Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, recognizing not only the reality of democracies at war, but the effect exerted on budgets for defense.
Time and again, the US House last week considered amendments to a Pentagon spending bill. And each time, unlikely coalitions of Republicans and Democrats voted to divert funds from Afghanistan projects, slash war spending — and nearly kill a controversial anti-terrorism program.
An examination of vote records reveals a pattern that exposes fissures in what Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dubbed Capitol Hill’s “solid center” that since 9/11 “always” supported defense issues.
Time and again, members of this once-solid pro-defense voting bloc rejected spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new Afghanistan infrastructure projects and even on the country’s security forces, which White House and Pentagon officials say is the key to keeping out the Taliban and al-Qaida after US troops leave.
Time and again, once pro-defense members joined other Republicans and Democrats to form a deficit-slashing voting bloc that reflects the priorities of many Americans and an increasing number of their representatives.
And time and again, members like Reps. Loretta Sanchez, Jim Moran, Walter Jones, Mike Coffman and John Garamendi voted with the increasingly powerful deficit-hawk bloc.
Sanchez, D-Calif., is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee’s (HASC’s) Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee. Moran, D-Va., is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee (HAC-D) who hails from a state with a robust national security presence. All are considered pro-defense.
“All of this comes down to money,” said Christopher Preble, a national security analyst at the Cato Institute. “The question more [lawmakers] are asking is, ‘Just where are you going to find that money?’”
Six adopted amendments that diverted funds from Afghanistan projects or forces received 823 GOP votes and 897 Democratic votes, a stunning bipartisan statement about America’s involvement there beyond 2014 for a chamber known more recently for partisan brawls.
Therefore, the corollary of this reality is that if a democracy wants to WIN a war, they must do so QUICKLY.
How is this achieved?
Let’s ask the master of such warfare.
The enemy and his ability to wage whatever kind of warfare they have chosen to wage against democracies, must be KILLED, their support system obliterated, then the remaining enemy population’s will to fight DESTROYED.
This is the world. These are the facts. This is human nature.
I do not control this, or admire it, or advise that this way of being is best.
I observe this truth, and see what is compulsory as a result of it.
As for the folly of Obama that he feels inspite of all the facts the some kind of oonstructive "negotiations for a peace alliance" between the offical of the Karzi and the fiends who compose the Taliban is a great example of foolishness. For the Taliban have worked very to prove by their own actions in many different ways, time and time again, that they are a group of ruthless thugs with no honor and will keep their word in anything that they might promise only as long as it would suite them and no longer. Thus in any so called "dialogue for a peace alliance" the Taliban will be very disingenous and will dissimulate.
It would be a good idea for the officals of the Karzai goverment instead of listening to the folly of Obama to rather heed the wisdom of Sun Tzu in THE ART OF WAR. Which teaches "We cannot enter into an alliance with neighboring princes until we are acquainted with their designs. To put this in a more current and updated way, it may be said that "We cannot enter into an alliance with the Taliban untill we are acquainted with their designs. With the Taliban we all may be sure that their intentions are evil.
When Obama had ordered the US military to start pulling out of Afghanistan sooner and faster then the military generals there consider advisable may have changed the outcome of this war. For Obama in doing this acted contrary the the rules of war set down by Sun Tzu in THE ART OF WAR.
In which gives the "Five essentials for victory." Point Five has be thus disregarded. Which reads "He will win who has the military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign."
Post a Comment