The Left's War Against Liz Cheney

I'm just going to come out with it: I've got a crush on Liz Cheney! Her new PAC is awesome, and she's sending leftists into paroxysms of fear:

And see Ron Radosh, "The Media’s War Against Liz Cheney":

You can’t win with liberal supporters of a weak dovish foreign policy, especially if you are a woman. We’re familiar with their attacks on Sarah Palin, whom they accuse of being a know-nothing, uneducated, unprepared, right-wing partisan. Liz Cheney obviously knows her stuff, is prepared and educated, and certainly does not need to be brought up to speed. She has five children, still manages to function as a serious spokesman for a new foreign policy, and is good looking and charming.

Of course, their real fear is that before long, Liz Cheney will run for a major national office. What could be worse–an attractive, articulate female conservative with knowledge and guts, running for office ... this woman must be brought down.

Richard Heene a Democrat? 'Balloon Boy' Father Hopes to 'Get Rid of Modern Vehicles'

Richard Heene, father of "Balloon Boy" Falcon Heene, sounds a bit like the "Goracle" in the clip from Colorado's KUSA-TV 9-News, "Richard Heene Interview."

From the New York Times, "Interview Sets Off Skeptics of Balloon Drama":

People inclined to believe that Thursday’s balloon drama was a publicity stunt will want to see this raw video of Richard Heene explaining his “experiment” to reporters on Thursday night. In the video, published by 9news.com, the Web site of a Colorado television news station, Mr. Heene explained that his whole family was present when he launched the balloon and that he hopes that his invention can one day be used by commuters instead of cars. “It’s a low-altitude vehicle,” he said, “and we’re working on a way to perhaps get rid of modern vehicles, so we can just levitate, and go to work at 50 to 100 feet, to and from work. And this works off a million volts to move horizontally. It uses helium to levitate, much like a blimp.”

Then, after appearing to struggle with his emotions while recounting for the press the moment when one of his sons, Bradford, told him that his brother Falcon was inside the experimental vehicle when it took off, Mr. Heene regained his composure and thanked the media “for being kind to me.”

Now it turns out the Heene family is under investigation. See, the Times, "Family Is Being Investigated for Possible Balloon Hoax." (Via Memeorandum.)

Newt Gingrich Joins Daily Kos in Dede Scozzafava Endorsement!

Look, Newt Gingrich is utterly reviled by the hardline partisans of the netroots left. So when Gingrich winds up on the same political page as Markos Moulitsas, you know something in the GOP it TFU.

In June, Moulitsas decried the "GOP’s jihad" against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. As Kos wrote then, "Newt Gingrich Twittered that since a white racist shouldn’t sit on the Supreme Court, a 'Latina woman racist should also withdraw'." Now though, Kos and Gingrich are happily singing duet together in backing RINO Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd district special election. Gingich's endorsement is at The Hill today, "Gingrich Endorses Scozzafava in NY-23 Race." But check Daily Kos from earlier this month, "NY-23: The Most Liberal Candidate Leads (And It's Not the Dem)":

... Dede Scozzafava, the Republican, is actually the most liberal candidate in the race ....

Sure, she is a Republican, and opposes the public option. But she's been willing to raise taxes when budgets require it, and is to the left of most Democrats on social issues (including supporting gay marriage) ....

So it's official, I'm rooting for the Republican to win. As a congresswoman, she could either move even more to the left to properly represent her progressive-trending district and be a pain in the side of the GOP caucus (they have nothing like our Blue Dogs), or Democrats can field a real Democrat to challenge her in 2010.

Hat Tip: John McCormack, "Scozzafava to Switch Parties?" (via Memeorandum.)

See also, Michelle Malkin, "An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing."

Plus, Dana Loesch, "Newt Gingrich Poised to Blow the Second Republican Revolution."

Related: So It Goes in Shreveport, "Not One Red Cent to the NRCC!"

San Francisco Tea Party: No Rest for the Obamunist

From the City Square blog, "A Tea Party greets Obama in San Francisco."

See also, Atlas Shrugs, "Huge Anti-Obama Protest Greets Obama in San Francisco." (Via Memeorandum.)

And Michelle Malkin shares my thoughts on Newt Gingrich's endorsement of Dede Scozzafava, "I think it’s time for Tea Party protests in the D.C. offices of the NRCC and Newt Gingrich."

Why is Newt Gingrich Endorsing Dede Scozzafava?

I just read the Wall Street Journal, "Tea-Party Activists Complicate Republican Comeback Strategy." It notes there that Dede Scozzafava, a RINO who's nevertheless backed by New York's Hamilton County Republican Committee, is pro-choice, favors same-sex marriage, backed President Obama's economic porkulus plan, and wants to give unions card-check power over employees. And Newt Gingrich is backing her over insurgent conservative Republican Doug Hoffman? That's fubar. Bill Kristol responds, "Shouldn't the Republican Establishment Help a Republican Win a Congressional Seat?":

A new poll in the November 3 special election for the congressional seat, NY-23, vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh, confirms what knowledgeable observers have suspected for a while: The candidacy of the official Republican nominee, liberal Dede Scozzafava, selected by local party officials and supported by the national Republican establishment, is collapsing. The Republican who has a real chance to defeat Democrat Bill Owens is Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate—a Republican with a profile far more like the popular McHugh, and one far more in sync with the district. What’s more, if elected, Hoffman would caucus in Congress with Republicans—whereas Scozzafava could well pull an Arlen Specter and defect to the Democrats.

Read the whole thing at the link. (Additional commentary at Memeorandum.)

Scozzafava is fading, and folks can help Hoffman by making a donation at his campaign page, here.

What bugs me especially is Gingrich. Why is this guy backing a Rockefeller Republican? The days of the moderate Republican are long over, and folks like Scozzafava simply need to declare their real party affiliation rather than carpetbagging GOP races. Gingrich should know better. Indeed, tea partiers should denounce the former Speaker at their next round of events.

Added: From Red State, "Today Newt Gingrich Takes Himself Out of the 2012 Running."

Shocker! Obama Pentagon to Bury Bush Doctrine

If there's one thing leftists hate more than anything else about the foreign policy of George W. Bush, it was the administration's bold willingness to use force in defense of American interests.

So as the Pentagon prepares for its Quadrennial Defense Review, leftists are getting a chance to demonize the previous administration once more (see, "Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine Under Review, May Be Discarded"). While it's almost comical that this strategic assessment is being framed as a way to revise U.S. doctrine on preemptive war (since President Obama is the personification of exactly the opposite), you've got to love how Daily Kos represents the Bush administration's foreign policy:

Preemption, that is, initiating a first strike against another nation that appears to be preparing an imminent attack or is already in the process of launching one is not particularly controversial. It's self-defense. And every nation has the right to it. Supporters of preventive war, on the other hand, argue for strategically attacking nations which may, someday, pose a military threat. Preventive war cannot, therefore, be distinguished from a war of aggression, a violation of the most fundamental international law ....

It's this kind of thinking which says it's not only OK but downright prudent to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent that country from ever building its own nuclear weapons. Moral issues aside, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, such thinking is no different from saying that torturing an enemy soldier is OK: It lets that enemy or a future enemy justify the torture of one's own soldiers. If it's all right for the U.S. to strike preventively at Iran, why isn't it all right for the same to be done by Iran - which during the Cheney-Bush administration had good reason to believe it was under threat of attack?

Despite all the theoretical justifications of preventive war, the neoconservative Cheney-Bush administration made every effort to present the Iraq war as pre-emptive. That was what all those exaggerations and fabrications were about in the run-up to March 2003. Just days before the Bush Doctrine itself was made public, Bush at the United Nations told the lie that the Iraq "regime is a grave and gathering danger."

Ending the Bush Doctrine and the associated policy spin-offs, would not, of course, mean an end to all the perniciousness of American exceptionalism. But it would be a major step in the right direction. Although it would elicit an extended round of shrieks against Obama from the crowd which claims no war America fights can be called aggression, taking that step would improve our national security instead of weakening it as the Bush Doctrine has done.

Of course, President Bush didn't lie. Virtually all of the major European defense ministries claimed similar intelligence on Iraqi WMD. There was a consensus on the reality of threat, just not what to do about -- especially among countries like France and Russia who were loathe to forfeit their massive oil concessions in Saddam's Iraq should the U.S. fight to uphold the 17 United Nations resolutions the Baghdad regime had long abrogated.

In any case, checking that link at Daily Kos leads to President Bush's speech to the World Body on September 12, 2002: "President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly." This passage is especially noteworthy:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Also, see Arthur Borden, "Iraq War's Valid Origins":

President Bush has often invoked the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify the war in Iraq. This is understandable, but the war is widely misunderstood as a result. The conflict was based not solely on the terrorist attacks of 2001 but also on decades of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy.

As President Jimmy Carter phrased it in 1980, "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." Since that time, every U.S. president has been prepared to protect American interests in the Middle East. Recognizing the risks of Saddam Hussein, President Bill Clinton considered attacking Iraq doubtless for the same reasons as George W. Bush - concluding however that such a war would lack popular support.

The long-term challenge of the Iraqi dictator was his desire to control the vast resources of the Persian Gulf. He rightly saw that the acquisition of a nuclear capability would give him a free hand throughout the region, and a dominant role in the global economy.

This discussion shows that -- from President Bush's own words, to those of military experts on the origins of war in 2003 -- U.S. policy was not only predicated on larger strategic rationales of both human rights and deterrence, but that the administration was indeed working from a longstanding tradition in American foreign policy as well.

But what's especially bothersome is the Daily Kos passage above suggesting "the perniciousness of American exceptionalism." This concept is fundamentally at issue in leftist foreign policy in Washington, and it's the current administration's abandonment of America's foundational uniqueness that is placing Americans and citizens of the world at greater risk than in other other time in decades.

As I've said many times before, it won't be too soon when American voters reject Barack Neville Hussein and his Democratic (Socialist) Party at the ballot box. In the meanwhile, conservatives can gather strength in the increasing indicators showing that the current administration's days are indeed numbered.

Added: See also Common Sense Political Thought, "The Difference Between Theory and Practice."

Zomblog: 'Memo to Media Matters'

I honestly loathe the leftist Obama shills at Media Matters, so it's a pleasure to read zombie's cool rebuttal to the Soros outfit's pathetic campaign against conservatives speaking out on "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings.

See, "Memo to Media Matters: Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections":

Media Matters –

You have recently assumed the attack-dog role in the Jennings/Hay/NAMBLA scandal, releasing a nonstop barrage of announcements condemning what you characterize as “right-wing smears.” Before you continue down this road, pause to consider the consequences of this strategy.

Don’t you understand that your efforts are counter-productive?

Why are you taking actions that will damage Kevin Jennings’ career and get the Obama administration entangled in an embarrassing scandal?

While some of the right-wing posts you cite (which you set up as strawmen to knock down) do indeed go overboard in their criticism of Jennings, that doesn’t mean that all the evidence in this case can be accurately dismissed as “smears.” Because at the core of the scandal, there are some very inconvenient facts which cannot be wished away (see below).

By advising Jennings to dig in his heels on a story that is only bound to grow in intensity, you are only exacerbating the problem. Enough evidence has already emerged (with more to surely emerge in the near future) that you should recognize the need for Jennings and the Obama administration to enter “crisis management mode”: In other words, they should get in front of the story, apologize, acknowledge mistakes, and vow to never repeat them.

Furthermore, your defense of Jennings is so weak, and so easily debunked, that you have now put your own reputation on the line, not just Kevin Jennings’.

But it’s not too late. I invite you, Media Matters, to join me in encouraging Kevin Jennings to make a public statement condemning Harry Hay in no uncertain terms, and to retract his earlier praise of him. Any action short of that — especially denying that the scandal has any substance at all — will only make the crisis grow.

Be sure to read the whole thing. The evidence presented by zombie is an indictment of the crazed partisan hackery that is the Democratic leftwing today.

Related: For background, check World Net Daily, "Obama's 'Safe Schools' Chief Praised Child-Sex Promoter."

Wave of Attacks Highlights Terror Links in Pakistan

Again, a point I've made repeatedly at the blog over the last week.

From the New York Times, "Pakistan Attacks Show Tightening of Militant Links":

A wave of attacks against top security installations over the last several days demonstrated that the Taliban, Al Qaeda and militant groups once nurtured by the government are tightening an alliance aimed at bringing down the Pakistani state, government officials and analysts said.

More than 30 people were killed Thursday in Lahore, the second largest city in Pakistan, as three teams of militants assaulted two police training centers and a federal investigations building. The dead included 19 police officers and at least 11 militants, police officials said.

Nine others were killed in two attacks at a police station in Kohat, in the northwest, and a residential complex in Peshawar, capital of North-West Frontier Province.

The assaults in Lahore, coming after a 20-hour siege at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi last weekend, showed the deepening reach of the militant network, as well as its rising sophistication and inside knowledge of the security forces, officials and analysts said.

The umbrella group for the Pakistani Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban, claimed responsibility for the attacks in Lahore, the independent television news channel Geo reported on its Web site.

But the style of the attacks also revealed the closer ties between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and what are known as jihadi groups, which operate out of southern Punjab, the country’s largest province, analysts said. The cooperation has made the militant threat to Pakistan more potent and insidious than ever, they said.

The government has tolerated the Punjabi groups, including Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, for years, and many Pakistanis consider them allies in just causes, including fighting India, the United States and Shiite Muslims. But they have become entwined with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and have increasingly turned on the state.

The alliance has now stepped up attacks as the military prepares an assault on the Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan, where senior members of the Punjabi groups also find sanctuary and support.

“These are all Punjabi groups with a link to South Waziristan,” Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, a former interior minister, said, explaining the recent attacks.

In a rare acknowledgment of the lethal combination of forces, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that a “syndicate” of militant groups wanted to see “Pakistan as a failed state.”

“The banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are operating jointly in Pakistan,” Mr. Malik told journalists, pledging a more effective counterstrategy.

In Washington, senior intelligence officials said the multiple coordinated attacks were a characteristic of operations influenced by Al Qaeda. But the officials said they were still sifting through intelligence reports to determine whether the attacks indeed marked an attempt by Al Qaeda to assert more influence over the Pakistani Taliban’s operations.

And that's thanks to Barack "Neville" Hussein's 1930s diplomatic reprise.

It's going to be a long three years until we kick this man out of the White House. Thank goodness polls show that Americans would vote for someone else if the election were held today. Just pray we don't have our own Madrid or Mumbai in the meanwhile, and I'm totally serious: The Democrats are putting the nation -- and the international community -- at risk.

Almost Half Say They'd 'Vote for Someone Else' if 2012 Election Held Today

From the questionnaire at the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll out today:

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, would you definitely vote to reelect Barack Obama, probably vote to reelect Obama, probably vote for someone else, or definitely vote for someone else?

Just 43 percent said they'd vote to reelect the president if the 2012 election were held today.

Another interesting finding: Americans disapprove of the way the president's handling healthcare 50 to 42 percent.

And just today, Obama's town hall address in New Orleans was preempted by the "balloon boy" sensation. Can't be a good sign for this administration, and thank goodness the kid is okay after all.

McCain Boobette! Meghan McCain Racks Up Controversy on Twitter!

Well, my Sitemeter's been unusually active with Google image searches, and it turns out one of my old "Rule 5" entries for Meghan McCain is the culprit. I guess Ms. McCain's gotten herself into a bit of twist today, posting a busty photo of herself to Twitter this morning. She's apparently having some regrets:

See "Meghan McCain Twitter Photo Creates Uproar."

So far, Ms. McCain's Twitter page is still up.

Plus, Robert Stacy McCain, Google-bomber extraordinaire, has more, "Meghan McCain's Boob Shot":

UPDATE: Linked at Camp of the Saints, Monique Stuart, and Robert Stacy McCain's. But check Doug Powers as well:

I don’t see what the big deal is, other than it looks like Meghan has Uncle Fester and Vin Diesel in a headlock.

Breaking: 6-Year Old Boy Trapped in Hot Air Balloon! -- UPDATE: Balloon Crash Lands, No Sign of Boy! -- UPDATE II: Hoax or Tragedy?

A live feed is here, "A 6-Year-Old Climbed Into a Balloon Aircraft and Floated Away in Fort Collins, Colo."

And at the Greeley Tribune, "BREAKING: 6-Year-Old Alone in Helium-Powered Aircraft Flying Above Weld County."

UPDATE: Here's the video:

Plus, from AP, "No Sign of 6-Year-Old Boy After Balloon Lands: Balloon Crashes to Earth; No Sign of Boy."

Information is sketchy. I was watching the CNN report at the local Japanese takeout. I'm off to a 1:00pm class. Expect updates throughout the afternoon.

UPDATE II: More information is coming in. From Denver Channel 7 News, "Search Under Way For Fort Collins Boy After Empty Balloon Touches Down":

The search is on for a 6-year-old boy who is missing after floating over northeastern Colorado in a homebuilt helium balloon that touched down about two hours after lifting off.

The balloon landed about 2 miles northeast of Prospect Reservoir at 1:35 p.m., in Weld County, but the boy was not inside. That's about 50 miles from where the balloon lifted off.

The boy has been identified as Falcon Heene, the youngest of three sons of Richard and Mayumi Heene, of Fort Collins.

The family reported Falcon could not be found after the balloon lifted off. His older brother told his parents that he saw Falcon climb into the small compartment at the bottom of the balloon and the balloon lifted off, Larimer County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Kathy Messick said.

The balloon had a small compartment that carried batteries, she said.

"It was never intended for any more weight than the batteries that were in the compartment," Messick said.

She described the craft as a sort of weather balloon.

The boy's home and neighborhood were immediately searched and there was no sign of the boy, leading everyone to believe the boy had climbed into the craft.

"We're now organizing a search from the home in the direction the balloon took off," Messick told reporters.

Falcon Heene was out of school on Thursday because of teacher conferences at his school.

Plus, "Missing Boy's Parents Were on 'Wife Swap'."

And CBS News is questioning, "The Family Behind "Balloon Boy" Story":

A boy who may - or may not - have flown away from his Colorado home in a homemade, mushroom-shaped balloon has been identified as Falcon Heene, the youngest son of an eccentric family that twice appeared on the ABC reality series "Wife Swap."

After nearly three hours airborne - chased by the police, National Guard and media helicopters - the balloon made a relatively gentle landing in a dirt field. No one was inside.

One of the Falcon's brothers said he saw him fall out of the balloon. Police did not locate him in a search of the Heene house, raising questions about whether the story is a tragedy or a hoax.

Aviation experts say the balloon was too small to have lifted a 6-year-old boy and was not flying as if it was carrying a payload, reported Village Voice editor Tony Ortega.

Nevertheless, Falcon is still missing, leading the police to treat today's events as an open case and not a hoax.

The first "Wife Swap" episode on which the Heenes appeared juxtaposed a family that goes on "storm chasing" missions (the Heenes) with a conservative counterpart that conducted regular fire drills and never left children out of their sight.

Viewers later voted for two families who had previously appeared on the show - including the Heenes - to be featured in a special 100th episode swap in March. ABC called the family "science-obsessed."

See also, Wizbang, "Breaking: The Boy Was Never in the Balloon."

UPDATE III: The boy was found alive:

See, "6-Year-Old Colorado Boy Found Alive After Setting Balloon Adrift."

Taliban Campaign Strikes at Cultural Heart of Pakistan!

My Monday report is here, "Peshawar Carnage: 41 Dead as Taliban Siege of Pakistan Continues; Obama Cowardice Enables Militant's Impunity!"

This seems to be a near-daily update.This morning's Taliban incursion into the heart of Pakistan is the fifth strike in ten days.

Now this, from the New York Times, "Coordinated Attacks Strike Cultural Heart of Pakistan":

Militants dressed in police uniforms simultaneously attacked three law enforcement agencies in Lahore on Thursday morning, the fifth major attack in Pakistan in the last 10 days.

The assaults took place on the regional center of the Federal Investigation Agency and two police training centers just before 9:30 a.m. in Lahore, the capital of Punjab Province and Pakistan’s second most populous city.

More than 30 people were killed, including 19 police officers and at least 11 militants, police officials said.

Also on Thursday, militants attacked a police station in the garrison town of Kohat, killing eight people, in the North-West Frontier Province, and a car bombing killed one person in a residential complex in Peshawar, the capital of that province.

The coordinated attacks, the most sophisticated in a wave of violence that began this month, threw parts of Lahore into chaos, closing roads and shuttering shops and offices.

Five militants scaled the wall of the police training center, where more than 800 recruits had just started classes, said Maj. Gen. Shafqat Ahmed, the officer commanding security forces in Lahore.

In the ensuing two-hour battle between the hundreds of army commandos and the gunmen, one attacker was killed early on and another detonated a suicide bomb. The three surviving militants then tried to move to a residential compound, but families locked themselves inside while commandos fired on the assailants.

Six police officers were killed and seven were wounded, police officials said. In all, five of the attackers were killed, they said.

The attack on the elite school was particularly unnerving because its graduates, trained in counterterrorism techniques, are considered the toughest in the province. They wear black T-shirts with the words “No Fear” inscribed on the back and are easily distinguished by their fit physiques and well-trimmed hair.

In Islamabad, officials expressed dismay at more attacks five days after Taliban militants had attacked the nation’s army headquarters in Rawalpindi, taking more than 40 hostages and raising serious questions about the security of the military establishment in the nuclear-armed nation.

“The enemy has started a guerrilla war,” Interior Minister Rehman Malik said. The nation had to unite to defeat “this handful of terrorists.”

More at the link. (Via Memeorandum.)

Dexter Filkins: 'Stanley McChrystal’s Long War'

I just finished Dexter Filkins' New York Times essay, "Stanley McChrystal’s Long War."

And that title really does capture the reality of America's mission to Afghanistan. Top military officials are looking at success there in terms of years, in some cases many years. McChrystal says U.S. forces need to see improvement in 12 to 24 months to have a data point for assessing the renewed American effort. And of course there's no guarantee that the mission will be renewed. For in McChrystal's recent advisory report to the White House, the request for 40,000 more troops was an all-or-nothing proposition. The general came right out and said we'll fail without the additional resources. In such stark decision-making stakes, the Afghan war is reminiscent to what the U.S. was facing in Vietnam in the '60s.

In fact, in Filkins' discussion with McCrystal, the general spoke of the need for village pacification in the countryside. And the way the comments were framed, I immediately was reminded of my studies in the military history of Vietman, and the "Strategic Hamlet Program" that sought to separate peasant villagers from the Vietcong fighters.

In the military arena, McChrystal wants to put as many of his men as close to the Afghan people as he can. That means closing some of the smaller bases in remote valleys and opening them in densely populated areas like the Helmand River valley. Here, at least, military force will play a central role, at least in the early phase of his strategy, as the Americans fight their way into areas they have not been in before.

“The insurgency has to have access to the people,” McChrystal told me. “So we literally want to go in there and squat among the people. We want to make the insurgents come to us. Make them be the aggressors. What I want to do is get on the inside, looking out — instead of being on the outside looking in.”

“There will be a lot of fighting,” McChrystal added. “If we do this right, the insurgents will have to fight us. They will have no choice.

And that’s the rub: the population-focused strategy requires more troops — as many as 40,000 more. This is the decision that confronts President Obama and his advisers now.

As far as closing bases and relocation activities, in Afghanistan it's troop units not village populations, but I'm nevertheless reminded of the U.S. Army's rural strategies in the early 1960s. (And as noted at the piece, McChrystal's been reading Vietnam history, so there as something eery in seeing those similarities as well.)

But fortunately for McCrystal, it's not Vietnam that's the model, but Iraq. As the Filkins report notes in an earlier passage:

While Afghanistan is not Iraq, McChrystal’s plan does resemble in some ways that of General David H. Petraeus, who took command of American forces in Iraq in early 2007, when the country was disintegrating in a civil war. For four years, the American military had tried to crush the Iraqi insurgency and got the opposite: the insurgency bloomed, and the country imploded.

By refocusing their efforts on protecting Iraqi civilians, American troops were able to cut off the insurgents from their base of support. Then the Americans struck peace deals with tens of thousands of former fighters — the phenomenon known as the Sunni Awakening — while at the same time fashioning a formidable Iraqi army. After a bloody first push, violence in Iraq dropped to its lowest levels since the war began.

“It was all in,” Petraeus told me about that time.

And so if it was Petraeus who saved Iraq from cataclysm, it now falls to McChrystal to save Afghanistan.

And save Afghanistan he will, if he gets the support from President Obama. And note that should the administration cave, it won't be due to alleged claims of widespread public demands for a drawdown. As IBD reported yesterday, "Americans, In Reversal, Now Back Afghan Troop Surge." What's more likely to happen is we'll see the president capitulate to the stab-in-the-back constituencies on the Democratic-left. There's nothing more these America-haters want to see than a defeat of "U.S. imperialism" in South Asia. And despite his reassuring moves earlier this year, it looks like Obama may indeed revert to form as an acolyte of the Jeremiah Wright/Bill Ayers/Van Jones school of hard-left extremism. Should that happen - and the Americans redeploy out of the region - it's practically guaranteed that we'll see waves of attacks like those of the past few days; and we'll no doubt see additional Mumbai incursions across the region in neighboring countries as well. And God forbid the terrorists eventually succeed in toppling the Pakistan regime, with it's potentially devastating nuclear weapons capabilities.

In any case, don't miss the Frontline special, "Obama's War." A lot of good food for thought there, complete with additional consensus among analysts that the U.S. - if it gets serious about winning - is indeed in for the long haul in Afghanistan.

What's So funny 'Bout Peace Love and Understanding?

I haven't dropped off the face of the blogging world. I watched the Frontline "Obama's War" documentary last night, and this morning I had a meeting with my youngest son's new teacher. And it's been a full day teaching since then. In any case, I've been listening to a new radio station, 100.3fm The Sound. Their playlist is eclectic. This morning, for the first time in years, I heard Yes, "Roundabout." Next up came Elvis Costello, " (What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love And Understanding." It's political mush, but great sounds neverthless.

I'll be posting more on Afghanistan either tonight or tomorrow. I really recommend the Frontline program, and I'll have some things to say about that.

Also, comment moderation is enabled. If readers have checked some of the comments today, I've got some crazed attack blogger spamming American Power. Not sure if this is satire yet, but readers can give me their take in the comments. And sorry in advance if there's a delay in getting them approved.

Meanwhile, check out my good friend Anton at PA Pundits International for some political blogging, and stop off and say a good word at Obi's Sister if you have a moment more.

Oh yeah, Theo Spark's got the totties if you're in the mood for that (and who isn't?).

Frontline: 'Obama's War'

Airing tonight a 9:00pm. A review of the program is here: "Situation Report: The Dilemma of Afghanistan."

Obama: Expect Afghan Decision in 'Coming Weeks'

From President Obama's statement today: A decision on the Afghan deployment is expected in the "the coming weeks":

And from Fox News, "Obama: Decision on Afghanistan Expected in 'Coming Weeks'":

Robert Gibbs rejected a published report that the president had authorized 13,000 additional troops that were now arriving in Afghanistan. He said those troops were part of a deployment ordered by the former Bush administration, but had not made their way to the Afghan theater by the time Obama became president. The Washington Post had reported those forces were authorized by Obama.

See also, Christine Fair, "Pakistan's Partial War on Terror": The Deadly Results of Cooperation With Terrorists":

The past week's spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan and the siege of its military headquarters are again casting the spotlight on that country's war on terror. Attention will—and should—focus in particular on Islamabad's many failures to control militants on its own soil. Pakistan is now paying the heavy price for its earlier attempts to use terrorist groups as strategic tools.

For decades Islamabad has viewed and used terrorist groups as assets to be cultivated. Before the Soviet invasion, Pakistan used Islamist militants for operations in India and Afghanistan. Today, Pakistan aids the Afghan Taliban mainly in the belief that if U.S. and international commitment to Afghanistan wanes, it would be better to be friendly with a group like the Taliban that can keep Indian influence in the country at bay—the same logic behind Pakistan's pre-2001 support for the Taliban.

At home, Pakistan has tolerated a raft of terrorist groups ostensibly linked to Kashmir, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group responsible for last year's Mumbai massacre, continues to operate under various names. Its leadership roams free and its offices remain open. Jaish-e-Mohammad, responsible for several attacks in India and against international and domestic targets within Pakistan, is similarly unconstrained. Pakistan's track record against so-called anti-Shi'a militias, such as the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipha-e-Sahaba-e-Pakistan, has been equally lackluster despite vicious attacks against Shi'a who are perhaps one-fourth of Pakistan's population. These varied groups are ensconced not in the unruly tribal areas, but in Pakistan's most populous and militarized province: the Punjab. Punjab hosts six army corps, yet these groups proliferate and operate with impunity literally under the nose of Pakistan's army.

Islamabad has long believed it could exploit these groups for strategic aims while preventing them from causing too much "unapproved" trouble. The government would have likely come to some modus vivendi with the Pakistan Taliban, had its leaders agreed to focus upon Afghanistan rather than Pakistan. Islamabad cracked down militarily on the Pakistani Taliban earlier this year only after it was clear that deal-making had failed. With respect to the so-called Kashmiri groups, Pakistan only sought to moderate their activities to prevent serious Indo-Pakistan crises and international pressure while maintaining their basic operational readiness.

More at the link.

Related: The Washington Post, "Number of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Overlooks Thousands of Support Troops." (Via Memeorandum.)

Taliban Sends Deadly Message

Something I've noted the past few days.

From the Los Angeles Times, "Attacks Highlight Pakistan's Vulnerability to Militants":

Dressed in camouflage and armed with automatic rifles, grenades, mines and suicide vests, the 10 militants who shot their way into Pakistan's army headquarters were driven by a chilling goal: seize senior military officers as hostages and demand the release of more than 100 prisoners held by the government.

But nearly a day after the attack began, Pakistani commandos killed one militant before he could blow himself up in a room packed with 22 hostages, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said Monday. Within 45 minutes, the attack's Punjabi leader had been captured. The other militants were dead.

Although the militants failed to achieve their objective, the daring siege Saturday on one of the most heavily guarded military compounds in nuclear-armed Pakistan revealed the government's vulnerability to militant cells as it prepares to launch an offensive to crush the Taliban in South Waziristan.

Read the whole thing, at the link.

See also my previous report, and the links there, "Peshawar Carnage: 41 Dead as Taliban Siege of Pakistan Continues; Obama Cowardice Enables Militant's Impunity!"

Plus, at the New York Times, "Views on Afghanistan Buildup Bring Clinton and Gates Together in an Alliance" (via Memeorandum).

'Don't Be a Faggot - Don't Smoke'

Satire alert!! I'm pretty sure heads will explode with this masterpiece from the Onion, "New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens 'It's Gay To Smoke'."

And for more good stuff, check out Larry Johnson's post on Obama's bitchslap to the LGBT community last weekend, "Obama Giving Gays an Unwelcome Blow Job." More on that from Cynthia Yockey.

In other news, the reviled neocon warmonger Joseph Lieberman is leading the fight for repeal of military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. I mean, this is better than comedy: The nihilist blog-demons are up in arms that the Connecticut Senator might actually be a liberal on social policy.

'Keep America Safe' - Obama's Rhetoric Doesn't Match Reality

Here's the awesome new ad spot from Liz Cheney's PAC, Keep America Safe:

Killer viddy! And check out the home page. This is like neocon nirvanna! Palin-Cheney 2012!

Hat Tip: The Politico, "Liz Cheney's group 'Keep America Safe' Takes on 'Radical' White House" (via Memeorandum).

Is Bruce Jenner Neocon? 'Obama's Done Nothing'

Is Bruce Jenner neocon?

Maybe he'll become a celebrity spokesman for Liz Cheney's new PAC, Keep America Safe. Both Jenner and Cheney are making the same case this morning about President Obama: “He’s done absolutely nothing.”

On Liz Cheney, see "'Keep America Safe' - Obama's Rhetoric Doesn't Match Reality."

Hat Tip: The Politico, "Bruce Jenner: Barack Obama Undeserving of Nobel Award." Check TMZ for the video. (Via Memeorandum.)