Thankful

I am thankful for my family and friends, thankful for this great state, thankful for this great country. Thankful for the men and women of the military who continue to defend the freedoms that we were founded upon, understanding the sacrifice, and protecting our way of life.

I am thankful for those who I have been able to call my family and friends who I have lost over the past year for being allowed to know them and have them in my life, Mike Player, my great-grandmother Maw Bradford, and my Uncle James Riley.

I am also thankful for the life I have been given, for all those whom I have crossed paths with. I am thankful for the many blessing God has bestowed on my life and my family, but I think what I am most thankful for, is the swell job that President Obama is doing.

By waiting two months to formulate a position on Afghanistan while over 120 troops in Afghanistan were killed in combat, for the Healthcare that he and other Democrats in Congress are proposing that will only help to spiral us into further debt and destroy the concept of choice in medicine, I am thankful for President Obama’s continuing Tour de Apologia, apologizing for the many evils our country has purported over the years while we are the country to first come to the rescue in the third world with humanitarian aid. The country that has looked down the likes of Hitler and spilled American blood on foreign battle fields to protect our friends and allies. Freeing those from tyranny and oppression in the ideals that all people deserve to know freedom and the power it possesses for the individual.

Honestly thankful for President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice and others who exhibited great pride in our country and who were not afraid to do what was necessary to protect us.

I am thankful for America, our people, our values, our principles, and what we have stood for since our founding, and I say that with the utmost pride and without apology.

OFFICIALLY DITHERING

When General Stanley McChrystal, the US Commander in Afghanistan gave his assessment regarding the current conditions in Afghanistan and a plan going forward on August 30, 2009, I do not think he thought there would be a two month delay before a decision would be made. When President Obama made his statement about dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, we all thought he was serious. Now that his liberal wing is calling for a full redeployment from Afghanistan, a decision has not been made.

Since the release of the initial assessment and General McChrystal's troop request, more than 107 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan while President Obama, as Vice President Dick Cheney put it, is "dithering" in making this decision.

Over the past week, information has leaked out that President Obama is contemplating a “hybrid” option that would give General McChrystal less than the prescribed 40,000 troop number but would also implement a partial counterterrorism strategy, which Vice President Joe Biden has been lobbying for. The current troop levels, NATO and all coalition forces are estimated to be about 100,000 in Afghanistan, with 68,000 being American forces. Add the 40,000 troops that the general requested for the counterinsurgency strategy to work, and then subtract the number of troops that were requested but did not make it into President Obama’s strategy and then subtract those who will be focusing on the counterterrorism efforts and not the COIN operations. Right now, we do not know that number, but to put the operations into context, General McChrystal will have less force to focus on the counterinsurgency strategy that he has set out.

When politics comes into play, as it clearly has over the past few months, beginning when Nancy Pelosi mentioned in August that President Obama would face opposition if he wanted to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan, the “decider” faces pressure from all directions. Current polling suggests that it is about 48% of the public opposes sending more troops and 46% believe that you should supply the General with the resources he needs to succeed.

This is a war that we have been fighting for more than eight years now, that for six of the eight years had been under-resourced and allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to gain the initiative. The status quo is not the answer, with the credibility of the government being called into question and the looks of the run-off election in Afghanistan between President Karzai and his challenger Abdullah Abdullah already with calls of fraud and boycott. The Afghan people need to be reassured of their safety. Currently, the Taliban and al Qaeda act as mayors in these towns promising to provide protection, as long as they do not aid the coalition forces, which could result in the loss of their life if the citizens do so. The people are looking for safety, and the only groups that have stepped up to the plate are those who wish to terrorize. The counterinsurgency strategy would provide for troops to assist and aid in each community and province and essentially root out the insurgents.

With that being said, successes need to be made. The violence is paralyzing the Afghan society and without any sign of success by the coalition forces, the will of the coalition will continue to erode only allowing the enemy to celebrate because their end goal is to see us leave the region in defeat. To avoid such a disaster, the strategy must be changed, but to continue to wait only puts more troops in danger and the American people will continue to question President Obama’s role as Commander in Chief. General McChrystal spent over three months putting together a strategy based on conditions on the ground, President Obama has met with his military and political advisors for less than 30 hours to discuss the Afghan strategy in a matter of six weeks. If you were the American soldier or an Afghan citizen, who would you wish to have your fate in the hands of?

Power vs. Popularity, as written 8/29/2009

Ever since we have fallen away from the doctrines of isolationism, America has been known as the lone superpower in the world. When after 40 years the Soviet Union stood down in the face of a stronger, more cunning opponent, America continued to rise above the fray and came to the aid of our allies to defeat the threats that attempted to overpower them. But as administrations come and go, policy shifts according to ideology and in the current political torrent affecting our country, popularity and placating to the world have become our rhetoric of choice abroad.

The days of exerting our view candidly and consistently have gone to the wayside. Over the past months, the administration has taken sides in Honduras, but not with the people in Iran, did not take action against provocation by North Korea, has attempted to reprimand our staunchest ally, stating they will be left to defend themselves on the occurrence of a first strike to protect themselves from Iran, but the administration has also attempted to dictate terms of Israeli domestic policy. These are all situations that exemplify a time when a different reaction was expected from the United States by both our friends and enemies.

During World War I and World War II, America sat on the sidelines for many of the battles, not assisting other countries whose soldiers and citizens were being killed. The idea was that ‘this is their war’ but we found that innate sense that our fellow man is dying and we are doing nothing, so we heeded the calls and came back victorious in our endeavors.

Fundamental isolationism still exists and many would like to see it regain its influence in both our foreign and domestic policy. Cutting the defense budget and allocating more funds to social programs for some, or cutting the defense spending to limit the expanse of our government internationally without using the funds for more government spending. Willful ignorance is the phrase that best describes those who do not see the need for our own defenses but relying on the United Nations to “keep the peace”. Interestingly, the United Nations members can never agree when it comes to assessing who an enemy is because each country represented in the UN are protecting their own national interests and friendships. When North Korea began launching missiles in April, China was slow to position itself against the country whom it is the sole provider for its sustenance. When the Bush administration went to the United Nations in 2002 and 2003, they fought for resolutions against Iraq but found it hard due to the self dealing of those countries who were benefiting from Iraq’s sanctions. Beyond the malfeasance of the organization, International consensus will seldom fall in favor of the United States.

To pursue popularity, as in the United Nations is to the detriment of our security. America has never been afraid to speak strongly and act in ways to back up our rhetoric. But for now, the strong and tough talk by the United States will be silenced to allow the countries who have not fought for their own peace or the dictatorial heads of certain countries to set the course. Exerting our power and influence has been coined as “arrogant” and “derisive” by President Barack Obama. And to much of our dismay, our policies towards the “Axis of Evil” are changing to fall in line with this new sense of world community. North Korea recently enjoyed the presence of former President Bill Clinton and Iran is still within the agenda of the Secretary of State.

To admit weakness or trepidation before a crucial task speaks of the ill-confidence held for a mission. We are currently fighting two wars, that regardless of your view of their legitimacy, American soldiers are protecting civilians against an enemy that has no uniform and is not afraid to die, often threatening America and wishing ill upon our way of life.

Showing weakness is a provocative action in itself. September 11, 2001, America had weak spots that the terrorists exploited for their gain, but at the expense of 2,977 American lives. In Afghanistan, as focus has been drawn from Iraq, the death toll of American troops in a month has increased to it’s highest since the start of the war, signaling the need for a battle plan for victory, a word that is not well received in the current administration. In Iraq, as our troops withdrew from the cities per the Status of Forces Agreement, the Iraqi Security Forces have taken control of their streets patrolling and foiling plots of the insurgents who wish for their democracy to fail. Last week, a deadly attack was launched in Iraq killing over 95 people, a sign that many accredit to “losing the war” but I tend to see it differently. Compared to the levels of casualties over the last few years, the numbers have dropped significantly and Iraq is on its way to complete sovereignty. Being delivered from a tyrant who kept his people in dire fear for their lives from him and from the actions that his own actions could bring upon them, the Iraqi people are safer today and many are thankful.

Progress has been made and the battles will be won, but not on the notion of exhibiting doubt or even the thought of exhibiting satisfaction without victory.

The popularity of America has been said to have fallen over the past eight years, and that point of view is right to a certain extent, but we embraced our values and did not falter even in the times of pain and suffering our country has been subjected to. American exceptionalism, we have something to exhibit pride for, we live in the greatest country founded on the basis of the advancement of freedom and liberty.

There is a reason why we exhibit much power in the world, it is not popularity and international consensus that makes our country great, it is our ability to stand up for what we believe is right and what is good for all. Standing up for freedom and helping those who are oppressed, and we have no apologies.

Aritcle as published in the College Republicans at UTA September Newsletter

Article as published in the Texas College Republicans Newsletter

Beyond our Borders as written on 7/29/2009

With all this debate on health care, “cap and trade”, Sarah Palin, and other topics found broadcast on the news every fifteen minutes, there seems to be lacking something. Where has the foreign policy gone? You may hear an excerpt from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton every now and then, but what happened to North Korea and Iran.

Last week when Secretary Clinton attended a meeting of southeast Asian nations in Phuket, Thailand, a North Korean foreign minister commented about Secretary Clinton, “she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping,” and also saying, she “...is by no means intelligent” and calling her a “funny lady”. To be fair, they were never kind towards the Bush Administration either.

North Korea, a nation who in the past four months has displayed it’s missile capabilities by launching short, medium, and long-ranged missiles, and who also tested it’s nuclear capability underground. Now they are name calling? Sounds like the school bully who makes fun of you, causes you to flinch, but the question is, do they have the power and capabilities they proclaim to? Does the bully have the strength to shove you in your locker?

It is no secret that North Korea has an army numbering over one-million soldiers. Let’s add it up: a lot of soldiers, can fire missiles into allied territory, may possible have nuclear capabilities, and they are somewhat provoking action with missile launches and name calling. It sounds like someone is trying to keep an enemy at bay with a show of potential force and childish rhetoric.

In 1993, when President George H.W. Bush was visiting the Middle East and there came information of a potential attack on his motorcade by Saddam Hussein. What did we do, we launched a few cruise missiles at them in a punitive attack letting him know that such behavior would not be tolerated.

Now, before anyone says I am trying to say that we should strike North Korea because they made fun of Hillary Clinton, let me say, no. But I do feel that they have gotten away with too much over the last few months when their actions have shown to be hostile to neighboring countries and the problem is just with the government there, not it’s people.

But in Iran, you are dealing with a group of people who are still rallying in the streets, protesting the results of the election, the news coverage of that also died down when the media realized there would not be a change in the Iranian government, brought on by its own people. The coverage of the rallies was somewhat historic as we were able to see the atrocities that were being waged upon the protestors. Reality is that we are still dealing with a country whose leader has called for the extermination of Israel, has the capability to wage such an attack, as it has also shows with it’s missile capabilities, and who looks to the west with disgust and abhorrence.

Domestic issues are important to us, but what is also important is what is going on outside of our borders, and how it effects our present and our future.

Article as published in the College Republicans at UTA August Newsletter

The General's know best as written on 9/29/2009

The Afghan War began on October 7, 2001 launching Operation Enduring Freedom to find Osama bin Laden, disarm and destroy al Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban government from power for harboring the terrorist organization.

The war is not over. An increase in troop levels is required to combat the resilient insurgency and help build the confidence of the Afghan people. A new strategy needs to be adopted to protect the population and defeat the insurgency.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, intelligence reports from the Middle East and South Asia pointed to Afghanistan and al Qaeda as being behind the attacks.

Eight years later, after the fall of the Taliban and free elections, Afghanistan is still rampant with insurgents.

President Obama has followed through with his campaign promise focusing on Afghanistan by increasing troop levels in March by 21,000. On March 27, he said the new strategy was to, “Disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” and relayed a message to the terrorists, “We will defeat you.”

Taking such a hard-line on Afghanistan only weeks after his inauguration was a campaign promise Obama planned to keep when he classified Afghanistan as a war of necessity. But that hard-line is slowing eroding.

We must win in Afghanistan —our peace and our security depend on it. That notion as expressed by Obama in that speech is also felt by General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of the United States Forces in Afghanistan and the International Security Assistance Force. McChrystal released the “Commander’s Initial Assessment,” on August 30, laying out the current situation and the strategy for Afghanistan going forward.

The plan and conditions advocate implementing a “significant change,” in strategy, making sure the forces on the ground have the resources needed for success. “Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress.”

The strategy needs adjusting, and according to McChrystal, the answer is a surge in troop levels to combat the insurgency in the most troubled provinces and increase training at all levels of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF). The strategy Obama laid out in March included the acceleration of the growth of the ANSF to 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 by 2011. For success in Afghanistan, these increased troop levels are needed for the police and Afghan troop levels to be realized over the next sixteen months.. To put an Afghan face on the war, coordinating NATO and ISAF forces within ANSF for increased training is needed.

The Current troop levels in Afghanistan include 35,000 NATO troops and 65,000 American troops. General McChrystal has requested an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to help counter the insurgents. I understand no immediate decision made based on the stress it could pose overall on the United States Military, but time is running out. Everyday a decision is not made means further delay for positioning the forces in strategic victory and the possibility of more lives lost.

The Afghan people currently have a “crisis in confidence” with the Afghan government due to corruption and inability to provide basic services to citizens, including security. The perception of the Afghan people is being won by the insurgents whose arguments are fueled by the eight years we have inhabited Afghanistan. To win their confidence, the government and coalition forces must be seen as combating the insurgency and providing for the people. Operate within each community, learn the language, assist in providing services, and earn their trust. Once an area is cleared of insurgents, the area must be held by a number of troops to keep the insurgents from inhabiting that community and continue to terrorize and threaten its people.

Mr. President, take direction from the generals. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, General Petreaus, General McChrystal, and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen - all men who have the experience and tactical training to make this decision based on the proper assumptions and metrics. Before a situation in Iran can be acknowledged and implemented, the war in Afghanistan must be stabilized with an adequate counterinsurgency strategy.

I argue that Afghanistan is at a breaking point, much like Iraq in 2005 and 2006. President Obama acknowledged has that the strategy of the past eight years was not working but the current security force remains weak and ineffective.

With the current Afghani government in question due to election fraud, they are unable to produce tangible results in the eyes of the Afghan people. The current economy is weak, and the rule of law is lacking and not enforced due to the spread of insurgents throughout the different provinces. The insurgency, Taliban forces, and al Qaeda feed off of the lack of confidence of the people.

As General McChrystal stated, “time matters”. Someone will be defeated, and we have the choice to adopt a strategy that will ensure that those who will be defeated will not be the American or coalition forces, or the citizens of Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is at a critical point, the campaign is over and it is time to supply the troops and the ANSF with the sufficient resources and manpower for a strategic victory.

Article as published in The Shorthorn

Article as published in the College Republicans at UTA October Newsletter

Rest in Peace, Senator Kennedy as written 8/27/2009

There are not many politicians in Washington, DC today with the characteristics of Senator Ted Kennedy. Although I did not agree with his politics and some of the causes he trumpeted, he was a man who stood for what he believed in.

A man who proudly accepted the label of being a liberal, quoting his brother, President John F. Kennedy saying, “... if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people. If that is what they mean by a liberal, I am proud to be a liberal.”

With that in mind, he was a staunch advocate in the 1960’s for civil rights, he was a man who championed education, carried the torch for financial aid means for college students, and was someone who rallied for healthcare as a right for all Americans.

Just like his brothers, he had his own ill-dealings in his personal life and that is something that he had to deal with for many years, but that should not be what we remember about him.

I had the opportunity to meet Senator Kennedy in February of 2008 when he came to campaign for then Senator Barack Obama in San Antonio. There are not many in my generation, let alone my party, who can proudly say that they shook the hand of Ted Kennedy and got to speak with him briefly.

In August of 2008 during the Democratic National Convention, I think Caroline Kennedy summed it up best when she said

“If you're no longer being denied a job because of your race, gender or disability, or if you've seen a rise in the minimum wage you're being paid, Teddy is your senator too.

If your children are receiving health care thanks to the Children's Health Insurance Program...If your child is getting an early boost in life through Head Start, or attending a better school or can go to college because a Pell grant has made it more affordable, Teddy is your senator too.”

The Kennedy name has been synonymous in politics since the early part of the 20th century when the father of Ted Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy, was the U.S Ambassador to Great Britain during World War II, brother John F. Kennedy being a member of Congress then elected President, brother Robert F. Kennedy was Attorney General in the Kennedy Administration then elected Senator of New York and began his run for the Presidency in 1968, and 47 years in the United States Senate, Edward M. Kennedy, the “Lion of the left”.

The Kennedy name comprising over a quarter of the history of the United States, regardless of your party or your personal feelings on the personal matters of the Kennedy family, there were many issues they confronted for the American people, and legislatively, Senator Kennedy accomplished many things that have helped to better many lives.

In 2008, Ted Kennedy ended his speech at the Democratic National Committee saying, “There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination... The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on.”

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

Cash for Clunkers? as written on 8/9/2009

Did you get your new and more fuel efficient car yet? Not going to
take advantage of the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation that was passed
a few weeks back to help people get into more fuel efficient cars? Oh,
you already took advantage of the $4500 tax credit and got yourself a
new ride? You are welcome. Anyone who takes advantage of that program
should be thanking the taxpayers who actually have to pay taxes into
the federal government.

I never agreed with this program, although it has helped the auto
industry. Ford reported a 55% jump in sales thanks to the program but
out of the top selling models under the program, only one was American
made, the Ford Focus. Wouldn't you think that after the government
aided bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM that maybe they should have
stipulated that the cars should be American made? I am no fan of
protectionism, nor was I a fan of the "Cash for Clunkers" program
either, but what better way to spur the American economy than to
stimulate and sell American made inventory. The UAW would have been
happy, the tax payer would be happy to see profit coming out of the
industry they put billions into over the past eight months.

But that is just one of the problems with the "clunkers" program. Once
these vehicles are traded into the dealers and they fill out 22 pages
of paperwork, they must disengage the engine to no longer be operable
and the vehicle gets hauled off to the junk yard. Now that is
government efficiency. Instead of donating the cars to be used by
those unable to have a car, the car gets destroyed. Right now, we are
still in a recession, millions of Americans are still unemployed and
there is not a sign that unemployment will let up anytime soon.

The point in the program was to help get older, less efficient cars
off the road and to help car sales which had been falling over the
past few quarters. Many of the cars that have been traded-in were paid
for, I am assuming and were old enough to where the owner may have
only been carrying liability insurance. Under that assumption, the
discount that many of these people ran to take advantage of, put them
under a new automobile loan and higher insurance. Depending on the
financial situation of those consumers and one of their desires to
take advantage of the program was to lower their fuel costs. Did it
really? Now being assessed a higher insurance premium for full
coverage on top of a new loan, who really won financially? I would go
even further to say that there is a high possibility that we could be
bailing out a few of these consumers a few months or a year down the
road when they can not make the payment for their new car.

This program may have provided temporary financial relief to a few,
and to help slightly reduce the emissions of carbon-dioxide pollution
from automobiles, but should the government play that role in our
society? This $1 billion program has burnt through it’s original
allocation of funding and required another infusion of $2 billion to
keep it going into the fall. That is $3 billion of tax payer funded
giveaway to fund a few program to benefit only a small portion of the
public. I guess one could call it a small redistribution that will
have only a minute net-effect for the consumer when you get to the
bottom line.

Article as written in The Shorthorn