It's the moment we've all been waiting for: the launch of the "surge" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. And to judge by the enormous firepower Nato commanders have deployed for Operation Khanjar, or "sword strike", this time the Americans mean business. Four thousand US marines, supported by a further 650 Afghan troops and supplied with the best equipment the American military can provide, have moved into the lower Helmand river valley with the intention of eradicating, once and for all, the threat posed by the Taliban.
This is, of course, precisely what the British have been trying to achieve for three years. But a lack of sufficient troops and suitable equipment, such as helicopters, or vehicles that offer effective protection against roadside bombs, has severely hampered the mission. Despite engaging in some of the fiercest hand-to-hand combat since the Second World War, and taking heavy casualties in the process, the Taliban remain as much a threat to the future stability of Afghanistan as they did when the British first deployed in force in the summer of 2006. If British commanders had got their way, an extra 2,500 of our troops would have been sent to Afghanistan this summer to do precisely what the Americans are now doing taking the fight into the heartland of the insurgency. But Gordon Brown, who has consistently failed to provide effective leadership on this issue, refused the request on grounds of cost. As a consequence, British forces find themselves in the humiliating position of having to watch as the Americans do their job for them.
From now on, then, we should regard Afghanistan as Mr Obama's war, for the US offensive represents the American President's first military initiative since entering the White House. Its outcome will have a significant impact on how his presidency is perceived by friends and foes alike.
During last year's election campaign, Mr Obama made much of the fact that Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be the main focus of Washington's campaign against Islamist-inspired terrorism or the War on Terror, as it was known to the Bush administration. He promised to reallocate resources from Iraq, and committed himself "to finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban". And, since coming to power, Mr Obama has been as good as his word. An extra 17,000 US troops have been deployed to support a "mini-surge" similar to the one that finally subdued the Iraq insurgency in the summer of 2007. The President has also taken the drastic step of replacing General David McKiernan, the commander of Nato forces, with Lt Gen Stanley McChrystal, a counter-insurgency specialist who commanded the special forces unit responsible for tracking down Saddam Hussein.
Having made military success against the Taliban and al-Qaeda one of his foreign policy priorities, Mr Obama is well aware that he will be judged by the American military's ability to deliver tangible results. The offensive certainly comes at an important moment for him: after nearly six months in office, some of the gloss is starting to wear off the President's image as a man who can revolutionise American politics. Even some of his most dedicated supporters have been disappointed by the concessions he has made to the Democrat-controlled Congress on domestic issues such as climate change and health care, not to mention the mess he made of the economic stimulus bill. Mr Obama has also managed to alienate America's powerful Jewish lobby, which traditionally supports Democrat presidents, after the hard time he gave Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, over the continued construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.
More recently, Mr Obama has faced fierce criticism for failing to support the pro-reform protests in Iran following last month's disputed presidential election, and for not putting more pressure on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government over Iran's illicit nuclear programme. His credibility as a successful commander-in-chief of America's armed forces therefore depends to a large extent on the success of his strategy for dealing with the Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. By appointing the combative Richard Holbrooke as his personal envoy to cover both countries, Mr Obama has initiated a dramatic shift in the West's approach to the conflict.
Previously, the main focus of the coalition's effort was the Taliban, and the threat it posed to Afghanistan. Now the military campaign has been extended to include Pakistan, where most of the key commanders of the Taliban and al-Qaeda are based. One of the more welcome features of the new American offensive in Helmand has been the active co-ordination with the Pakistani military to prevent the Taliban relying on their traditional tactic: to disappear across the border when confronted by a superior military force. But this is just one small step in a conflict that many coalition commanders believe could last for a decade or more which would hardly provide Mr Obama with the boost to his fortunes that he requires.
#1
Hats off to the concepts and ideas men, General's Petreaus, Jones and their brave Marines! Cordon and search operations can be highly successful but prolonged sustainment requires a significant logistical commitment not generally organic to Marine elements such as this. Also required is the ability to reinforce dispersed elements via a Mobile Strike Force or displacement of adjacent elements. I am unsure as to the long-term ability to sustain this effort. But then again, long-term may not be the intended goal.
Democracy: Nations aren't usually put to the fearsome test to "live free or die." But Hondurans are accepting it as the world pressures them to reseat a potential dictator in office. They aren't bending.
On Tuesday, all 192 members of the U.N. General Assembly voted to condemn Hondurans' removal of President Mel Zelaya from office. He was ousted this week after brazenly defying a Supreme Court ruling against a reelection referendum. Using the language of the effort's ringleader, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, the U.N. called the constitutional act "a military coup."
The same day, the Organization of American States gave Honduras three days to reinstall Zelaya as president or its membership would be suspended. The World Bank "paused' lending until Zelaya is back. The Inter American Development Bank followed suit.
Standard & Poor's warned of a credit downgrade. Tourists were told by embassies to leave. Three bordering nations cut off trade. Nations pulled ambassadors. Venezuela's despot, Hugo Chavez, cut off cheap oil. He now bucks for an OAS-led military invasion if his leftist pal Zelaya is not restored to power.
The U.S. has its own bag of potential sanctions for Honduras, although as new facts emerge about Zelaya's involvement in the drug trade and his mental instability, doesn't look as though it intends to use them. Still, the Sword of Damocles over Honduras could mean a suspended free trade treaty, a cutoff of its $200 million in aid, and an end to its immigration agreement with the U.S.
As the world follows Chavez's lead in trying to force Honduras to accept a lawless man as its leader, disasters for Honduras loom.
The tiny country is impoverished. Its seven million people have a per capita income of just $1,635 a year. Its economy has been enfeebled by Zelaya himself. He has fixed prices and wages, and opened the door to drug traffickers, creating a burgeoning narcostate.
It seems impossible that Honduras could withstand new draconian pressure and isolation over taking Zelaya back.
Yet evidence shows that Hondurans consider the latter fate worse. If Zelaya is restored as president, he will resume his dictatorial ambitions while Hondurans lose their future freedoms. Oh, the OAS will tell them "dialogue" will solve it.
But Hondurans know better: If the rule of law won't dissuade Zelaya from being dictator, why would sweet talk work?
Honduras' new, constitutionally appointed leader, Robert Micheletti, defied the global blowhards sitting in judgment of Honduras and said he wasn't leaving.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
BRAVO
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/03/2009 1:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Is there any movement for us private citizens to do what our asshole president Obama will not, namely recognize that the rule of law was upheld, and send support to the government and people of Honduras.
#4
Difficult as it is for me to say, at least Barry was quite candid and open about his support for Zelaya. The same cannot be said for administrations who, in the name of majority rule and equality, clandestinely supported communist regimes in Africa who were in open armed conflict with existing democracies in the 1970's and 1980's.
Media coverage on Honduras this week has been filled with opinions condemning the coup that overthrew President Manuel Zelaya. I include myself among those who oppose any form of violent and/or unconstitutional change of government.
Nonetheless, President Zelaya's speech at the United Nations this week has left me pondering whether this man was overthrown for violating the Honduran constitution or because he simply thought that Hondurans were not intelligent enough to believe his justification for conducting an unauthorized referendum. Its outcome might have enabled him to remain in office beyond January 2010, when his term is scheduled to end.
President Zelaya explained to the world this week that he was overthrown by a military coup for simply attempting to conduct a public opinion poll. He added that he was about to perform nothing more than what a regular polling firm such as Gallup does on a regular basis when he was violently escorted out of the country by machine-gun-wielding soldiers.
Zelaya also explained that 37 countries and the Organization of American States had sent observers to see how he conducted the poll. Finally, he said that the poll was nonbinding and that it was simply intended to ask Hondurans a couple of questions, including whether he should be allowed to stand for reelection in November and whether a Constituent Assembly ought to be called to modify the constitution.
As someone who has been involved in public opinion research throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I am disconcerted by Zelaya's attempt to justify a dubious referendum by claiming that he was doing nothing more than any reputable research firm might conduct.
If Zelaya wanted to conduct a public opinion survey he would have been better off hiring one of the many good Central American or Honduran firms that regularly survey public opinion in Honduras. Or, he might have even gone back to the prominent Washington firm that ran his campaign in 2005. The cost in either case would have been less expensive in both the financial and political sense.
Even if one were to give President Zelaya the benefit of the doubt regarding his public opinion poll, he could stand for a basic refresher course in the ethics and mechanics of survey research.
First, Zelaya could have significantly improved the questionnaire to allow for a more in-depth examination of the results. Two or three questions are generally insufficient to really get to the core of what Hondurans or any other national citizenry is thinking about any particular issue.
Second, no serious research firm would have handed out the questionnaires using untrained personnel.
Third, were foreign observers from so many countries and organizations really necessary? A good research firm would have insured proper supervision of the survey even in the most remote areas of Honduras.
Finally, who was in charge of processing the results and more important, how were these results to be used?
That Zelaya attempted to dupe Hondurans into believing that his referendum was simply a public opinion survey and that the results were really only for academic purposes is one thing. It is quite another, in my view, that he also attempted to sell that explanation to a worldwide audience at the United Nations.
It is true that some governments around the hemisphere have bought part of Zelaya's explanation and were even in on the scheme. It is also true that other governments understand that Zelaya did attempt to pass off a cat for a rabbit, as the old Spanish saying goes (gato por liebre), but like me they were not about to justify a military coup of any kind.
Given the international condemnation of the coup that toppled Zelaya, it is very likely that he will return soon to Honduras and that he will probably be allowed to resume his duties as the only real constitutional president of that impoverished country. In the final months of his mandate it would be wise for Zelaya to leave the polling to professional pollsters who don't require teams of international observers and the direct intervention of foreign governments to deliver credible and professional results.
Eduardo Gamarra is professor of political science at Florida International University.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like a typical crook's whine, "I din't do nuttin wrong"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/03/2009 1:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If the government acts on the orders of the Judiciary (legal in Honduras by their constitution), and the military stands down, returning the presidency to the civilian authorities, it is the shortest military coup in known history.
Or it is the military acting legally under the framework of the existing constitutional regime.
#4
I lived in Central America during the heavy coup period. Zelaya's conduct is consistent with the juntists that I remember. It is the Supreme Court and the military that is acting to preserve a constitutional order. The editorial nonsense on this issue has been sickening. There hasn't been the slightest evidence that the armed services intended to form a military dictatorship. Obama is with Castro and Chavez - juntists - on this one.
Posted by: Andy Thrirong7408 ||
07/03/2009 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Obama is with Castro and Chavez - juntists - on this one. Posted by Andy Thrirong7408
This is an area where "Change" cannot apply. Any destabilization or disruption of the cartels or their leadership has the potential of creating a corresponding negative impact on the "creation" and saving of jobs" in urban America.
#6
The jackass author of this is a PROFESSOR? And yet he cannot be bothered to read the constitution of Honduras, which is the basis for ALL the actions taken legitimately by the Honduran Congress, and Supreme Court - and the military under their lawful order in expelling Z.
Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
So when will this idiot be educated as to the CONSTITUTION of Honduras and that the current president it the ONLY constitutionally elected president of Honduras, not the criminal would-be dictator he proposes to illegally restore to power?
With budget negotiations stalled, a cash crisis looming and its fiscal crisis deepening, California today will begin issuing IOUs formally called registered warrants to tens of thousands of businesses and individuals to whom the state owes money. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday declared a fiscal emergency and ordered a third unpaid furlough day each month for 235,000 state employees. California's fiscal crisis has been years in the making and will not be easy to fix. But is there a solution?
In Sacramento, which rises like the city of Oz on the flat plains of the California's Central Valley, Schwarzenegger has not underplayed the gory details. "Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed. Our credit is dried up," he says. But the crisis has not helped bind up the gaping political divisions over what to do about it. Democratic lawmakers have proposed cutting billions of dollars from the state's safety net and educational system to balance the budget. Governor Schwarzenegger says the cuts must go even deeper and joins legislative Republicans in refusing to raise taxes. On Wednesday, Schwarzenegger said, "Haven't we promised too much the last couple of decades?"
Conservatives view the budget crisis as an opportunity to slash California's spending back to the level it had reached 10 years ago. "Gross overspending and fiscal irresponsibility will not be tolerated by the people of California," says Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth. Liberals, however, see this as an attack by the right on the public infrastructure that helped make California an economic giant, and an act of war against the poor and minority populations in particular.
Conservatives claim California is a high tax state. In fact, California's taxes are similar to other high-tech, industrial states. According to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office and the Tax Foundation, California has comparatively high sales taxes and rates for corporate income, but very low property taxes. State income taxes are very progressive, with a large proportion of revenue comes from households earning more than $100,000, as well as from taxes on stock options and capital gains. Low-income households, meanwhile, face lower tax rates that in most other states. This tax system, says Steve Peace, director of finance under Gov. Gray Davis, "worked in a highly leveraged, supercharged economy. Those days are gone."
The state's finances could be made more stable by raising income taxes on middle and low-income families which would reduce the state's dependency on volatile stock and capital gains income a big reason for the current catastrophic deficits. But that is all but politically impossible in California.
Is there a solution to California's dilemma? A number of reforms are receiving attention. On the tax and budget side, these include eliminating the need for a two-thirds majority vote on budget and tax matters and instituting a split-roll for property taxes that would allow homeowners to continue to pay according to the low rates mandated by Proposition 13, but require commercial property to be assessed at market value. To relieve the logjam in California politics, momentum is growing for an open primary system, in which the two top vote getters in the primary, regardless of party, would face each other in the general election. Proponents believe it would loosen the grip of partisan ideologies and make it easier of moderates to win elections. In addition, a redistricting reform won narrow approval last November and proponents of good government keep trying to lengthen the state's term limits on legislators.
#1
There is a way out. Spend less, roll back regulations that limit business, strike taxes that keep businesses out, unfetter the energy industry, and demolish the unions and their prohibitively expensive pensions.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/03/2009 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I don't know. I think it's a dead heat race between Time, Newsweek and Jet.
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2009 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
A crafty partial solution would be to substitute huge fines for common non-violent misdemeanor offenses.
For example, first time, non accident DUI has a "fee" of $30,000. But if you pay the fee, it is an administrative, not judicial, fine, which can only be appealed to an administrator, not a judge.
A lot of shoplifters are not poor, like Winona Ryder, so why not slap them with the cost of whatever they stole, plus $10,000 fee and a cut going to the retailer. Many are so compulsive they would be glad to pay the fee, and keep shoplifting.
Johns that go after high end prostitutes could probably shell out the big bucks, especially if it was kept discreet.
And while this would only bring in several billions of dollars to the State coffers, that would still help.
#6
The State needs to cut spending, not increase income via dubious "fees", increased taxes, or any other dipshit scheme.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/03/2009 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
All this breast beating about CA's deficit that is 22% of revenues and hardly any newspaper ink about the 2010 federal budget deficit that is greater than 100% of tax revenues.
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2009 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
2009 federal budget
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2009 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"California's Budget Crisis: Is There a Way Out?"
Yes, there is.
QUIT SPENDING!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/03/2009 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"California's Budget Crisis: Is There a Way Out?"
Between 2005 and 2007, 2.14 million Californians moved to other states, while only 1.44 million people from elsewhere moved to the Golden State, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
#11
"Between 2005 and 2007, ... 1.44 million people from elsewhere moved to the Golden State"
So there are 1.44 million certified idiots in Californicate? And that doesn't even include the politicians.
I think I see the problem....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/03/2009 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#12
And more of us to follow. I've lived here since 1976 and have watched Paradise be ruined by a cavalcade of political idiots in the legislature and the governor's office who ceaselessly write BS laws and regulations about everything, and who give special breaks to everyone to buy votes, and who rig the electoral process to insure incumbancy, but who haven't built a freeway while the population more than doubled, nor a new dam, nor any power plants, or any other major public works projects. Just defer real government and clutter up peoples lives with 1600 new bills form the legislature each and every year......
all the while doing everything possible to change the demographics of the electorate, 1 in 4 people here were born in another country, and somewhere betwen 3-6 million illegals crowd our hospitals, prisons and schools.
Many of me peers are doing the same thing I'm doing, getting ready for next spring's housing rebound, what ever little bit it might be, and getting out.
Tragic to think my own government is chasing me out of my adopted state....
#13
Just defer real government and clutter up peoples lives with 1600 new bills form the legislature each and every year......
all the while doing everything possible to change the demographics of the electorate..NoMoreBS
#14
As I stood in line behind a woman in a Burqa yesterday, at the local Target store, it was not hard to figure out who has left the state and who replaced them.
Born and raised in CA, I've watched this state change from one of the best in the nation to a third world toilet. Waiting for housing prices to stabilize, then it's AMF!
#16
Wouldn't be that difficult. Just check back on the books when the present revenue income match the preceding years records. If your income matches 2001 or 1996, that's your budget for the year, to include suspending laws passed since that date. Somehow the state survived during those preceding years, otherwise it wouldn't be here.
#17
The only way out is through. I pity California home-owners & home-borrowers. California housing prices will stabilize only when they return to a reasonable level with respect to California household incomes.
Georgia is on my short list. I lived there in the 60s. I was in Sylvania for a couple of years and then moved to Savannah. I loved living in the "State of Chatham". Sold my property on Skidaway Island in the 70s.(Bad mistake)
Maybe we can get together someday and have some barbecue and a "mess of shrimp".
#2
Watch out, Robert Kaplan can drink with the best of us. One of the most wonderful things about Kaplan is he will stand in a spot and tell you the history of the land your standing on, what battles were fought there, who ruled, how they fell and why. He is enlightening.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/03/2009 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It's the moment we've all been waiting for: the launch of the "surge" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. And to judge by the enormous firepower Nato commanders have deployed for Operation Khanjar, or "sword strike", this time the Americans mean business. Four thousand US marines, supported by a further 650 Afghan troops and supplied with the best equipment the American military can provide, have moved into the lower Helmand river valley with the intention of eradicating, once and for all, the threat posed by the Taliban. 
