniform an opportunity to win a battle nearly a decade in the making.? We may not agree with much that President Obama does, but at this turbulent moment in our nation?s history, with regard to this specific circumstance that defines our Nation?s ability to combat those who threaten our being, our President faced a choice and he chose to support our troops and their cause: now we must support him in this endeavor.

-rj

Obama?s National Security Strategy is NO LONGER FUNNY

A few weeks back, I joked with friends about Secretary Hillary Clinton?s explosion over a mistranslated question from a young man who was asking how the President felt about a particular situation, but the Secretary thought he was asking what Former President Bill Clinton thought.? What I found to be particularly funny about that situation was the fact that it was the first time that the Obama Administration was willing to take a strong stance on something regarding foreign affairs.? No strong stance when Iran killed Pro-democracy demonstrators; no strong stance when North Korea launched missiles after being asked not to by the international community; hell, our President claims to need to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and now he can?t even decide on that!? Nevertheless, this administration will NOT tolerate the degrading of our Secretary of State by inquiring as to her husband?s thoughts? though that wasn?t even the case.

So my friends and I shared a few laughs: It is no longer funny now.

One can point out the interesting infatuation America?s enemies had for President Obama?s electoral outcome.? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent President Obama a warm letter of congratulations following his election win; President Chavez made the comment at the UN this past week that the podium no longer smelled of ?sulfur? as it had following President Bush, but rather ?smelled of Hope;? and just recently Cuban President Fidel Castro praised President Obama?s climate change policy.? To be fair, criticism of the President over others? applause for him is unfair, because we can?t choose the people who root for us.? Remember the nefarious David Duke?s endorsement of former President Ronald Reagan?? Rather, Conservatives and moderates, and people with half a mind for foreign policy (which discredits failed National Security Advisor Brzezinsky and his call to shoot down Israeli jets), need to start addressing our President?s austere manner in which he seems to be throwing allies under the bus.? The Czech Republic, Poland and Israel are now starting the club for countries unpleasantly surprised by the new direction of American international relations.? I cannot help to point out that even if the United States didlegitimately believe it strategically necessary to drop the compact with Poland regarding our missile defense shield, the?timing and manner in?which we did it demonstrates our willingness to be more diplomatic with enemies, and less so with our friends.? Despite these grievances, the particular situation?that needs to be immediately addressed?is the growing hostilities in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is at its tipping point.? What happens in the coming months is going to decide the outcome of our endeavor, one way or another.? We must listen to General McChrystal?s request for more troops in order to fully exercise his comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy, we must give our forces over there all of the equipment and personnel they need and we must throw the gauntlet down onto the rocky terrain?to demonstrate?that we are willing to do what it takes to win this battle.? If we fail to do these things, then we will?fail at winning the war.? We cannot win a war based on the perception and respect of an indigenous population that knows only to follow a regime that demands respect, if we are to continue to look weak and emasculated.? Sadly, this is due not only to our soft-bellied liberal friends, but a toned-down effort in Afghanistan was fairly-recently advocated by leading Conservative intellectual George Will.? Almost everyone in favor of de-escalation (including Paleoconservatives, George Will and some liberals to name a few) advocates a replacement?policy of limited off-shore presence and limited direct action.

There is something romantic about special operations forces and the idea of limited engagement.? Special operations is what we see in the movies and read in books; the former tending to exaggerate the ease of which such Direct Action missions are carried out.? We enjoy the movies with Chuck Norris and Charlie Sheen (and one of my personal favorites, the opening scene from Air Force One) that embellish the Direct Action capabilities of our Special Operations Forces and give no regard to their more important uses.? Foreign Internal Defense, Civil Affairs, and force multiplying aspects of SOF community are considered by those in the military and in policy the most important.? General McChrystal, a prior Special Operator, knows this and that is why he is advocating a policy that turns conventional units into units that will be better able to carry out these three important missions.? You cannot do this with Navy ships, Tomahawks, and DA missions alone.

There is one more thing that should be addressed; that carries a weight of importance equivalent to the outcome of the mission through tactics.? Imagine yourself overseas in Afghanistan at this moment, or imagine a loved one there currently.? For many, the latter scenario is not far from reality.? How are our troops and their families supposed to carry out a mission when even their own President’s fortitude is flailing?? It is one thing to second guess strategy, but President Obama is second guessing intent and necessity; leaving anyone over there in a sort of?purgatory, because what has now been planted into the hearts and heads of our men and women is a feeling so dichotomous to hope, they are left asking themselves ?if I were to fall tomorrow, and the President pull out next month, what will I have died for??? Having a second-guessing President raises these doubts and makes accomplishing the mission at hand all the more difficult.? If there is anything harder than losing a loved one, it?s losing a loved one right before a withdrawal; which invariable leaves their loss feeling less hollowed and more for nothing.? Our troops deserve better than this.? They deserve a leader.? They are getting the opposite.?

-rj

The ‘Will’ to Power in Afghanistan

The hallways and tunnels of the federal government echo the clatter of everyday life very well.? When it comes to the Senate and House Office buildings, this is just the product of the acoustics of the hallways teaming with the hardened floors coupled with the soles of expensive shoes and the muffled talk of staffers and passers by.? When someone walks through the Capitol, there is something sacred about the forced penitence encumbered by everyone who graces the halls of that hollowed building.? When the mason guilds of Europe built the great cathedrals, they did so in a manner that amplified every minute sound that came to being.? One could not tread heavily or even speak softly without everyone else in the cathedral knowing, which served to promote silent reverence in the house of God.? There is a feeling that someone gets, an added burden of weight dropped upon the shoulders of someone who enters into such a room, be it a cathedral, hallway, or what have you.? There is something subliminally transcendent that one feels; we like this feeling because it is our connection with that which we respect on a separate plane.?

Within these halls, and outside as well, George Will?s column yesterday has encouraged an increase in muffled debate amongst conservatives.? Mr. Will has called for a pull-out in essence.? With his typical erudition, he lays out history and fact before making his prognostication:

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Conservatives have been regarded as the avant-gardefor the status-quo; we choose the ?devil we know? over ?the devil we do not know.?? These days, I believe it is safe to say that Conservatives are the ones more inclined to point out that strategy in Afghanistan needs to change.? Max Boot, not even a week prior to George Will?s bombshell, mentioned on Commentary?s website?that it is ?only by adding more resources can Obama offer the prospect of long-term victory in a war effort that he himself has deemed a ?war of necessity.??? It is no longer the conservative population harking ?stay the course,? especially following the success of ?the surge? in Iraq.? Iraq saw dwindling public support, increased violence, and looked to be a situation worth second-guessing: only second guessing does not act as a reset button.? Few people supported the surge at the beginning, even President Bush was skeptical.? In the end, he decided to do what should have been done since the beginning which was to populate the country with boots on the ground and create a catalyst for growth and development through security.? Should President Obama accompany the present troop surge in Afghanistan with the proper counter-insurgency plan with the help of Gen. McChrystal, he can orchestrate a turn-around for the better which deserves bipartisan support like nothing else could.?

Mr. Will?s column advocating that everyone see the glass for what it is to him, which is half-empty, does not help the war effort, the conservative movement, or his own image.? While the ashes in New York were still smoldering, and cheeks of loved ones who lost that September day were still damp; Mr. Will wrote at the beginning of the Afghan excursion: ?When advocates of merely minor objectives are praised as ?cooler heads,? the pertinent attribute may be cold feet.?? His support, along with some 80% of all Americans at the time, of the war in Afghanistan was supposed to stand the test of time.? The public support for Enduring Freedom has fallen precipitously since then; in July, 36% of respondents in a Gallup poll said that going to Afghanistan was a mistake.? It was not the highest we have had, but those in the mistake camp have multiplied their numbers from 6% in 2002 to what it is today.? Mr. Will may not be in the mistake camp, but his words give them fodder.? What?s more depressing, is the number of elected officials who are questioning the mission their.? Fortunately, many refrain from doing so publicly, but their venomous pessimism spreads covertly into the mainstream American consciousness.?

Mr. Will?s article calling for pulling out is scant in comparison to many of his verbose narratives; but like many other concise exercises of thought and word (the Gettysburg Address for example) his article packs a mighty punch to the establishment.? There was one reflection that struck me in particular; it was how he ended the article:

?Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

The esoteric now in the word knowing was an interesting touch.? His final point regards squandering valor.? Now I am quick to admit, with great humility, that I do not serve and have not served in the armed forces, despite coming from a family that did and continues to.? I remember my Senior year in high school when my father served bravely in Afghanistan, and I watched news reports and dreaded word of fatalities.? I remember being in AP US History with Mr. Lube (shortened version of his very long, Polish name) and my cell phone had gone off in class on my birthday.? I looked down in embarrassment and saw the scrambled number or the word Private or something that made me realize that my dad was calling during one of the rare times he could grab a satellite phone.? I gave Mr. Lube a look and he told me I could leave the class to take the call outside.? Dad and I spoke briefly, he wished me happy birthday over the delayed line and then we hung up.? I stood in the locker bank for a minute and stared at my phone.? Tears welled up in my eyes, and in a shameless display of weakness and futility I cried.? Nobody with friends or family overseas wishes to have more people to share their worries with in the end, because that means more people feel the cocktail of uncontrollable emotions and living with a loved one overseas.? There is something that would feel worse to anyone with a family member or friend who is overseas; and that is thinking that their sacrifice, their blood, your tears or their life went in vain.? American valor cannot be squandered unless we take the route the Mr. Will prescribes.? American valor will not be squandered when we take the route that secures the freedoms of a people, the security of our country, and sanctifies the mission for which so many gave their lives.

-rj

The Marriage of Iraq and Afghanistan

The War in Iraq is a victory for the United States. While it was not reminiscent of the victories in the World Wars, it is a victory nonetheless. General David Petraeus said in an interview with the BBC, “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant a flag and go home to a victory parade. … it’s not” a “war with a simple slogan.” Here is what victory means in Iraq. It means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its borders, and it means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its people, then moves forward on its path to democracy.

With Obama ordering more than 4,000 troops to Afghanistan it seems he is using a strategy similar to the controversial “surge” in Iraq which was highly successful. The 4,000 troops bolster the dispatch of an additional 17,000 forces. The President also plans on sending hundreds of additional civilians to balance the military surge.

President Obama needs to address the victory in Iraq and tell Americans as John McCain did when he spoke at The Heritage Foundation on March 26, 2009, “We can have victory in Afghanistan just as we did in Iraq”, but “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.” That is the nature of a troop surge, a short increase in casualties and then a sharp decline in them. President Obama needs to be honest with the American people about this, but it is vital that he declares victory in Iraq to boost morale in Afghanistan.

The President also seems to be embracing the controversial and polarizing nation building views of the Bush Administration. Iraq was victorious and evidence of that will come to greater fruition in years ahead when our country realizes that President Bush kept us safe and the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. A victory in Afghanistan will undeniably improve the safety of America and of the world. ?President Obama reiterated this point on March 27, 2009; “This is not simply an American problem – far from it,” It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan.”

-sam