Win, Lose or Draw

· Friday, March 12, 2010

(En route to) KABUL -- Other than spending lots of time covering soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen, Marines and special operators who routinely get shot at, I'm not a gambling man. Those I know who frequent the casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City all claim they go to these places to "win" and are willing to settle for a break-even "draw." None of them professes to be satisfied with a loss. Unfortunately, when it comes to gambling in the life-or-death contest against radical Islamists, all three outcomes appear to be equally acceptable to the Obama administration. For the O-Team, just playing "the game" seems to be enough.

Win: Last week's national parliamentary election in Iraq -- with turnout more than 60 percent -- was a clear-cut success. Even Newsweek put on its cover "Victory at Last: The Emergence of a Democratic Iraq." This is the same magazine that published a fictional account in 2005 of a Quran's being flushed down a toilet in Guantanamo -- a story that led to riots throughout the Muslim world and the deaths of hundreds. Though the writers cast the election as "America's dark victory," they could not deny what it means for the Land Between the Rivers and the entirety of the Middle East.

On Sunday, in his remarks on the election, the president appropriately recognized "the growing capability and professionalism of Iraqi security forces, which took the lead in providing protection at the polls." To his credit, Mr. Obama proffered his "admiration for the thousands of Americans on the ground in Iraq -- for our civilians and our men and women in uniform who continue to support our Iraqi partners. This election is also a tribute to all who have served and sacrificed in Iraq over the last seven years, including many who have given their lives."

Regrettably, he just couldn't bring himself to credit his predecessor's political courage for proceeding with the "surge" advocated by Gen. David Petraeus back in 2006. Had George W. Bush failed to do so, it is very unlikely last Sunday's elections would have taken place at all, much less succeeded.

Lose: This week's "news" about the continuing debate in Washington over closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo and what to do about those who are held there is a losing issue all around. Still smarting over the Christmas Day "underpants bomber" fiasco and new revelations about the indictment of a 46-year-old American-born blond volunteer murder-suicide recruiter who bills herself as "Jihad Jane," the O-Team now wants to cut a deal with Congress. This is a loser for everyone, especially the American people.

According to Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Obama administration has offered to try detainees as enemy combatants before military tribunals instead of civilian courts if Congress will fund the closing of Gitmo and the moving of the detainees to prisons here in the U.S. The Department of Justice already has located one such facility -- the Thomson Correctional Center -- in the president's home state of Illinois.

This loopy proposal is even less popular with the American people than Mr. Obama's plan for government-run health care. Unfortunately, some people in Congress -- such as Sens. Richard "Dick" Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- think this is an admirable proposition and are doing what they can to advance the scheme. Sen. Graham has to be glad he won't face the voters again until 2014. Perhaps they will have forgotten this losing idea by then.

Draw: Afghanistan. This week, while Vice President Joe Biden was wandering through the Holy Land doing his best to alienate our only real democratic ally in the region, Defense Secretary Bob Gates was in Afghanistan. After shoring up the Obama administration's nearly ruptured relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Gates went to see the troops and get what he called "ground truth" from those fighting the war.

In Kandahar, Gates presented Silver Star medals for heroism to U.S. Army aviators Lt. Col. John Morgan and Chief Warrant Officer 3 James Woolley. As evidence of how things have begun to turn around since the "Afghanistan surge" began in December, he was able to walk without a flak jacket or helmet through the streets of Now Zad, in Helmand province. A little more than a year ago, our Fox News team was embedded there with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines -- and they took fire every day.

Curiously, Gates said he feels "reinforced that the path we're on is the right path, but it will take a long time." How the secretary of defense squares "a long time" with Mr. Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 16 months was not addressed. Given the blood and treasure being poured into this fight -- and the clear successes now being achieved on the battlefield -- we can only hope that the president isn't going to settle for a "tie" in the shadows of the Hindu Kush just to adhere to another arbitrary deadline.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Fred

Thanks for the update, Colonel. We are with you on this.

Posted March 14, 2010 at 7:43:02 AM


MichaelSSEC

Colonel North, your hard work on behalf of Americans to discover and bring home to us the truth of what's going on in the Middle East is greatly appreciated.

I agree that the Iraqi Democratic elections are a huge victory for America. It's also a huge victory for the entire region, as evidenced in a Larry Elder column from December 2009 in which he described Iranian demonstrators as citing Iraqi Democracy as direct inspiration for their movement. Contrariwise, I think it tells us much about the motives and goals of this administration that the President sided with the tyrannical leadership of Iran over the liberty-seeking demonstrators. Further, his mild reaction to the latest proof of Democratic reforms in Iraq shows this President simply does not understand what's been achieved there.

His continuing pursuit of deranged policies toward Gitmo and terror trials are clear proof that President Obama does not share the goals in the war on terror that most Americans clearly say are the right goals. What possible justification the President can give for moving terrorists into US prisons? No good can come of such a move, and indeed it enables the radicals to spread their hate and vitriol to inmates, making converts in our own prison systems. That Obama would spend months playing up civilian trials only to back off at the last minute and use them as a bargaining chip to close Gitmo indicates this was his intention all along.

That's a common tactic on the Left. When you want something you know your opponent really hates, the trick is to demand something twenty times worse. Your opponent will lose his mind, but then you offer a "compromise" that's only triple what you originally wanted, and your opponent thinks he's forced you to retreat -- when in fact you just out-maneuvered him into accepting three times what you really wanted in the first place. That's how the Left does business today. Obama will get RINOs like Lindsey Graham to accept this idiot's compromise because Senators like Graham never can see through these tactics.

The change of fortune in Afghanistan gives us cause for hope, but quite frankly, Liberals have an addiction to pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. Every time we hear good news come out of that country, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop -- the policy reversal or sudden change of heart on President Obama's part, that causes him to hand Afghanistan back to the terrorists and ruin everything we fought to build there. His pattern of behavior makes that a most likely scenario.

Posted March 15, 2010 at 5:14:17 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund