Democratic ingratitude for good intelligence work

Michael Gerson in the Washington Post on the Democrats' troubled relationship with the CIA:

To stanch the CIA's bleeding morale, Democrats have tried reassurance. President Obama, speaking at CIA headquarters, took the Fred Rogers approach: "Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn." Yes, children, hypocritical congressional investigations and foreign kangaroo courts are really our friends. House intelligence committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes sent a sympathy note to Langley: "In recent days, as the public debate regarding CIA's interrogation practices has raged, you have been very much in my thoughts." There should be a section at Hallmark for intelligence operatives unfairly accused of war crimes.

The only effective reassurance came from Panetta, who pointed out to Pelosi and others that the CIA actually keeps records of its congressional briefings. "Our contemporaneous records from September 2002," Panetta wrote, "indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaida, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.' " A primary advocate of the "truth commission" has apparently misplaced her own supply.

Is there any precedent for a speaker of the House of Representatives seeking political shelter by blaming national security professionals? Or for a commander in chief exposing intelligence methods at the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union? Actually, such treatment has precedents. In 1975, the Church Committee nearly destroyed the human intelligence capabilities of the CIA. In the early 1990s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan urged closing the agency entirely. The Clinton administration imposed massive budget cuts, leaving behind a demoralized institution.

And now Obama has described the post-Sept. 11 period as "a dark and painful chapter in our history." In fact, whatever your view of waterboarding, the response of intelligence professionals following Sept. 11 was impressive. Within days, the CIA had linked up with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and begun preparations to remove the Taliban. The counterterrorism center run of out CIA headquarters was the war on terror in the months after the attacks, making daily progress in capturing high-value targets. Now the president and his party have done much to tarnish those accomplishments. So much for the thanks of a grateful nation.

I guess the days of fawning articles and Vanity Fair covers are over now that the Democrats no longer need the CIA to club President Bush. Unfortunately, the Democrats have reverted to form.

Obey compares Obama to Nixon, gives him a year

Congressman Dave Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said today that he is giving President Obama's foreign policy in South Asia a year,

...House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey said he was “very dubious” about the chances of success in the region and wants a “fish or cut bait” assessment in a year’s time that will determine how long the U.S. continues on this path.

“It gives the president one year to demonstrate what he can do,” said the Wisconsin Democrat. “It gives him ample resources.”

Much as the administration may wince, Obey draws a parallel between today and 40 years ago, when he first came to Congress in the spring of 1969 and gave Richard Nixon a year to make progress in Vietnam.

“The president feels obligated to give it a shot, and we’ll help him give it a shot for a year,” Obey said. “At the end of the year, I want to have a hard-nosed, realistic evaluation based on the performance standards we’re talking about.”

Toward this end, the bill requires the White House to report back to Congress prior to its 2011 budget next winter, assessing whether the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are demonstrating sufficient progress to continue Obama’s policies as laid out in March, when the president made new U.S. troop commitments to the war against Taliban forces there.

Five standards are listed, including the performance of Pakistani forces with respect to counterinsurgency operations and the ability of the government to control the territory within its borders — where the Taliban has already made significant inroads.

At the same time, the structure of the bill seems certain to frustrate Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, who shares many of the same goals but demands broad power for himself to try to achieve them.

I guess Obey wasn't paying attention to Obama when he said that he was planning on sending troops to Pakistan, or following the debate when Obama promised to combat Al Qaeda in 60 different countries?

Muddling through ain't no way to conduct a war

The Politico has an excellent article today about the problems confronting the new president with some speculation on how the Obama Administration might handle them. The most interesting part was the section on Afghanistan:

DOES HE REALLY THINK AFGHANISTAN IS WINNABLE?

The new president has strongly signaled that he thinks the answer is yes. But neither his rhetoric nor his policy proposals so far have fully reckoned with the implications.

If he intends to win in Afghanistan, he is not going to be a Peacemaker President. To the contrary, he is committing himself to being just as much of a War President as George W. Bush, certainly for the first term and very possibly for a potential second.

Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties.

...Joe Biden’s first trip abroad as vice President-elect included a stop in Afghanistan. When he returned home, he told Obama: “The truth is that things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they’re going to get better.”

If that’s true, Obama may in the end find muddle-through more attractive than victory.

"Muddle-through" is a recipe for disaster. War cannot be won unless there is a commitment to victory. "Muddle-through" was the formula Johnson used in Vietnam and it was the formula Bush used in Iraq before he finally committed enough troops and resources to win. We have been muddling through for far too long in Afghanistan and we run the risk of throwing the whole theatre of operations away. If Afghanistan is lost, or even if the deterioration continues without resolution, we run the risk of greater destabilization of neighboring (and nuclear) Pakistan.

White House may be slowing down on auto bailout

Michelle Malkin notes that the White House may be hearing the public's weariness at the idea of bailing out the auto companies:

Hey, maybe it’s beginning to dawn on them that no really does mean no.

Maybe, it’s beginning to dawn on President Bush that the public is sick of bailout-palooza.

Or maybe his lawyers need extra time trying to justify committing an illegal act by siphoning off TARP funds for the automakers. Whatever the case, it’s an opportunity to redouble those phone calls and e-mails to the White House urging them to stop the bailout cycle now.

Reuters reports from Afghanistan:

KABUL (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Monday an announcement on a auto industry rescue was not imminent, leaving the industry's fate clouded in uncertainty for a little longer.

"We're not quite ready to announce that yet," Bush told reporters on Air Force One during a flight from Baghdad on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan.

He had been asked when he might make an anticipated announcement about tapping a $700 billion financial industry bailout fund to aid General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co and Chrysler LLC.

Asked whether he was leaning toward using financial bailout funds, Bush said: "I signaled that that's a possibility."

Bush said a decision would not take long. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said earlier that she had no timetable for a decision.

Natives are getting restless already

Ed Garvey is looking for "change" and not seeing any.

But if friends don't let friends drive while drunk or vote Republican, then FOO--Friends of Obama--must, at a minimum, ask what the hell is happening on Iraq and the new quagmire Afghanistan?

Haven't heard boo about either unwinnable war or have we? Hillary "Hawk" Clinton at State, Gates to stay on for a year at least, Rahm "Super Hawk" Emanuel as Chief of staff. And, no real changes at CIA or NSA.

Peace advocates complained with good reason that W.wouldn't listen to our stop the war rallies. Is it time for FOO to find out if the president-elect is listening?

Note that Garvey and the like will not be happy until the War on Terror is abandoned entirely, including in Afghanistan. I expect Garvey's disappointment is just beginning.

I guess dissenting Chinese and Tibetans don't count

Former President Jimmy Carter explains why he would not support a boycott of the Beijing Olympics:

As president, Carter led the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "That was a totally different experience in 1980, when the Soviet Union had brutally invaded and killed thousands and thousands of people," he said, rejecting the idea of boycotting the Beijing games to protest China's crackdown in Tibet. He did not address whether just the opening ceremonies should be boycotted.

So you see, because the Communists don't have to invade to continue to be repressive towards their own people and the Tibetans, not too mention other Asian ethnic minorities within their borders, it doesn't really count.