Before I begin I need to offer a warning to all you bloggers out there in cyberspace. Do not sign out of gmail while you are scripting your blog on this site, if you happen to do so and hit publish, it will send you to the input page that says "please sign in" and your writing will be erased. This entry was actually completed around 11 a.m. but was definitely gone after a little click of the button so, a word of caution to all of you in blogland.
Well after a nice little break it looks like we're back at it again. Katherine Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas has been in the news recently for being able to link the destruction in Greensburg to the Iraq War....interesting. Sebelius announced after surveying the damage done to that town (which indeed was devastating) that she did not have an adequate amount of National Guard troops or equipment because of overextension due to the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The White House defended itself (for once), and said that it had held lengthy discussions with Sebelius, saying she confirmed she had everything she needed, and that other neighboring states had offered assistance as well should it be required. Well lets take a look at those numbers, shall we? As of May 11th, there are just over 550 National Guardsmen serving in Iraq, leaving the state of Kansas (with a population around 2.7 million people) still with 88% capacity. Now, for any of you all out in the blogosphere, if you ever happen to come across someone in the journalistic profession, you'll know that they feel one of their chief responsibilities is to serve as a fact checking oversight mechanism for the government, a "watchdog" of sorts over politicians. Well, here's the problem. When the media is willing to relent on said duties and give certain politicians a pass because the two entities are ideologically connected over the conflict in Iraq, that leaves we the people with......well, a bunch of shit. Similar to a baby who has recently soiled himself, politicians often cry and cry until someone comes in and cleans up their "mess" as well. Passing off blame for blunders and mistakes and placing it somewhere else is standard practice for government officials. Without any reliable fact checking sources to verify that those cries are legitimate, however, it isn't long before something starts to stink awfully bad. Sebelius retracted her statement a few days later (sort of), saying that the state of Kansas could face a shortage of National Guard units in the event another natural disaster of this magnitude were to take place. Well, we accept her apology (sort of). At this point we can recognize Sebelius for what she is, an incompetent, irresponsible liar, she is a politician after all, and is going to avoid liability as much as possible. By allowing her to make egregiously false claims, and then rebroadcasting them as fact as well, the media in this country is teetering dangerously close from the effervescence of objectivity to the stench of bias. So, to all you journalists out there, how about just a little bit of help on this issue, please?
With that out of the way, there's an even greater issue out there that needs to be addressed. Towards the end of the election season in October 06, Democrats have been using a new phrase or "buzz word" that they just can't seem to stop using. What one little word could have such talismanic properties for the Democratic Party, wait for it........redeploy! Wow! Doesn't that carry a nice defense oriented ring and just make them sound oh so military savvy? The fact of the matter is, when Democrats (Just about every single member of the party has used it in the past 2 months) say "It is time to redeploy our troops," perceptive as it may sound, they are effectively uttering an incomplete sentence. That said, I'm not going to use any of my textbooks from my American Foreign Policy or National Security, or even Terrorism courses from college, to utterly refute this trendy new axiom, that would give some kind of credence to what Dems have been saying. No, I'm going to use an older and more tested method of deciphering the meaning of this catchy term: semantics. Redeploy essentialy means reposition a group or various groups of forces to a new location. Simple enough? It should be. Now, that said, anytime you see a Democrat on TV say "Its time to redeploy our troops" and give that pearly white grin, it should be followed up by a very simple, thoughtful reply, "where?" By telling the American people our troops are going to be redeployed without a viable destination, Democrats are giving a performance on par with that of David Spade without Chris Farley, meaningless and hollow. In fact, the closest thing possible to an intelligible idea was given by John Murtha a few months ago, when he said he would like to redeploy our troops to Okinawa. Send our soldiers to a volcanic island in the middle of the South Pacific owned by pacifist Japan to fight terrorists. Brilliant John, keep those Whiskey Sours coming. Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has constantly reiterated that she will "go after the terrorists where they are." Well that sounds fine, does that mean Hill-dawg will start bombing Hezbollah concentrations in Lebanon? What about invading Waziristan, a renegade province sympathetic to the Taliban that recently signed a pact with our vital ally, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan? The point to all you out there in dreamland is that its really easy to say something that sounds like it might have some bearing, but when held to the test, words are exactly that, just words.
This isn't to say that I'm calling Democrats cowards, traitors, feeble, or any other such insults (much as I'd like to). Redeployment could in reality actually be a great option, if someone took the time to explain it. For example, U.S. forces could redeploy to Kurdistan in the north of Iraq and accomplish a variety of goals. The Kurds themselves have stated that it is their ambition to become the United States' best friend in the Middle East, better even than the Israelis. Should the U.S. reposition our forces there, it could maintain a presence in the heart of the Middle East (while retaining its welcome), keep Kurdish Peshmerga (Kurdish paramilitary forces) at bay while cooling off our ally Turkey (the Turks have become quite agitated with their ancient enemy the Kurds lately), and keep a sizable amount of soldiers, marines, and airmen within striking distance of Natanz, Iran's primary nuclear fuel/weapons facility (they are acquiring nukes, its not even really debatable anymore). This is a prime example of how a well thought out, redeployment strategy sounds. Sadly enough, nothing close to this type of cohesion has come from one single Democratic member of Congress or Senator, unless of course you really feel like hanging out on a Japanese rock. Until Democrats begin to take the idea of redeployment further than just some catchy sound bite, their true plans for U.S. forces will be anything but genuine.
Well after a nice little break it looks like we're back at it again. Katherine Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas has been in the news recently for being able to link the destruction in Greensburg to the Iraq War....interesting. Sebelius announced after surveying the damage done to that town (which indeed was devastating) that she did not have an adequate amount of National Guard troops or equipment because of overextension due to the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The White House defended itself (for once), and said that it had held lengthy discussions with Sebelius, saying she confirmed she had everything she needed, and that other neighboring states had offered assistance as well should it be required. Well lets take a look at those numbers, shall we? As of May 11th, there are just over 550 National Guardsmen serving in Iraq, leaving the state of Kansas (with a population around 2.7 million people) still with 88% capacity. Now, for any of you all out in the blogosphere, if you ever happen to come across someone in the journalistic profession, you'll know that they feel one of their chief responsibilities is to serve as a fact checking oversight mechanism for the government, a "watchdog" of sorts over politicians. Well, here's the problem. When the media is willing to relent on said duties and give certain politicians a pass because the two entities are ideologically connected over the conflict in Iraq, that leaves we the people with......well, a bunch of shit. Similar to a baby who has recently soiled himself, politicians often cry and cry until someone comes in and cleans up their "mess" as well. Passing off blame for blunders and mistakes and placing it somewhere else is standard practice for government officials. Without any reliable fact checking sources to verify that those cries are legitimate, however, it isn't long before something starts to stink awfully bad. Sebelius retracted her statement a few days later (sort of), saying that the state of Kansas could face a shortage of National Guard units in the event another natural disaster of this magnitude were to take place. Well, we accept her apology (sort of). At this point we can recognize Sebelius for what she is, an incompetent, irresponsible liar, she is a politician after all, and is going to avoid liability as much as possible. By allowing her to make egregiously false claims, and then rebroadcasting them as fact as well, the media in this country is teetering dangerously close from the effervescence of objectivity to the stench of bias. So, to all you journalists out there, how about just a little bit of help on this issue, please?
With that out of the way, there's an even greater issue out there that needs to be addressed. Towards the end of the election season in October 06, Democrats have been using a new phrase or "buzz word" that they just can't seem to stop using. What one little word could have such talismanic properties for the Democratic Party, wait for it........redeploy! Wow! Doesn't that carry a nice defense oriented ring and just make them sound oh so military savvy? The fact of the matter is, when Democrats (Just about every single member of the party has used it in the past 2 months) say "It is time to redeploy our troops," perceptive as it may sound, they are effectively uttering an incomplete sentence. That said, I'm not going to use any of my textbooks from my American Foreign Policy or National Security, or even Terrorism courses from college, to utterly refute this trendy new axiom, that would give some kind of credence to what Dems have been saying. No, I'm going to use an older and more tested method of deciphering the meaning of this catchy term: semantics. Redeploy essentialy means reposition a group or various groups of forces to a new location. Simple enough? It should be. Now, that said, anytime you see a Democrat on TV say "Its time to redeploy our troops" and give that pearly white grin, it should be followed up by a very simple, thoughtful reply, "where?" By telling the American people our troops are going to be redeployed without a viable destination, Democrats are giving a performance on par with that of David Spade without Chris Farley, meaningless and hollow. In fact, the closest thing possible to an intelligible idea was given by John Murtha a few months ago, when he said he would like to redeploy our troops to Okinawa. Send our soldiers to a volcanic island in the middle of the South Pacific owned by pacifist Japan to fight terrorists. Brilliant John, keep those Whiskey Sours coming. Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has constantly reiterated that she will "go after the terrorists where they are." Well that sounds fine, does that mean Hill-dawg will start bombing Hezbollah concentrations in Lebanon? What about invading Waziristan, a renegade province sympathetic to the Taliban that recently signed a pact with our vital ally, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan? The point to all you out there in dreamland is that its really easy to say something that sounds like it might have some bearing, but when held to the test, words are exactly that, just words.
This isn't to say that I'm calling Democrats cowards, traitors, feeble, or any other such insults (much as I'd like to). Redeployment could in reality actually be a great option, if someone took the time to explain it. For example, U.S. forces could redeploy to Kurdistan in the north of Iraq and accomplish a variety of goals. The Kurds themselves have stated that it is their ambition to become the United States' best friend in the Middle East, better even than the Israelis. Should the U.S. reposition our forces there, it could maintain a presence in the heart of the Middle East (while retaining its welcome), keep Kurdish Peshmerga (Kurdish paramilitary forces) at bay while cooling off our ally Turkey (the Turks have become quite agitated with their ancient enemy the Kurds lately), and keep a sizable amount of soldiers, marines, and airmen within striking distance of Natanz, Iran's primary nuclear fuel/weapons facility (they are acquiring nukes, its not even really debatable anymore). This is a prime example of how a well thought out, redeployment strategy sounds. Sadly enough, nothing close to this type of cohesion has come from one single Democratic member of Congress or Senator, unless of course you really feel like hanging out on a Japanese rock. Until Democrats begin to take the idea of redeployment further than just some catchy sound bite, their true plans for U.S. forces will be anything but genuine.
Comments