Missile defense, now is the time!

WMD and ballistic missile proliferation trends make the case for a missile shield.
by Peter Brookes

Just 10 years ago, there were only six nuclear weapons states. Today, there are nine—with another country knocking on the door of the once-exclusive atomsplitting
club.

Twenty-five years ago, nine countrieshad ballistic missiles. Today there are nearly 30—not to mention that ballistic missile testing hit record post-Cold War highs just last year.

Clearly, the ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation trend isn’t positive. Despite this, a missile defense system that would protect the homeland, American troops overseas, allies and friends remains a controversial idea in some corners of American thought.

While the George W. Bush administration took significant steps to develop sea- and land-based missile defense systems to thwart the growing threat, development of the missile shield is far from complete. Considering just Iran’s nuclear efforts, North Korea’s assistance to Syria, and robust Russian and Chinese arsenals, it’s imperative
that the White House and Congress support missile defense programs to close a gaping hole in our national security.

Read the entire 6 page piece here in PDF form.

Military does a good job, gets slapped.

Here it all goes again. I cannot stand the people that feel the military can act with judgment and humanity everywhere in the world... EXCEPT here on our own shores. I ask a serious question: How is feeling that the military is unable to act with restraint here in the US any different than just calling them all "cold blooded killers"?

Soldiers’ help reviewed after Ala. shootings

Law restricts military from helping civilian authorities
By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 28, 2009 9:00:41 EDT

The deployment of 22 active-duty military police and the provost marshal from Fort Rucker, Ala., to the scene of a civilian killing spree 25 miles from post may have violated federal law.

But the deployment may also have been within the legal parameters of how the military is permitted to assist civilian authorities in cases of emergencies.

That’s what an ongoing Army investigation hopes to unravel.

Ten people died in the March 10 rampage in southeastern Alabama by a man police identified as Michael McClendon, 28, of Kinston, Ala., where the first killing took place around 3:30 p.m. The shooter took his own life less than an hour later after an exchange of gunfire with police.

Geneva County Sheriff Greg Ward at first did not respond to an offer of help from an unidentified lieutenant colonel at Fort Rucker who said he could provide generators, lights and other equipment. But with seven separate crime scenes spanning a 20-mile area and a 12-man force that was exhausted and overwhelmed, he called back later and requested the MPs.

“The lieutenant colonel called our [911] dispatch to say ‘we’re here if you need us,’” Ward told Army Times in a phone interview. “I thought, let me call them back. So I asked for MPs to come in and relieve our personnel long enough so they could get something to eat,” Ward said, explaining that most of his men and about 10 police officers from Samson and Kinston had been on the job since 7 a.m.

The soldiers, he said, were in Samson for about three hours and were assigned to direct traffic flow at five intersections. Some helped keep sightseers away from the worst crime scene, where six of the victims’ bodies lay on a porch, including an 18-month-old baby.

...

The deployment of nonmedical, active-duty troops in response to a local emergency could be a violation of federal law if the soldiers engaged in law enforcement activities.

The Posse Comitatus Act, and its many exceptions, mostly restricts the military and units of the National Guard under Title 10 authority from acting in a law enforcement role within the U.S.

...

Ward praised the MPs.

“That lieutenant colonel was not out of place. He called to say ‘we’re here if you need us,’ ” Ward said.

In my earlier piece "Repeal Posse Comitatus, or educate the public!" I spoke about the TRUE meaning of this act, and it's creation. White democrats trying to prevent freed slaves from voting. And to get this passed: they said approve it or we won't fund the Army. Dems never change.

...it has been said that only Congress can “ok” the use of the military on domestic soil. However, if you read the act it says “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” I stress the word “OR.” That word was obviously used to encourage the approval of Congress BUT it was not to limit and take away the powers of our Commander in Chief. So the history of the act is important, as well as the Sense of congress.

PLEASE do not allow yourself to fall into the belief the US Military cannot be used here in the United States. It is false, and why would you trust local police so much more than someone who chose to serve their nation?

Collapse, may take missile defense with it.

As if the fight for missile defense was not going to be tough enough with our entire US government in the hands of the left, a much larger stumbling block may have just been thrown down. This collapse could destroy all the effort put in to the European shield.

Open For Questions. (UPDATED)

Here is my favorite question so far from the newest New new media site by this Administration (Open For Questions). I have been through nearly 100 as I vote. Here is my favorite (as a real question), find yours and leave it in the comments!

"I'd like to directly see the results from the stimulus funds already deployed. Will there be a sign on road projects, for example, so we know that project happened because of the new funds?"

[UPDATED:]
Holy CRAP. This is what the left has delivered to our country:

"Would you be willing to tax all income over $250,000 at a rate of 91%? This is how is was until about 30 years ago? Does anyone need that much money to survive?"

Umm maybe because you are punishing achievement? How about you make kids in school and college pay more in tuition the higher their grades are? Fair is fair I'd have to say.

[UPDATED:]
BEST QUESTION I THINK I WILL FIND:

"I have a Masters, lost my job a year ago, & can't afford a trampoline for my kids. There is a $3,500 swing set outside your window .You proclaim "we're all in this together". As a millionaire, how do you relate to my struggle to merely get a job?"

Dreams of history coming true.

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.

— President Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983

Umm... *speechless* (vulgar rant)

Seriously? Is he f'ing serious?

Obama criticizes some Gitmo release decisions

By Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Mar 21, 2009 15:52:28 EDT

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says the U.S. hasn’t done a good job sorting out who should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Obama says in a broadcast interview that some of the people released from the facility in Cuba have rejoined terrorist groups. He also says U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining which prisoners will be a danger once they are let go.

But he says the Bush administration’s policy of holding detainees for years on end with no trials is “unsustainable,’ and has only fueled anti-American sentiments.

In a taped interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” he also disputes former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that plans to close Guantanamo will make America less safe.

CBS released excerpts Saturday from the interview. The show will air Sunday evening

It was your new policies you MORON! You are making it worse. You were the FUCKING IDIOT that said "close" GTMO when you had NO CLUE WHAT THE HELL to do with the ECs!In your effort to bend over and take it up the rear on behalf of America to "rebuild our status" in the world YOU want to let terrorists run free.

With all due respect Mr. President, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IN THE HELL DANGER YOU ARE RELEASING ON THE WORLD.

Cheney was right.

The one and only AIG post I will do. (UPDATED)

Read the entire report here...

I want to know if the politicians on this list that received donations from AIG, and are now treating AIG like they raped our fruited plains will be returning this money? $165 million is such a small amount when compared to the overall situation... this has become a smokescreen like none other.

In relation to the $165 million Politicians took .0039% of that amount for their campaigns. Shouldn't they return the money, it's for the "taxpayers" after all.

A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.

That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone.

As Krauthammer points out this $165 million (which is indeed a boat load for most people) is like spitting in the ocean when put in to context. So I say if you are going to spend my money bailing companies out, then have hearings (costing money) about getting the money back regardless of the fact that the economy is not teetering due to this $165 million! Then:

Congressmen and Senators, give back the money or rid yourself of the honorable titles and take that of hypocrite. If you say the CEOs do not deserve such benefits, you are the ones that signed off on the stimulus money so you on the Hill and White House deserve the money even LESS than the execs.

And that is all I have to say about AIG.

[UPDATE:]

GOP wants probe into AIG donation

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) | New York's Republican Party says the Democrat-controlled state government is ignoring calls for an investigation into a $100,000 donation to the state Democratic Party from American International Group days before officials initiated the bailout of the insurance giant.

State Republican Chairman Joseph Mondello accuses Democrats of a duck-and-cover response to disclosure of the donation, first reported Thursday by the Associated Press.

"Several public calls have been issued for a thorough investigation into the matter, yet the all-Democrat state government continues to stonewall and refuses a thorough and independent investigation," Mr. Mondello said.

Continue reading here at the Washington Times...

How much does the left hate the military?

(h/t Pat Dollard, read the story here.)

BlackFive's take on it.

Missile Defense is un-proven?

Now we have more success (PDF) coming in the THAAD program the other day (WMV):

March 18, 2009
Successful Intercept in Missile Defense Flight Test

The Department of Defense's Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Army soldiers from the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas, completed a successful intercept of a ballistic missile target during a test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense element of the nation's Ballistic Missile Defense System March 17 at approximately 2:30 p.m. Hawaii time (8:30 p.m. EDT) at the Pacific Missile Range Facility off the island of Kauai in Hawaii. Preliminary indications are that planned flight test objectives were achieved. THAAD is a mobile system now in development designed to intercept short to medium range ballistic missiles.

Soldiers of the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade conducted launcher, fire control and radar operations, using tactics, techniques and procedures developed by the U.S. Army Air Defense School. The THAAD program is managed by the Missile Defense Agency in Washington, D.C., and executed by the THAAD Project Office in Huntsville, Ala.

Each and every phase of a missiles flight is being countered. Success, I suppose, is failure to President Obama.

Where flip-flopping, missile defense, and the stimulus come together.

POLL: Vice President Cheney

Here is the transcript, and both Q&A. Regarding safety:

KING: I'd like to just simply ask you, yes or no, by taking those steps, do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.

Regarding Rush:

KING: What next for your party? There has been a big dust-up in recent days, in parts stoked by the White House, about Rush Limbaugh making some comments. David Frum, a conservative who worked in your administration, says that Rush Limbaugh is kryptonite, because he drives away the voters the Republicans need to build the road to discovery. Is Rush Limbaugh kryptonite?

CHENEY: No, Rush is a good friend. I love him. I think he does great work and has for years. He's now offered to debate President Obama on his radio show. Hell, I'd pay to see that! It would be interesting to have developed.

I think Rush is a good man and serves a very important purpose.

I TOLD YOU SO

That is right, all the pieces of the puzzle are falling together! I am sure as usual the left will scoff at such an idea, and I am not saying that Russia does not have a right to do some of the things it is doing...I just want people to see it for what it really is. It is a return to the Soviet Era. The weapons still exist and the mindset of the communist Soviet rule is back.




For crying out loud, look at Putin. He looks like he walked right off the silver screen of a Bond film. I have sadly documented this over years, but people just don't want to have to imagine going back to the Cold War days. We all want the Wall gone and the beauty, art, and freedom of the West to strive over the dark and gloomy East.

Russia could use bases for its strategic bombers on the doorstep of the United States in Cuba and Venezuela to underpin long-distance patrols in the region, a senior air force officer said Saturday.

"This is possible in Cuba," General Anatoly Zhikharev, chief of the Russian air force's strategic aviation staff, told the Interfax-AVN military news agency.

The comments were the latest signal that Moscow intends to project its military capability in far-flung corners of the globe despite a tight defence budget and hardware that experts consider in many respects outdated.

CASTRO AND HIS SECOND COLD WAR(20060210):

There is a new Cold War and, what good Cold War doesn't involve a missile crisis? Of course like any good show the second one has to be better. The first Cold War involved 2 countries, the missile crisis introduced a 3rd party player for a short time. I now introduce the players.

Nothing better than to pick up where we left off. Russia, land of well, snow. They spent many years toe-to-toe with us and now plan to again. I understand the people out there saying "no...no" you are being over-dramatic! Am I?

"President Vladimir Putin boasted Tuesday that Russia has new missiles capable of penetrating any missile defense system and said he had briefed the French president on their capabilities."

USSR WATCH TWO(20070530):

The Soviet Union is once again ratcheting up the rhetoric aimed at the US like they did in the Cold War. The only problem is they are not the force they were then. Between the fall of communism and their grip on vast areas they failed. However, as the months pass the (need I remind you) “ex-“KGB President Putin has taken steps back towards the good ol’ days. The steps he has taken have even had some on the left, and those that hate America peeved.

USSR WATCH THREE (20070726):

What is it that we always hear people say? Oh yes “the children are our future.” Let’s hope that is not the case, otherwise my USSR talk which started off as a mild half-truth is becoming a scary fact in the world. A new poll conducted in the current Russia (soon to be USSR) showed that half of nearly 2,000 kids between 16-19 thought Stalin was a wise leader.

USSR WATCH FOUR (20070818):

"I made a decision to restore flights of Russian strategic bombers on a permanent basis, and at 00:00 today, August 17, 14 strategic bombers, support aircraft and aerial tankers were deployed. Combat duty has begun, involving 20 aircraft.

USSR WATCH FIVE (20070926):

“Putin has stressed the need for patriotism and pride, restored Soviet- era symbols such as the music for the national anthem, and has said repeatedly that Western portrayals of Russia and its history are too negative.”

"I was not satisfied with this," Gorbachev said, suggesting it smacked of a return to the Soviet era.”

USSR WATCH (20090227):

Well sure enough we have Russia working hard to push the US out of a base used for the support in the Global War on Terrorism, in Afghanistan. Was not one of President Obama's campaign points to "win" in Afghanistan? But now he IS being tested and instead of standing up to Putin... he seems to not be worried about SUPPORTING the efforts in Afghanisatan over standing up to Putin!

Find all of my posts re: the USSR and Russia by looking at these two site searches:

USSR Russia

Education Reduces Stigma Facing Redeployed Soldiers

Education Reduces Stigma Facing Redeployed Soldiers
By Mark Heeter
Special to American Forces Press Service

SCHWEINFURT, Germany, March 13, 2009 – Stigma is a six-letter word with enormous consequences, a senior health official said.

"Stigma kills," said Army Brig. Gen. (Dr.) Loree K. Sutton, special assistant to the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs for psychological health and traumatic brain injury, borrowing a catchphrase she learned from colleagues in the Canadian armed forces.

"They consider stigma a deadly, toxic workplace hazard. I like that term. Because as a leader, if any of us become aware of a deadly, toxic workplace hazard, we're not content with just minimizing it. No, we have to eliminate," Sutton said during a recent visit to the Schweinfurt Health Clinic here.

And one key to de-stigmatizing the mental and psychological challenges facing soldiers upon redeployment is education, said Army 1st Sgt. Creed McCaslin of the Warrior Transition Battalion at Fort Lewis, Wash.

McCaslin joined Sutton on the Schweinfurt visit with Army Brig. Gen. (Dr.) Rhonda Cornum, director of the Army’s comprehensive soldier fitness program, and Army Brig. Gen. Keith Gallagher, commander of U.S. Army Europe Regional Medical Command.

"We have to educate society. You have to understand, when a soldier comes back, he's going to be different," said McCaslin, a Purple Heart recipient who has logged four deployments in his Army career.

"It's just not like turning off the light switch" for soldiers, and sometimes they have drastically different reactions to their environment, McCaslin said.

Cornum pointed out that "the majority of them will come back more appreciative of their family, more responsible. They will come back better able to determine what is important.”

Most redeploying troops return as better citizens after what can be a defining or changing moment in their lives, she said, especially reservists.

"I know for me, I appreciate life a lot more," McCaslin said. "Family's become a lot more important; society's become more important; my ethos, in general, my values on life have changed and become a lot stronger."

Most redeploying troops are “going to come back, and they're going to reintegrate into their communities," Cornum said. However, she said, “they may have some of that hyper-alertness; they won't be the same … the ways they will come back better will not be obvious [initially]."

Americans need to be engaged with the military to learn about mental health, mild traumatic brain injuries, and psychological impacts of combat, Sutton stressed.

"We want to educate the country and ignite the level of dialogue and hope," she said.

(Mark Heeter serves with the U.S. Army Garrison Schweinfurt public affairs office.)

Pelosi abusing a privlege and the military, at once (UPDATED)

Here we go again. It happened before where the new Speaker thought the USAF is her private airline. Mostly due to the fact that she is third in line for the Oval Office, gives me enough reason to feel she may "need" an aircraft.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly requested military aircraft to shuttle her and her colleagues and family around the country, according to a new report from a conservative watchdog group. Representatives for Judicial Watch, which obtained e-mails and other documents from a Freedom of Information request, said the correspondence shows Pelosi has abused the system in place to accommodate congressional leaders and treated the Air Force as her "personal airline."
... In one e-mail, aide Kay King complained to the military that they had not made available any aircraft the House speaker wanted for Memorial Day recess. "It is my understanding there are NO G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable ... The Speaker will want to know where the planes are," King wrote.

So now she needs MULTIPLE planes at her beckon call? I do not think so. This is unacceptable and I want to know when the Commander in Chief is going to step forward and tell her that the United States Air Force is not her private airline, and they take orders from HIM... not her ugly old face. (Yeah I went personal, deal.)

One of my personal favorite excerpts:

Documents obtained from the U.S. Army include correspondence from Speaker Pelosi's office requesting an Army escort and three military planes to transport Pelosi and other members of Congress to Cleveland, Ohio, for the funeral services of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Pelosi noted in her letter of August 22, 2008, that such a request, labeled "Operation Tribute" was an "exception to standard policy."

Three planes? Ummm, F. U. Coming Summer of 2009, Speaker Pelosi's Yacht...

[UPDATE:]



RedState did some fantastic work on this:

The email traffic makes it clear that, even if Pelosi herself wasn’t on the horn to DOD demanding personal transport, more comfort, and personal use of military bases and resources, her staff certainly was — and the DOD knew full well that the requests were coming not from the House Sergeant-at-Arms office, as Pelosi claimed, but from those speaking for the Speaker herself.

As well as Michelle Malkin:

Another official pointed out the “hidden costs” associated with the speaker’s last minute changes and cancellations. “We have…folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc.” Upset that a specific type of aircraft was not available to her boss, a Pelosi staffer carped to the DoD coordinators: “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker.”

DHS aka: Free ATM

Secretaries Donovan and Napolitano Announce Hurricane Recovery Funding for Louisiana

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IN THE HELL THE GOVERNMENT IS USING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO FIX THE ECONOMY/DISTRIBUTE MONEY???

Additionally, Napolitano announced that FEMA will extend the Relocation Assistance Program to May 1, 2009. Families that were displaced from their primary residence in a disaster declared area as a result of Katrina and Rita are eligible for up to $4,000 in reimbursement for relocation expenses through the Relocation Assistance Program. Under the new extension, applicants can file a claim if they incurred relocation expenses between Aug. 29, 2005 and May 1, 2009.

Oh great so the bureaucratic mess of DHS that I never liked (yeah, even under Bush!) is going to be part of this economic stimulus and redistribution of wealth? What in God's name is going on. Now I am really pissed off. I don't want any of my money paying for a city below sea level to continue. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

The US Taxpayers are paying for people to f'ing move? Are you kidding me? ARE YOU GOD DAMN KIDDING ME?

So while I am making sure use coupons to keep money in the bank, my taxes are paying for the damn bubble wrap of people moving..still to this day? Almost 4 years later? Please pardon me while I call 911 prior to my head EXPLODING.

Trust enemies, Deny, and non-transparency.

UNDISCLOSED -- So we have had the flap over the Obama Administration willing to toss missile defense to the wolves on the basis that the USSR and Iran will keep their word. Then we have SECSTATE taking part in tossing eastern Europe & parts of NATO under the bus. Do I need to post the Zucker commercial again to show how trusting our enemies works out?

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he wanted to work with Russia to resolve a nuclear stand-off with Iran but denied reports he had offered to slow deployment of a missile defense shield in exchange for Moscow's help.

I have an idea. Why doesn't Obama break out some of that good old transparency and release the actual letter sent to the USSR? There came a point in the Cuban Missile Crisis where we made public highly sensitive intelligence to prove what was going on. This letter cannot be nearly as sensitive, and yet the situation we are in is getting closer and closer to "crisis."

Truth Commission? (UPDATED)

(Yes it is still shots, but I am not all super at making videos. Content people, content.)

Email Senator Leahy:
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on Establishing a Truth Commission

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Leahy (D-VT) held a hearing on the creation of a nonpartisan commission to investigate past national security policies. Sen. Leahy (D-VT) first called for a truth commission, which would inquire into alleged wrongdoing by past Administrations, during an event on Capitol Hill.

[UPDATE:]

Sippican Cottage: My Father Asks For Nothing

Sippican Cottage: My Father Asks For Nothing

Poll (not) heard 'round the world!

MAJOR HAT-TIP: All American Blogger

I don't recall the left being outraged at THEMSELVES...do you? Not trying to continue the Steele vs. Limbaugh battle. This is about hypocritical democrats being OK 3 years ago with wanting a President to fail (based on policy I will assume), while now we are all supposed to jump on the Hope 'n Change train and toss our principles aside because he is "historic."

With all due respect, shove that where the sun don't shine.

Troops opine.

The goal of C.I.R to discuss and prove: An effective country means striving and aiming for victory, anything else is unacceptable. What part do the liberals and press play in the United States overall mission?

In this case President Obama is the Liberal. There were interesting differences when I was watching it was only recently that I came across the following two posts: Amy Proctor, Blackfive. I was actually on the phone with an avid troop supporter who we all know, and the two of us ended up speaking about the differences.

This in no way means that the military will not follow orders but I think it is "instructive" to look at the flat honest response of the two Commanders in Chief.

Heritage leading on MDA as always...

Missile Mayhem
By James Carafano

When is a negotiation not a negotiation? And a rejection not a rejection? Apparently in the Alice in Wonderland exchange of notes and replies between the United States and Russia.

President Obama sent a secret letter to the Russian president suggesting if Iran did not have a nuclear and ballistic missile program the United wouldn’t need to build a missile defense shield. The Russians replied that they had no interest in trading anything to prevent the United States from building missile defense sites in Europe. They were just dead-sent against it. Once the letter became public both rejected the suggestion that they were negotiating over missile defense as a bargaining chip.

That left most analysts like myself speechless–did they really believe anybody believes this was anything but a clear rebuff to the new president. As I told the USA Today, “I’m not sure what the administration is doing. You can’t negotiate away something that doesn’t exist. It’s just nutty.”

To our dismay, the administration follow-up was even stranger. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama would weigh a number of factors in deciding whether to proceed with a missile-defense system, “including whether or not the system worked and the cost of the system.” By sending signals it does not take missile defense seriously, the White House is only encouraging the Iranians to speed-up their missile and weapons programs and the Russians to demand more quid pro quo in any negotiations with the United States.

Yet, folks continue to believe the administration “hitting the reset button” rhetoric means something. “Michael Mandelbaum, a professor at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said Obama’s “charm offensive” is not likely to work with Iran, Syria and other U.S. adversaries. But pursuing it with Russia, he said, is the right course….If we could trade these (missile) deployments for serious Russian pressure on Iran” to stop its nuclear ambitions, he said, “that would be a very good trade for us.”

Hello, the Russians have already said “No!” to this. And with good reason…they are selling nuclear technology and air defenses to protect nuclear sites to the Iranians. Even if the Russians said “Yes” the Iranians would say “No.” They have no interest in giving up their weapons program as a favor to the Russians. And even if the Iranians said “Yes” it would take years to negotiate a verification system to prove they really were disarming…and in that time could covertly build missiles and nuclear weapons…and if we stopped building missile defenses now we would be caught with no defense.

I wish the folks at the White House would spend even five minutes watching 33 Minutes, our documentary about the missile threat. If they did they might be less inclined to dangerous diplomacy, that leaves America and its allies hostage to foreign missile threats while folks in the administration engage in talks that will likely only make us less not more safe.

Obam-ing the Military. Yikes!

Some of the key portions from the following piece in the Wall Street Journal. (h/t Wordsmith) Ok, scratch that... the entire thing is important and I always worry about articles disappearing off sites. So here is the entire piece:

Declining Defense
Obama's budget does cut one federal department.

For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.

The White House proposes to spend $533.7 billion on the Pentagon, a 4% increase over 2009. Include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would be another $130 billion (or a total of $664 billion), and overall defense spending would be around 4.2% of GDP, the same as 2007.

However, that 4% funding increase for the Pentagon trails the 6.7% overall rise in the 2010 budget -- and defense received almost nothing extra in the recent stimulus bill. The Joint Chiefs requested $584 billion for 2010 and have suggested a spending floor of 4% of GDP. Both pleas fell on deaf ears. The White House budget puts baseline defense spending at 3.7% of GDP, not including Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget summary pleads "scarce resources" for the defense shortfall, which is preposterous given the domestic spending blowout.

More ominously, Mr. Obama's budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years -- to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade. This means that relative both to the economy and especially to domestic priorities, defense spending is earmarked to decline. Some of this assumes less spending on Iraq, which is realistic, but it also has to take account of Mr. Obama's surge in Afghanistan. That war won't be cheap either.

The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s. Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn't nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror -- and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower.

American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama's budget isn't adequate to meet those challenges.

That means Secretary of Defense Robert Gates faces some hard choices when he finishes his strategic review this spring. An early glimpse will come soon when the Pentagon must decide whether to continue to purchase more Lockheed F-22 Raptors. The Air Force is set to buy 183 of the next generation fighters, though it wanted 750, which would be enough to give the U.S. air supremacy over battlefields over the next three decades. Now the fighter may be prematurely mothballed.

Weapons programs, such as missile defense or the Army's Future Combat Systems, are also in danger. Others have been ridiculously delayed. The Air Force flies refueling tankers from the Eisenhower era. Mr. Obama's own 30-something Marine One helicopter is prone to break down and technologically out of date.

The Pentagon shouldn't get a blank check, though much of its procurement waste results from the demands made by Congress. Mr. Gates has also rightly focused on the immediate priority of irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. But history also teaches that a nation that downplays potential threats -- such as from China in outer space -- is likely to find itself ill-prepared when they arrive.

The U.S. ability to project power abroad has been crucial to maintaining a relatively peaceful world, but we have been living off the fruits of our Cold War investments for too long. We can't afford another lost defense decade.

CinC Pentagon Channel Interview

President Obama of course spoke about his vision to draw down troops in Iraq but "surge" in Afghanistan. And once again more talk about "diplomatic efforts being ramped up."

"Well thought out strategy. Clear goals. Achievable. I can marshal and maintain strongest support possible from the folks back home."

So I am waiting, his "clear goals" seem to start and end at "diplomatic efforts." And what concerned me the most out of that exchange was the final sentence about support. It actually seems like "support at home" is an actual "goal." What kind of a leader is willing to actually imply in an interview that he would end a war if the Americans became restless?

Remember, terrorists have used the example of Somalia (Black Hawk Down) as proof they can win. Saying that we value life to such a degree that if they can kill a few Americans it will send the entire strength of the US military running the other way. Of course I value life, but at what point is life worth living if you don't stand up for what is right?

Here is the Commander in Chief of the sole superpower imply that if the public feels too much harm is being done he will not continue an endeavor? Where is Kennedy (the good one) when you need him:

"We choose not to do these things because they are easy, we choose to do them because they are hard."

Does President Obama think that 100% of the people at the time of the Revolutionary War were behind fighting a war? There were pockets of anti-war people, would he have then felt there was not enough support?

"Greater additional casualties, at least in the short term. Just as there was in Iraq."

What? Obama feels there will be greater casualties during the surge in Afghanistan? How can he commit troops to death? Hey the left spent the better part of 8 years asking Bush. But isn't it so ironic that when then Senator Obama was running around screaming about how the "surge hasn't worked," one of his reasons was an increased toll in life. So for all you youngins' out there. Surge resulting in KIAs under Bush is warmongering, surge resulting in KIAs under Obama is a "strategy" with "achievable goals." Ok.

But the best is his reasons given for the timeline being used:

"After the election takes place."

That is right, We cannot pull troops out NOW because they need time to have elections. ONCE AGAIN, fine when he says it...not fine when that was part of the Bush Strategy to stabilize Iraq. Ironic, and would be funny if it wasn't so god damn pathetic.

As we start to come to an end, he is asked why the difference in numbers for the draw down? He gave a completely legitimate reason:

"All these decisions have to be made based on what the situation is at the time."

From him I do NOT accept that. I am hearing support at home is most important, no diplomacy is, wait...the current situation. When Bush made similar comments the left tried to laugh him off the Stage along with General Petraeus...I simply want to Give Obama the same respect he gave the two of them.

In conclusion I am sadly forced back to the issue of the Commander in Chief inspiring hope, belief in our strength. Do you think the following statement induces such a feeling in Americans or our enemies?

"We do not have the strategic capability."

I am sorry but President Obama Has a long way to go in making me feel as though his heart is in the battle as much as former President Bush. Nor his mind. Which of these two interviews fills you with more pride and HOPE? HOPE I Say!

Also note how President Obama says his wife meets with the families, but former President Bush speaks about how he does...just saying.

SECDEF or Mouthpiece? [UPDATED]

I really did like Sec. Gates. and I realize that he does not make all decisions, he serves a new President and must now carry out President Obama's policies. But recent actions be it the Dover move or this response has disappointed me.

Makes sure that he calls on everyone? What the hell? Is Obama the teacher and the administration his elementary school class?

[UPDATE:]

I encourage every member of the military to take on the mantle of fearless, thoughtful, but loyal dissent when the situation calls for it.

—Dr. Robert M. Gates, 2008

I wonder how much "dissent" SECDEF put up... if any?