Obama has a plan of leaving behind about 50,000 troops in Iraq and pulling out about 90,000 to start coming home by August of 2010. This seems promising and necessary but something doesn't make sense to me.
I am part of the US Coast Guard Reserves in a deployable unit that will be working security in the Middle East with the Army. During one of my training sessions with the Army (this was well before the election), an Army Staff Sergeant was telling us that even if we were to just stop the war all together it would take at least three years to get everyone out. Reason being is because we would have to bring home everything that we brought there. This isn't just troops, it's the tanks, weapons, tents, gymnasiums, and whatever else we brought over there when we started this "war on terrorism." A little off topic with this, but you can't just declare a war on a criminal act. Haven't we learned from the war on drugs?
There is a lot of criticism with the 50,000 troops Obama wants to leave there but to me it is justified. They have to leave people there to man the bases there and provide security on all of their equipment. Not to mention that we have to train the Iraqi forces as well. I like the ideas Obama is coming up with, I am just hoping that it all works out.
The NY Times reported that the leftover 50,000 troops would focus on training Iraqi security forces, hunting down terrorists, and protecting American institutions. I agree with the 1st and 3rd missions but hunting down terrorists is ridiculous. If we can find the big guys in the terrorist organizations, so be it. But what happens when we knock out a leader? The guy under him gets an immediate promotion! When will we learn?? It's a waste of money. Remember Pablo Escobar? When he was shot and killed? Did it stop cocaine from coming into America?? Hell no. We can only take up measures to prevent it from coming into our shores. So I agree with the Homeland Security idea but going out fishing for terrorists is a waste of our troops' lives, our Country's money, and simply a waste of time.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Environmental Policy
With the coming of a new age guided by President Obama’s tutelage, the country has been left in the dust concerning green technology and environmental sensitivity. President Bush had no time or concern for environmental policy or research which many attribute this to his special interest groups that so graciously funded his campaign. President Obama and Vice President Biden have implemented a new strategy for the future of America, it is called, “New Energy for America”.
In this doctrine it spells out the future goals that they have for the American people. The largest and most important on the list are creating jobs, reducing carbon production, decreasing oil dependency, short term relief funds, initiation of hybrid cars, and the use of electricity from renewable sources. Obviously these issues are nothing new, and how can we believe that Obama will help push these initiatives into action? Well, no one can say for sure that all of his top priorities will be carried out, but he does have long term plans that may help the Country.
Interestingly, Obama is trying to lead by example, and in doing so he has asked that the White House Fleet be converted to plug in hybrid vehicles, (Security Permitting). I feel personally that a personal stance such is this is a great message to send to the United States and the rest of the world. Obama does on the other hand have some tall orders in which he would like to take care of. One item that may be tough is ensuring that in 2012 10% of the US’s electricity is provided by renewable sources.
Lastly, our dependence for oil is in any case outrageous, but Obama is trying to bring that dependence to the home front. By harnessing oil reserves in Montana, Texas, and Alaska, Obama plans to reduce the cost at the pump. This however, has caused much controversy among environmental activists. Do we save the caribou, grizzly bears, and snowshoe hare, or do we drill and help out with our economic crisis. A highly debated issue with no compromise is something that I understand is very difficult for a President to encounter. As in any situation when dealing with economic stability, the mighty dollar speaks the truth, whether it is right or wrong.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for American
In this doctrine it spells out the future goals that they have for the American people. The largest and most important on the list are creating jobs, reducing carbon production, decreasing oil dependency, short term relief funds, initiation of hybrid cars, and the use of electricity from renewable sources. Obviously these issues are nothing new, and how can we believe that Obama will help push these initiatives into action? Well, no one can say for sure that all of his top priorities will be carried out, but he does have long term plans that may help the Country.
Interestingly, Obama is trying to lead by example, and in doing so he has asked that the White House Fleet be converted to plug in hybrid vehicles, (Security Permitting). I feel personally that a personal stance such is this is a great message to send to the United States and the rest of the world. Obama does on the other hand have some tall orders in which he would like to take care of. One item that may be tough is ensuring that in 2012 10% of the US’s electricity is provided by renewable sources.
Lastly, our dependence for oil is in any case outrageous, but Obama is trying to bring that dependence to the home front. By harnessing oil reserves in Montana, Texas, and Alaska, Obama plans to reduce the cost at the pump. This however, has caused much controversy among environmental activists. Do we save the caribou, grizzly bears, and snowshoe hare, or do we drill and help out with our economic crisis. A highly debated issue with no compromise is something that I understand is very difficult for a President to encounter. As in any situation when dealing with economic stability, the mighty dollar speaks the truth, whether it is right or wrong.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for American
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Let's Talk Sports
Seriously. Considering Mr. Obama's made a point about doing something for college sports, namely football, while in office, I'd say it's pretty appropriate.
The 'Bowl Champion Series' is pretty much college football's championship series, with the BCS Bowl being the biggest championship to win. Since these teams are selected to compete in the deisgnated bowl games, there is no playoff season, causing some obvious room for disagreement. Some people believe that the system needs to be reworked, as it does not always honor the best teams of the nation. In fact, some division I schools are not even part of the BCS, which really means to them, since the BCS is the biggest series, that they do not really get a true championship game. So many believe that there should be a playoff series within college football to decide this.
During a Monday Night Football game, the day before the election, the commentators had a brief interview with Senator McCain and President Obama during half-time. When asked what kind of changes Mr. Obama would like to see with sports programs, he expressed that he would like to see some sort of playoff system for college football.
According to this article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18226.html, Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) agrees with Obama. However unlikely the two are as a team, I think it's symbolic of politicians coming together in a bipartisan manner to solve real issues that some people can relate to. On the other hand, I wonder what kind of obstacles government might face if some sort of bill enforced a playoff system if it were passed into law.
Regardless, many desire for a better system to see their favorite team or their school get the ability to win a national title. And, in my view, I think that the wolrd of sports and the world of politics are a little distant, and it's nice to see sports fans are having a voice in politics concerning something they find similar to their interests.
The 'Bowl Champion Series' is pretty much college football's championship series, with the BCS Bowl being the biggest championship to win. Since these teams are selected to compete in the deisgnated bowl games, there is no playoff season, causing some obvious room for disagreement. Some people believe that the system needs to be reworked, as it does not always honor the best teams of the nation. In fact, some division I schools are not even part of the BCS, which really means to them, since the BCS is the biggest series, that they do not really get a true championship game. So many believe that there should be a playoff series within college football to decide this.
During a Monday Night Football game, the day before the election, the commentators had a brief interview with Senator McCain and President Obama during half-time. When asked what kind of changes Mr. Obama would like to see with sports programs, he expressed that he would like to see some sort of playoff system for college football.
According to this article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18226.html, Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) agrees with Obama. However unlikely the two are as a team, I think it's symbolic of politicians coming together in a bipartisan manner to solve real issues that some people can relate to. On the other hand, I wonder what kind of obstacles government might face if some sort of bill enforced a playoff system if it were passed into law.
Regardless, many desire for a better system to see their favorite team or their school get the ability to win a national title. And, in my view, I think that the wolrd of sports and the world of politics are a little distant, and it's nice to see sports fans are having a voice in politics concerning something they find similar to their interests.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Obama Shifts Focus to Afghanistan
This article is talking about Obama's plan to withdraw 17,000 troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. Currently, Iraq is "peaceful" and Afghanistan is becoming a threat to America. Obama stated during his campaign that he would shift America’s military effort away from Iraq. Obama is following through with his promise. Obama is shifting his attention from Iraq to Afghanistan: the greater of the two evils.
There seems to be unsettling feeling dealing with Obama's plan. The article states that this plan by Obama could leave Iraq in a state of instability. This would be caused by the troops being withdrawn within the next sixteen months which is deemed to be too soon. Commanders in Iraq are worried that Iraqi insurgents will attack due to the security gap that was caused from the quick withdrawal.
Obama believes that withdrawing from Iraq will "responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq" allowing "us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan." The troops that are going to Afghanistan are not being deployed from Iraq. These troops were Iraq-bounded but have changed course to go to Afghanistan. The Afghani bound troops are going to southern-Afghanistan due to the worsen security situation that has developed over the course of the last year.
Obama is excising his right as Commander-in-Chief because Obama stated that there was a direct threat from Al Qaeda to America and this was a major factor in his decision making. Obama was quoted saying “The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action” and that “The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.” Obama's orders for the troop switch appears to be for the greater good of his fellow Americans thus Obama is doing his job as Commander-in-Chief which is too command American militia.
My article was Obama Shifts Focus to Afghanistan:
There seems to be unsettling feeling dealing with Obama's plan. The article states that this plan by Obama could leave Iraq in a state of instability. This would be caused by the troops being withdrawn within the next sixteen months which is deemed to be too soon. Commanders in Iraq are worried that Iraqi insurgents will attack due to the security gap that was caused from the quick withdrawal.
Obama believes that withdrawing from Iraq will "responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq" allowing "us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan." The troops that are going to Afghanistan are not being deployed from Iraq. These troops were Iraq-bounded but have changed course to go to Afghanistan. The Afghani bound troops are going to southern-Afghanistan due to the worsen security situation that has developed over the course of the last year.
Obama is excising his right as Commander-in-Chief because Obama stated that there was a direct threat from Al Qaeda to America and this was a major factor in his decision making. Obama was quoted saying “The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action” and that “The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.” Obama's orders for the troop switch appears to be for the greater good of his fellow Americans thus Obama is doing his job as Commander-in-Chief which is too command American militia.
My article was Obama Shifts Focus to Afghanistan:
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Blog Schedule
Your post should be up by Thursday of the week you are schedules for.
2/16--------- 3/30
Trevor------- Zach
Zach--------- Melissa
Melissa -------Lacey
2/23 --------- 4/6
Trevor-------- Chris L
Jim ------------Jim
TJ -------------Tracie
3/2------------ 4/13
Chris L. ------- Greg
Chris B-------- Lindsay
Greg ----------Seth
TJ ------------4/20
3/9 -----------Andrew
Lacey--------- Seth
Lindsay -------Jane
Tracie--------- 4/27
3/23 ----------Andrew
Chris B
Jane
2/16--------- 3/30
Trevor------- Zach
Zach--------- Melissa
Melissa -------Lacey
2/23 --------- 4/6
Trevor-------- Chris L
Jim ------------Jim
TJ -------------Tracie
3/2------------ 4/13
Chris L. ------- Greg
Chris B-------- Lindsay
Greg ----------Seth
TJ ------------4/20
3/9 -----------Andrew
Lacey--------- Seth
Lindsay -------Jane
Tracie--------- 4/27
3/23 ----------Andrew
Chris B
Jane
Sunday, February 8, 2009
A first test in foreign policy for the President?
Now that I've finally figured out how to contribute rather than just look at the blog...
On my way home Friday NPR was running a story about how the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan) is likely going to evict the US from a base it uses to supply our efforts in Afghanistan. (http://www.manas.afcent.af.mil/) While many pundits feel it's a money issue since the Kyrgyzstan government stated that they wanted more money for us to rent the base, other pundits feel it's an issue of the Russians trying to eek us out of a role of influence in its back yard. The Central Asian Republics WERE part of the Soviet Union, after all.
It sort of reminds me of how the US was evicted from the base at Kharsi-Khanabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshi-Khanabad) a few years ago, which I covered in breif in my term paper on US relations with Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) for Dr. Shirley's American Foreign Policy class last year. Basically, the Uzbekistan government gave us the boot, saying they didn't like us getting involved in their domestic affairs, after we protested the government's actions in suppressing a demonstration using deadly force. Again, many pundits saw it as the Russians reasserting influence in the region.
President Obama has an opportunity to gain a critical win here, both in the war on terrorism in support of our efforts in Afghanistan, and as a way to foil the Russians. In my view, the Obama administration should call the government of Kyrgyzstan on the rent issue, offering more money in return for a renewal of the lease. The current amount was cited by NPR on Friday at, I believe, $120 or so million a year. So, let me get this straight, we have $800 BILLION to toss about for a stimulus bill that's highly divisive, but not a few million more to help us win in Afghanistan, which the President has already stated he'd like to make a priority???
If we offer the kind of money the Kyrgyzstan government is saying they want, and they still refuse, there isn't really a whole lot we can do about that. The Russians probably offered something better. But if they take our offer, it could be seen as two important early wins for the Obama administration in the very first weeks of his Presidency. The first is we get to keep the base in Kyrgyzstan, which NPR reported sees about 15,000 troops move through it every month, as well as plenty of supplies, thus helping us regain control over Afghanistan. And let's face it, Pakistani land routes keep looking less and less of a sure thing, as the recent bombing of a bridge through the Khyber Pass demonstrates (though I think it was on the Afghan side). Secondly, it shows the Russians that Obama's not afraid to take them on, even in something seemingly so trivial as this.
On my way home Friday NPR was running a story about how the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan) is likely going to evict the US from a base it uses to supply our efforts in Afghanistan. (http://www.manas.afcent.af.mil/) While many pundits feel it's a money issue since the Kyrgyzstan government stated that they wanted more money for us to rent the base, other pundits feel it's an issue of the Russians trying to eek us out of a role of influence in its back yard. The Central Asian Republics WERE part of the Soviet Union, after all.
It sort of reminds me of how the US was evicted from the base at Kharsi-Khanabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshi-Khanabad) a few years ago, which I covered in breif in my term paper on US relations with Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) for Dr. Shirley's American Foreign Policy class last year. Basically, the Uzbekistan government gave us the boot, saying they didn't like us getting involved in their domestic affairs, after we protested the government's actions in suppressing a demonstration using deadly force. Again, many pundits saw it as the Russians reasserting influence in the region.
President Obama has an opportunity to gain a critical win here, both in the war on terrorism in support of our efforts in Afghanistan, and as a way to foil the Russians. In my view, the Obama administration should call the government of Kyrgyzstan on the rent issue, offering more money in return for a renewal of the lease. The current amount was cited by NPR on Friday at, I believe, $120 or so million a year. So, let me get this straight, we have $800 BILLION to toss about for a stimulus bill that's highly divisive, but not a few million more to help us win in Afghanistan, which the President has already stated he'd like to make a priority???
If we offer the kind of money the Kyrgyzstan government is saying they want, and they still refuse, there isn't really a whole lot we can do about that. The Russians probably offered something better. But if they take our offer, it could be seen as two important early wins for the Obama administration in the very first weeks of his Presidency. The first is we get to keep the base in Kyrgyzstan, which NPR reported sees about 15,000 troops move through it every month, as well as plenty of supplies, thus helping us regain control over Afghanistan. And let's face it, Pakistani land routes keep looking less and less of a sure thing, as the recent bombing of a bridge through the Khyber Pass demonstrates (though I think it was on the Afghan side). Secondly, it shows the Russians that Obama's not afraid to take them on, even in something seemingly so trivial as this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)