Will Obama Really Fight the War?

[Richard]

Zero Tolerance means a drunk will goto jail if found over the legal limit if the cops find him.

Repeat Drunk Driver Accused in MLB Player's Death
10 Apr 2009

The career of a promising young Major League Baseball pitcher ended suddenly and tragically at the hands of a 22-year-old driver who police say was driving under the influence. Los Angeles Angels' Nick Adenhart was one of three people killed in an auto crash shortly after he pitched against the Oakland Athletics.
Police identified the accused drunken driver as Andrew Thomas Gallo.

A few hours after his best performance as a major leaguer, Adenhart, 22, was a passenger in a Mitsubishi Eclipse that was hit by a minivan after the driver ran a red light. The crash occurred about five miles from Angel Stadium.

The driver of the Mitsubishi, Courtney Frances Stewart, 20 and another passenger Henry Pearson were also killed in the collision. Another passenger Jon Wilhite was injured in the crash and hospitalized. A passenger in the minivan was also taken to the hospital.

Fled From the Scene

After the crash, police say Gallo ran away from the scene, but was captured shortly thereafter. He will be charged with felony hit and run, felony driving under the influence and vehicular manslaughter.

It is not Gallo's first brush with the law. In May 2006, he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and was sentenced to three years of probation, fined $1,400 and ordered to attend a first-offender alcohol program.

Woman, 27, drove drunk four times in three weeks, records show
24 Jun 2009

A Milwaukee woman was arrested for drunken driving four times within three weeks, at least once right after dropping her children off at school and another time with her 4-year-old son in the car, according to court records.

Nicole M. Bailey, 27, is being held in the Waukesha County Jail on $20,000 bail.

Bailey was convicted of her first offense of drunken driving in Milwaukee on May 26. She was arrested for that offense on April 25.

At the time of her arrest in Milwaukee, Bailey had two pending drunken-driving cases stemming from arrests in Menomonee Falls, on April 18 and April 20. She was arrested a third time in Menomonee Falls on May 8.

In Wisconsin, drunken driving isn't a felony until the fifth offense, but Bailey could face a felony charge for having a child in her car.

According to the criminal complaint, on April 18, Menomonee Falls police spotted a vehicle traveling 70 mph in a 45 mph zone. Bailey was arrested, and a sample of her blood showed an alcohol level of 0.15, nearly twice the limit to legally drive.

According to a second criminal complaint, shortly after 1 p.m. on April 20, police were called to North Point Drive in Menomonee Falls for a possible drunken driver. The officer found the driver, later identified as Bailey. She said she wanted to talk to the officer because she said she had just been to school with her son and was asked to leave.

A child was in the car but not in a car seat, the complaint says.

A blood sample was taken and showed her alcohol level to be 0.24, the complaint says.

According to a third criminal complaint, Bailey was stopped for speeding in Menomonee Falls at 8:43 a.m. May 8. There was no license plate on the vehicle, but the officer recognized Bailey.

Bailey told the officer that she had just dropped off her two children at school, the complaint says.

A sample showed her level to 0.17, the complaint says.

UPDATE: Drunk Driver Interlocks
4 Feb 2009

The Wisconsin DOT says in 2007 there were more than 13,000 repeat drunk drivers. They estimate 14,000 first time drunk drivers had a BAC above .15.

Under current law, judges can require repeat offenders to install the interlocks, but there is little oversight and many drunks don't bother at all.

Guess it's more complicated than we'd like to think...and so it goes.

Richard's $.02

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

Guess it's more complicated than we'd like to think...and so it goes.

Richard's $.02

The drunk driver goes to jail.

After the cops get him there how long he remains is up to the lawyers and the judge.

And you know that.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by 7624U

If we find a terrorist we should kill him not jail him.
my $.02

Great point Sir, IMVHO.

Why are we jailing terrorists, and providing them with U.S. military lawyers, as was announced today for Afgan detainees?

I have never served in uniform, but these folks are the enemy of everything the United States of America stands for, as well as everything Our Brave Soldiers fight and DIE for!

So why not just KILL them? Makes sense to me?

Holly

[7624U]

Originally Posted by echoes

Great point Sir, IMVHO.

Why are we jailing terrorists, and providing them with U.S. military lawyers, as was announced today for Afgan detainees?

I have never served in uniform, but these folks are the enemy of everything the United States of America stands for, as well as everything Our Brave Soldiers fight and DIE for!

So why not just KILL them? Makes sense to me?

Holly

We have lost our way over the years. Blame globalization we are not as independent as we once where and care to much about what the rest of the world thinks. It's Fairly Piss poor if you ask me, 60 years ago we had no problem droping a A-bomb if it would save american lives. Today we wont even pour water on someones face or keep them up with no sleep cause its torture.

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by echoes

Great point Sir, IMVHO.

Why are we jailing terrorists, and providing them with U.S. military lawyers, as was announced today for Afghan detainees?

I have never served in uniform, but these folks are the enemy of everything the United States of America stood for, as well as everything Our Brave Soldiers fight and DIE for!

So why not just KILL them? Makes sense to me?

Holly

I fixed your post Holly.

We arent the same nation we were years ago; we have a different mindset. This started with the change of the War Department to the Defense Department...

As my brother pointed out, we care more about what others think than we do about our own security. We, as a nation, dont have the balls to stand up for whats right and what needs to be done. Instead, we have become apologists, starting with our CinC, and the rest of the world -especially those waging war against us- is exploiting that weakness.

As far as I am concerned the remainder of the world can f*$k off. Our National Security Policy should be based in keeping our citizens safe, not making other countries feel better about what we are doing.

Crip

[Richard]

Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.

- General of the Army Omar Nelson Bradley

And so it goes...

[7624U]

There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

General George Patton Jr


And so we don't learn

[echoes]

Originally Posted by 7624U

It's Fairly Piss poor if you ask me, 60 years ago we had no problem droping a A-bomb if it would save american lives. Today we wont even pour water on someones face or keep them up with no sleep cause its torture.

Sir, thank you for your brilliant synopsis. It is gut-wreching.

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

I fixed your post Holly.

We arent the same nation we were years ago; we have a different mindset. This started with the change of the War Department to the Defense Department...

As my brother pointed out, we care more about what others think than we do about our own security. We, as a nation, dont have the balls to stand up for whats right and what needs to be done. Instead, we have become apologists, starting with our CinC, and the rest of the world -especially those waging war against us- is exploiting that weakness.

As far as I am concerned the remainder of the world can f*$k off. Our National Security Policy should be based in keeping our citizens safe, not making other countries feel better about what we are doing.Crip

Crip,

I am left to wonder if the Special Ops commuinity will at some point decide to opt out???

Seriously, with the current state of things, I am in more awe than ever that specially trained, highly sophisticated men would want to protect Our Country as it is now? Am at a loss as to how you all have the patience to do it...

Holly

[Pete]

Originally Posted by echoes

....Seriously, with the current state of things, I am in more awe than ever that specially trained, highly sophisticated men would want to protect Our Country as it is now?......

I've been to some ratholes - and some very nice places - I was always glad to get back to the states.

There are a number of SF folks who fell in love with other countries around the world and many retired there. They enjoy it and live well - but it is not the same as the USA.

When this ship sinks there ain't too many other life boats floating around the world.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Pete

I've been to some ratholes - and some very nice places - I was always glad to get back to the states.

There are a number of SF folks who fell in love with other countries around the world and many retired there. They enjoy it and live well - but it is not the same as the USA.

When this ship sinks there ain't too many other life boats floating around the world.

Pete Sir,

Concur!

This is 3+ min. well worth spent watching a great rendition of, "America the Beautiful."

Click the link and scroll to click play:

http://newsnidea.com/5628/america-th...-lyrics-video/

Holly

[Richard]

There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

General George Patton Jr

Which doesn't always ensure either a satisfactory or strategic victory.

And so we don't learn.

Concur.

And FWIW - there is no other country - as flawed as it may sometimes appear - which offers its citizens the protections and opportunities of this one. Period.

Richard's $.02

[Sigaba]

The FPI's open letter to the president is here.

Open Letter to President Obama on Afghanistan
September 7, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

The situation in Afghanistan is grave and deteriorating. This is in part the legacy of an under resourced war effort that has cost us and the Afghans dearly. The Taliban has retaken important parts of the country, while a flawed U.S. strategy has led American forces into secondary efforts far away from critical areas. However, we remain convinced that the fight against the Taliban is winnable, and it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to win it.

You’ve called Afghanistan an "international security challenge of the highest order, " and stated that "the safety of people around the world is at stake." Last month you told a convention of veterans, “Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

We fully agree with those sentiments. We congratulate you on the leadership you demonstrated earlier this year when you decided to deploy approximately 21,000 additional troops and several thousand civilian experts as a part of a serious counterinsurgency campaign. Your appointments of General Stanley McChrystal as top commander and David Rodriguez as second in command in Afghanistan exemplified the seriousness of purpose you spoke about during the campaign. We are heartened to see that the much needed overhaul of our military operations has begun.

Since the announcement of your administration’s new strategy, we have been troubled by calls for a drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan and a growing sense of defeatism about the war. With General McChrystal expected to request additional troops later this month, we urge you to continue on the path you have taken thus far and give our commanders on the ground the forces they need to implement a successful counterinsurgency strategy. There is no middle course. Incrementally committing fewer troops than required would be a grave mistake and may well lead to American defeat. We will not support half-measures that repeat the errors of the past.

This is, as you have said, a war that we cannot afford to lose. Failure to defeat the Taliban would likely lead to a return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan and could result in terrorist attacks on the United States or our allies. An abandonment of Afghanistan would further destabilize the region, and put neighboring Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal at risk. All our efforts to support Islamabad’s fight against the Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal regions will founder if we do not match those achievements on the other side of that country’s porous northwestern border.

As you observed during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, “You don't muddle through the central front on terror and you don't muddle through going after bin Laden. You don't muddle through stamping out the Taliban.” We completely agree. Having “muddled through” in Afghanistan for years, this is no longer a politically, strategically, or morally sustainable approach.

Mr. President, you have put in place the military leadership and sent the initial resources required to begin bringing this war to a successful conclusion. The military leadership has devised a strategy that will reverse the errors of previous years, free Afghans from the chains of tyranny, and keep America safe. We call on you to fully resource this effort, do everything possible to minimize the risk of failure, and to devote the necessary time to explain, soberly and comprehensively, to the American people the stakes in Afghanistan, the route to success, and the cost of defeat.

With the continued bravery of our troops, and your continued full support for them and their command team, America and our allies can and will prevail in Afghanistan.

Sincerely,

Gary Bauer
Steve Biegun
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Paul Bremer
Christian Brose
Debra Burlingame
Eliot A. Cohen
Ryan C. Crocker
Thomas Donnelly
Eric Edelman
William S. Edgerly
Jamie M. Fly
David Frum
Abe Greenwald
John Hannah
Pete Hegseth
Margaret Hoover
Thomas Joscelyn
Frederick W. Kagan
Robert Kagan
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
Herbert London
Clifford May
Robert C. McFarlane
Joshua Muravchik
Andrew Natsios
Sarah Palin
Keith Pavlischek
Beverly Perlson
Danielle Pletka
John Podhoretz
Stephen Rademaker
Mitchell B. Reiss
Karl Rove
Jennifer Rubin
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Dan Senor
Ashley Tellis
Marc Thiessen
Daniel Twining
Peter Wehner
Kenneth Weinstein
Christian Whiton
Rich Williamson

Speaking of open letters, on 19 December 1945, President Harry S Truman sent an open letter to the U.S. Congress urging passage of legislation establishing a department of national defense. The letter is available here. It reads in part as follows.

No nation now doubts the good will of the United States for maintenance of a lasting peace in the world. Our purpose is shown by our efforts to establish an effective United Nations Organization. But all nations--and particularly those unfortunate nations which have felt the heel of the Nazis, the Fascists or the Jap[anese]--know that desire for peace is futile unless there is also enough strength ready and willing to enforce that desire in any emergency. Among the things that have encouraged aggression and the spread of war in the past have been the unwillingness of the United States realistically to face this fact, and her refusal to fortify her aims of peace before the forces of aggression could gather in strength.

Now that our enemies have surrendered it has again become all too apparent that a portion of the American people are anxious to forget all about the war, and particularly to forget all the unpleasant factors which are required to prevent future wars.

Whether we like it or not, we must all recognize that the victory which we have won has placed upon the American people the continuing burden of responsibility for world leadership. The future peace of the world will depend in large part upon whether or not the United States shows that it is really determined to continue in its role as a leader among nations. It will depend upon whether or not the United States is willing to maintain the physical strength necessary to act as a safeguard against any future aggressor. Together with the other United Nations, we must be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to protect the world from future aggressive warfare. In short, we must be prepared to maintain in constant and immediate readiness sufficient military strength to convince any future potential aggressor that this Nation, in its determination for a lasting peace, means business.

The letter came during the rapid demobilization that followed the end of World War Two. Truman's letter rejected a return to America's historic practice of wartime mobilization. It also urged the country to accept indefinitely the controversial premise that war would come again. The note also indicated that it was incumbent upon the federal government to give the armed services the organizational tools necessary to fight modern wars.

[nmap]

The question of why the terrorists haven't attacked us in the U.S. is one I've often wondered about.

It seems reasonable to say our borders are porous. If those who aspire to jobs Americans don't want can walk in, I wonder why terrorists cannot or will not. I have to suppose they don't care to do so.

And, too, getting contraband into the U.S. seems simple enough. Hardly a week goes by without news of some large quantity of illicit drugs having been seized. If such things are presently being brought in, then I wonder why the terrorists can't make some sort of arrangement to bring in whatever they desire.

Training? Why would the terrorists need any particular training? The Beltway sniper of a few years ago created quite a lot of disruption with minimal equipment and not much training of any sort.

WMD attacks? I have long found the subject of interest. In discussing it with several people who had detailed knowledge and understanding of aspects of the subject, a WMD attack seems as if it could be carried off rather easily and inexpensively. Some things might set off alarm bells, but there appear to be some loopholes to deal with that as well. Since such things aren't my field, I am, of course, open to correction.

So it seems that, for some reason I cannot fathom, the bad guys have decided not to do bad things here in the U.S. Maybe the efforts in Afghanistan have them focused elsewhere.

Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.

- General of the Army Omar Nelson Bradley

Of course we know about killing. It is the most fundamental aspect of life - not merely human life, but of life at every level. Peace is only a temporary condition between battles - and those battles will not end until the demise of the species.

It is in the nature of life to consume, to expand - and to supplant the competition. It happens with plants, with animals, and with men. It happens with ideas and world views. Sometimes the external environment changes, and other times expansion of one group overwhelms another.

Once upon a time, people worshiped various gods and goddesses. Those temples, where they even exist, have been broken and thrown down. Ideas of right and wrong that were once accepted are no longer - new ideas have taken their place. Once powerful nations that were the super powers of their time and locale exist only in seldom-read texts today.

We ignore history at our peril.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by nmap

Training? Why would the terrorists need any particular training? The Beltway sniper of a few years ago created quite a lot of disruption with minimal equipment and not much training of any sort.

nmap--

While in the U.S. Army, John Allen Muhammad "qualified as expert with both the M-16 rifle and hand grenades."* If only individuals such as he would remember the values they learn while in the service rather than just the technical skills.

Originally Posted by nmap

Of course we know about killing. It is the most fundamental aspect of life - not merely human life, but of life at every level. Peace is only a temporary condition between battles - and those battles will not end until the demise of the species.

It is in the nature of life to consume, to expand - and to supplant the competition. It happens with plants, with animals, and with men. It happens with ideas and world views. Sometimes the external environment changes, and other times expansion of one group overwhelms another.

To paraphrase Freud, does the horse ride the man or does man ride the horse?

Originally Posted by nmap

Once upon a time, people worshiped various gods and goddesses. Those temples, where they even exist, have been broken and thrown down. Ideas of right and wrong that were once accepted are no longer - new ideas have taken their place. Once powerful nations that were the super powers of their time and locale exist only in seldom-read texts today.

We ignore history at our peril.

Does history offer any lessons? (Surprisingly, I've known one historian who agreed with my answer to this question.)
_____________________________
* Source is here.

[Dad]

There are several points in McCarthy's article which raise questions and I would appreciate your comments.
1. In another thread where McChrystal's change in tactics were being discussed, a QP responded with a comment "you can't kill your way to victory." I have grasped this quote as a way of understanding UW in a simple definition (rightly or wrongly). Isn't McCarty's position in conflict with this philosophy?
2. Where he really lost me was his statement that Obama has done everything possible to ensure defeat in Iraq. It would seem to me that defeat or victory was determined long before Obama took office. Right or wrong? Obama is living with the treaty the former administration signed. This statement leads me to believe the article is much more about a political agenda rather than anything to do with the security of the US.
3. Doesn't the nation building, or humanitarian, aspect have to work right along side the combat aspect? Isn't that an important piece of how Special Forces work?
That you
Dad