Santorum's Conservative Credentials Not Spotless

Rick Santorum is a faithful husband and devoted father.
Mitt Romney is a faithful husband and devoted father.

Rick Santorum supported a massive expansion of NATIONAL Goverment healthcare - Medicare Part D.
Mitt Romney supported a massive expansion of STATE Government healthcare - "Romneycare."

Rick Santorum opposes abortion and worked on the partial birth abortion bill in the US Senate.
Mitt Romney opposes abortion and as governor refused to sign a Massachusetts bill that would have allowed embryos to be created solely to be destroyed for medical research.

Rick Santorum openly campaigned against a true conservative in PA, for a liberal (Specter) whose victory and defection to the Democrats resulted in Democrat control of the Senate.
Mitt Romney campaigned as a moderate in order to bring some conservatism to a staunchly liberal state, MA, but as governor campaigned fiercely for conservative governors nationwide.

Rick Santorum supported voting rights for felons.
Mitt Romney supported permanent stripping of voting rights for felons.

Rick Santorum worked as a DC lobbyist for a giant health insurance company immediately after losing his reelection bid in PA.
Mitt Romney has never been a DC lobbyist.

Santorum is a good man and has worked for many conservative causes.  However, as the list above illustrates, GOP conservatives rallying to him are glossing over his liberal dalliances, much as they initially downplayed Newt Gingrich's open marriage proposals and philandering.  Why?  Because he is not Romney.

Perhaps conservatives should dig a bit deeper into Santorum's conservative credentials, and compare them with Romney's.  The contrast is not nearly as stark as the "he's not Romney" mob attempts to portray.

Newt, Get in to Win, or Get Out of the Way

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced this week that he is exploring whether he will possibly, maybe, but probably at least consider whether he will officially announce what we already all know:  he is running for president in 2012.  He claims he needs 6-7 weeks to "explore" the viability of his potential candidacy, which, translated into Washingtonese, simply means he will see how many donations his exploratory organization can generate in 6-7 weeks as an indication of the support he can expect from conservative backers.  Am I the only observer out there who finds it ironic that in the same interviews in which Newt criticizes the Obama Administration for exhibiting indecisiveness in its handling of uprisings in Libya and Iran, Newt himself exudes indecisiveness on running for president?

Newt, President Obama may be indecisive in handling world affairs, but at least he did not hesitate for one second to make it clear to the world in 2007 that he wanted very much to run for and win the presidency.  We knew what he wanted, even if we were unsure of exactly what he was politically, or what he might do once in office.  His ambitions were no secret.  Neither are yours, yet you approach them as if you should keep them to yourself until the last moment.  Campaign seasons are starting earlier and earlier, and those who know what they want and go all out for it, like candidate Obama did in 2007-2008, have more opportunity to influence voters.

Newt has had since the late 1990s to explore his viability as a candidate for the presidency.  He has been a rumored candidate in several previous presidential elections, and his strengths and weaknesses (skeletons may be a more accurate term) have been vetted in the media ever since he led the Congress that impeached President Clinton.  The media will continue to attack him and dredge up any and all past indiscretions whether he throws his hat into the presidential campaign ring or not, because Newt has palpable influence on conservative political thought.

Whether he enters the race today, 6 months from now, or not at all, he will be targeted by the White House and its media accomplices who view him as an ever-present threat to liberal ideology.  President Obama does not want to participate in any televised debates with Newt, who is far more prepared, articulate, and experienced in world affairs.  The White House would prefer almost any other potential GOP candidate to square off against.  What Newt will discover during his announced 6-7 week exploratory period is that he scares people on the left, and I don't mean because they consider his views radically conservative.  He scares them because he would be their most formidable foe.  Likewise, fellow conservatives seeking the White House fear Newt above all other potential opponents.  Newt's war chest is already building more rapidly than any other potential conservative candidate's.

In his sharp criticisms of the Obama Administration delivered at CPAC 2011, Newt aggressively stated his domestic priorities:  dramatic cuts to Federal government spending; dramatic permanent tax cuts for all taxpayers, which leads to business expansion and more jobs; and aggressive pursuit of domestic energy sources to lessen our dependence on Middle East regimes.

Although Newt wasn't exactly decisive on running for president in his exploratory announcement, his broadside attack on President Obama's foreign policy and national security indecision covered a lot of ground in just three sentences and illustrated why a debate matchup of President Obama and Newt Gingrich would be intriguing:

This was an administration which was very aggressive about an American ally, Mubarak in Egypt, and very confused about an American opponent, Gadhafi in Libya. This is an administration which doesn't notice the demonstrations and the brutality in Tehran, and it confuses Israelis building apartments with Iranians building nuclear weapons. And I think it's very, very dangerous.

Newt, if, as you say, at the end of your exploratory period (that you've had 15 years to explore) you expect to be in the race, get in now and be a decisive conservative leader.  Candidate Obama was in the race to win it already by March 2007.  He even had Secret Service protection that early, which certainly enhanced his image of viability as potential winner of his party's nomination.  Potential voters knew his ambitions, and he was not apologetic or modest about them.  Voters want decisiveness in their leaders.  Be all in, or all out, but never waffling in between two choices.  The Bible tells us it is better to be hot or cold, than to be lukewarm in our commitments.  If you lack the heart or the stomach for the long-haul campaign and the incredible pressures of the presidency if victorious, step aside now for someone with more vigor who is sure of what he or she wants.  If you have the heart and stomach for the brutality of a campaign and the job itself, then get in it to win it.

Chief Justice Obama?

President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with emphasis in Constitutional law.  He is a shrewd enough politician to get himself elected President.  He surrounds himself with advisers who, on paper at least, should be capable of simple tasks.  Apparently, at least one simple task is just too complex for President Obama's legal team:  understanding the difference between the executive and judicial branches of our Federal government.  If you retained attorneys who consistently advised you that you could do things that are unconstitutional, how long would you continue to pay for their services? Of course, if they advised you that you could ignore the Constitution and declare yourself the Commander-in-Chief, the chief executive of the Government, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all rolled into one omnipotent juggernaut of personality, you might like what you are hearing from those attorneys. 

First the White House Counsel advised the President that a Democrat House and Senate, upon his signature, could enact a law compelling citizens to purchase health insurance.  Thankfully, federal judges are voiding that law as unconstitutional, most recently in Florida, and states are moving to halt implementation of government-mandated health care.  Ultimately "Obamacare" as many call it, will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  As it should be under our separation of powers.  The judicial system determines constitutionality of laws.  This power is, in no way, given under the Constitution to the executive branch, which is empowered only to nominate individuals to serve as judges.  Court decisions are steadily demonstrating that the President's legal advisers missed the mark.

President Obama's advisers, however, have convinced the President to take an unprecedented unconstitutional action that is even more alarming:  unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional and intentionally refusing to perform his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It would behoove President Obama and his advisers to review carefully the oath of office he swore to in January 2009 in light of his utter abandonment of a law:  The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Currently this law is in effect, signed into law by President Clinton.  It is the law of the land until the judicial system, rising to the Supreme Court, declares definitively whether it is Constitutional or not.  Instead, the President's advisers, driven by the smallest percentage of his constituents numerically but loudest vocally -gay rights activists- convinced the President to announce that his Administration considers the DOMA unconstitutional and has directed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the law by declining to defend it in legal actions brought against it by plaintiffs seeking for Federal recognition of same-sex marriage.  Naturally, this refusal to defend the law was not accompanied by a citation of constitutional authority permitting such action, nor could it have been, since the power to declare laws unconstitutional belongs to the Judicial and not the Executive branch.

The political left and willing accomplices in the media are currently attacking former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for pointing out the "Constitutional crisis" the President's action has created.  They have focused on one word Newt mentioned in an interview, "impeachment", and are portraying Newt, the impeacher of President Clinton, as simply being up to his old tricks, now calling for President Obama's impeachment.  However, as is usually the case in media coverage, the truth of what Newt actually said is being intentionally obscured.  Newt did not say that President Obama SHOULD be impeached at this time for his action.  What he DID say was that if a Republican president declared a law unconstitutional and directed the Justice Department to stop enforcing it, political liberals and the media would come unglued and certainly call for that president's impeachment.  Newt used an effective analogy in his NewsMax interview:

Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people. Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

The precedent that would be established by allowing a president to suspend a law, any law, that was passed by Congress and signed by a previous president, is indeed dangerous.  Capital Cloak believes that President Obama, in his heart, agrees with the DOMA, as he has spoken in favor of traditional marriage consistently until this sudden lurch off the Constitutional path.  The fact that he has agreed to this course of abandoning enforcement of law is a sign that in his Administration, the tail really does wag the dog.  A few loud voices representing gay advocacy groups appear to be convincing President Obama that their volume is indicative of how the entire nation feels about traditional marriage.  It is not, and if the President continues in this extra-legal action, he could find himself a one term President. 

Prop 8 vote breakdown in CA 2008

President Obama must keep in mind that 70% of African-American voters in ultra-liberal California supported Proposition 8Obama's advisers are already gambling that he can win reelection in 2012 with or without the support of traditional marriage advocates by steering him to suspend the DOMA despite having no Constitutional power to do so.

Newt "Newters" Chertoff's Amnesty Reality

As a privileged recipient of Newt Gingrich’s Winning the Future/American Solutions email newsletters (by privileged I mean free subscription!), I eagerly check my email to peruse Newt’s latest endeavors or to preview where he will be speaking and on what topic each week. This Friday, Newt will speak to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, and his email newsletter contained a preview of his speech. Newt’s emails are long and informative, but I wanted to highlight for Capital Cloak readers one section of his upcoming speech since it will address a topic I have written extensively about over the past two weeks: the proposed McCain-Kennedy-Bush illegal immigration amnesty bill.

Newt’s speech on Friday will be critical of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who, as Capital Cloak previously reported, told USA Today editors that deportations are “not going to happen” and that the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill “bows to reality.” I wrote extensively about the implications and repercussions such an attitude by an important national security official could have, and Newt intends to publicly criticize Chertoff along similar lines. Here is an excerpt from Newt’s speech to be delivered Friday:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff encapsulated this inability to get the job done when he recently said that the disastrous new immigration bill "bows to reality." In other words: It's too hard, so why not concede defeat and give up securing the border and enforcing the law.

But we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures.

I don't know what "reality" Secretary Chertoff lives in, but the reality of the vast majority of the American people is one of growing distrust of their leaders and growing disgust with the ways things are being done in Washington.

We value limited, effective government, but the reality we get is the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.

We value lower taxes and living within our means, but the reality we get is out-of-control spending on congressional pet projects.

We value enforcing our laws, but our reality is a Senate-sanctioned order to keep local police in the dark about the legal status of those they arrest.

…And our reality is the discovery of three terrorists in New Jersey who had been in the U.S. illegally for 23 years and charged 75 times by the police without being identified as having no legal right to be in the United States in the first place.

Newt has a gift for crystallizing conservative voter sentiment on immigration into one sentence, as evidenced by the phrase, “we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures.” Based on Chertoff’s statements and dogged support of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, it appears he has no intention of even attempting to enforce the currently existing immigration laws, let alone a host of new ones proposed in the bill. The point I made in my previous post on Chertoff’s immigration surrender is not lost on Newt, who likewise concludes that Americans do not want leaders who “bow to reality” before they have actually tried to aggressively enforce existing laws, nor do they want leaders who tell voters that enforcement of laws demanded by voters is “not going to happen.” American voters have a tendency to replace such men with someone who will make it happen.

Recent posts on immigration/amnesty:
McCain Fears Riots if Illegals Deported
Should National Security “Bow to Reality?”
France Doing Job Americans Won’t Do

Technorati: Newt Gingrich American Enterprise Institute Michael Chertoff Immigration Reform Illegal Immigration Amnesty McCain-Kennedy American Solutions

Vagueness in Politics Signals Shallowness and Danger

There is something that differentiates a truly great presidential contender from a shallow presidential pretender: Specificity versus vagueness. Among the current 2008 presidential candidates of both parties, whether officially announced or “exploring the possibility,” the old saying “some guys have it, and some guys don’t” is quite applicable as it applies to the specificity versus vagueness litmus test. For far too long, America’s voters have allowed candidates to woo them with generalities and clichés rather than demanding that candidates present detailed solutions for the problems facing our nation. An analysis of the differences between vagueness and specificity among candidates or undeclared but likely candidates follows:

Vagueness:
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) believes that the world needs to eventually rid itself of nuclear weapons. Addressing the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University this week, Richardson told the audience that the world needs the U.S. to lead “a new Manhattan Project to stop the bomb- a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide.” According to the AP article, Richardson’s goal for his “new Manhattan Project” would be to “secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands.” On the surface this sounds like a sensible idea, and it surely sounded plausible to his idealistic audience, but as with most pie in the sky statements from political candidates, Richardson’s plan to secure all nuclear weapons and nuclear material throughout the world is full of nobility but devoid of detail.

Not explained, for instance, is this perplexing dilemma: how would Richardson propose to demand that the Pakistani government, with the assistance of the IAEA, round up and secure all nuclear material located in that county? Remember, this is the same Pakistan that uniformly refuses to allow U.S. and NATO special forces units to cross the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and rout out the al Qaeda and Taliban elements that are flourishing unmolested in that mountainous region and have made nearly 20 attempts to assassinate Musharraf.

If Musharraf will not allow us to hunt Bin Laden in the area we believe he is located, it is naïve for Richardson to believe Musharraf would allow international inspectors to scour that same area in an attempt to detect nuclear material or weapons. The Pakistani government has proven too weak to confront the Taliban or al Qaeda with anything approaching consistency, and the two terrorist groups operate with relative impunity in their safe haven inside Pakistan. If nuclear material was detected in these terrorist camps and mountain hideouts, would the Pakistani government confront the terrorists, take the nuclear material or weapons by force, and then secure them for the IAEA to examine? The prospects for such an outcome are bleak indeed. It is far more likely that Pakistan would not risk international embarrassment or condemnation by exposure of the lax safeguards at its nuclear facilities. Pakistan is only one example. The former Soviet states are another matter entirely.

Richardson either knows that his “new Manhattan Project” sounds like a world changing, creative idea with no chance of becoming reality because other nations will never cooperate, or he is counting on admiring audiences to be too busy fawning over him to ask for details of his plan.

Richardson added to his credentials for vagueness in the question answer session after his speech. According to the AP article:

Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. On the third day, the issue would be global warming. . . .

Richardson apparently plans to withdraw from Iraq on day one of his presidency, with no details of a postwar plan for Iraq or for whether he would still withdraw from Iraq if the war had turned and the Iraqis were progressing toward securing their own country from the terrorists. Like most anti-war devotees, “end the war” slogans come easily and arouse emotion, but are intentionally vague about the repercussions of losing a war. On day 2 of his presidency, Richardson “would announce a plan” to cut our dependence on foreign oil. A suggestion to Richardson: You will never see the inside of the White House as anything but a guest if you run on this “I have a plan for oil dependence but I won’t tell you what it is until you elect me” platform. If Richardson actually has a specific plan for weaning America from foreign oil, let him present it publicly so it can be scrutinized.

It seems rather selfish for a presidential candidate to claim to hold the solution to our foreign oil problems in his hands but refuse to share it with the American people unless they vote for him. I suppose there is no provision in McCain-Feingold banning Richardson’s electoral extortion, and that is a pity. Of course, Richardson’s best defense would also be the most likely explanation for his vagueness: He has no such specific and viable plan to announce or he would have done so already to differentiate himself from his opponents. Perhaps Congress could subpoena him to testify about his miraculous oil plan. Then he could testify under oath whether he does or does not have a plan to announce on day 2 of his rapidly fading presidency.

Specificity:
On Monday, as part of a “talk with the candidates” format segment, potential candidate Newt Gingrich appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show. The former Speaker of the House took questions from callers and from Hannity, and was specific, as usual, in his responses. For example, Hannity asked Gingrich what, if anything, the U.S. and its allies could do to convince Iran to release the 15 sailors Iran illegally captured last week. Gingrich began by reminding the audience that Iran had committed an act of war by seizing the British vessel and crew in international waters, and had furthered the aggression by releasing video footage of the captured sailors, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Rather than give the vague and meaningless political diatribe about diplomacy and sanctions, none of which have encouraged Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, Gingrich offered a very specific and simple plan for bringing the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to their knees economically.

Newt Gingrich pointed out that Iran exports enormous amounts of crude oil, but only has one functioning oil refinery to produce gasoline for Iran’s civilian and military needs. Iran imports most of its gasoline for domestic consumption from foreign suppliers, which transport the gasoline to Iran through commercial shipping channels. Gingrich stated that the single Iranian refinery is located on the coast, within easy striking distance of our carrier groups, and its destruction would significantly impact Iran’s economy and military capability, due to loss of fuel for its tanks and planes. To tighten the economic noose, our carrier groups already in the region could blockade Iran’s ports, effectively preventing Iran from receiving any refined gasoline from foreign sources until the British crew and vessel are released.

The thinking behind this proposed course of action was specific and infused with a clear grasp of the need for a decisive, yet measured, response to Iran’s aggressive act of war against our primary ally. Most GOP presidential candidates talk tough about Iran; Fred Thompson in particular verbalizes what many conservatives instinctively feel about Iran and its behavior. Yet Thompson’s Law and Order “let’s kick their butts” type of appeal is long on bravado but short on specifics. Gingrich’s policy ideas are second to none and combine bellicosity and intellect into definable and specific courses of action.

All candidates have flaws, and Gingrich is no exception, as he has admitted publicly. However, it would be refreshing and ultimately beneficial for our nation if all candidates would, or could, talk specifically about their original ideas and policy positions like Gingrich. Generalities and vague statements like “we must reform Social Security” or “I want to keep America safe from terrorists” should never be tolerated by an American voter, or from our sound bite media. What do these statements mean? How far is a candidate willing to go to keep America safe from terrorists? Is that too far or not far enough? Decisions can only be made when there are specific criteria from which to choose.

If a candidate cannot be specific, we should assume he has no actual ideas or deeply held beliefs, as he is likely waiting to see what the polls indicate before taking a position on any issue of consequence. Vagueness in politics, like shallow waters, should require posted warning signs, lest the unsuspecting voter or swimmer eagerly dive in headlong and encounter danger.

Spy The News! Poll Results: "What Single Issue Will Prevent Your Vote for a 2008 Presidential Candidate?"

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers "Which Single Issue Will Prevent You From Voting for a 2008 Presidential Candidate?"

Here are the results of our poll:

Mitt Romney's Faith 7%

Rudy Giuliani's social liberal views 14%

Newt Gingrich's ethics and resignation 14%

John McCain's Senate Record 64%


The results of this poll demonstrated a few things about Spy The News! readers. First, in many prominent polls Mitt Romney's faith appears to be a significant issue, with polls showing that 25% to 35% of Americans would not vote for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). Spy The News! readers appear to be more tolerant of religious differences than the national average, with only 7% of you indicating Romney's faith would be the deciding factor for your vote in 2008.

Second, many readers appear to have negative impressions about Senator McCain's voting record over the years, and may overlook some of the blemishes of other candidates as a result. Spy The News! is interested in your feedback about what votes or what issues caused you to form a negative opinion of McCain's Senate record.

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: "What Political Issue is Most Important to You?"

Is the "Mess" in Iraq Fact or Fiction? Newt Gingrich, Winston Churchill, and Robert Kaplan Make Their Cases

I was recently asked, “Is Iraq really a mess, or does the media just portray it as a mess?” The knee-jerk reply to such a question would be to blame the media, since liberal media bias against President Bush and the military has been so well-documented in alternative media including Spy The News! However, the recent criticisms by Senator John McCain of the management of this war, which echoed similar criticisms he leveled in 2004, remind supporters of the war effort that criticizing war management does not equate to being anti-war or in favor of our withdrawal from Iraq.

Is the situation in Iraq a mess? Liberals and conservatives agree that it is. The difference lies in what one does with that realization. Liberals interpret the mess as confirmation that we cannot win the war and should withdraw our troops as quickly as possible regardless of the long term consequences for Iraqis and anxious neighboring nations. Conservative critics, except for cut and run advocates like Chuck Hagel, understand that the current situation is a mess, but favor learning from our mistakes and adapting strategy to achieve the original, noble purpose of the war. Both sides have engaged in useless political posturing, with Democrats and some weak-kneed Republicans passing non-binding resolutions assigning blame to someone else despite their own votes for the war in 2003. Republicans too, like McCain, have attacked former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for what they consider mismanagement of the war strategy.

Assigning blame will not make Iraq any less of a mess than it is now, and merely creates personal animosity when the more important matter, fixing the current situation in Iraq, receives secondary attention. To improve the current situation, it is essential to recognize what mistakes were made (not who made them) and correct the mistakes.

Critics seem to be in agreement that the biggest mistake was our failure to incorporate the then-existing Iraqi army and local tribal sheiks in our efforts to win the hearts of the Iraqi people and offer them security. In a book frequently recommended by radio and blog personality Hugh Hewitt, Imperial Grunts: On the Ground with the American Military, from Mongolia to the Philippines to Iraq and Beyond, journalist Robert Kaplan, who was embedded with Army and Marine units in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, observed the following about our failure to utilize tribal leaders and the Iraqi army:

In fact, repression had not been the only tool used by Saddam Hussein. He had also bribed the paramount sheiks of the Sunni Triangle with cash, fancy cars, tracts of land, and other tangible gifts. But the American-led invasion dismantled that entire system. And what had the Americans brought in return to assuage such notables, who for millennia had affected the thinking of their extended clans? The promise of elections? What was that? An abstraction that meant little to many here. In a part of the world where blood was thicker than ideas, it was a difficult step for one Muslim to dime out another Muslim, especially for something as intangible as elections.

Thus the Sheiks and others, driven by narrow self-interest-as if that should have surprised anyone-made it known that they were open to deals with Syrians and assorted other jihadists. . . . It didn’t help matters that the very militarization of the state facilitated by Saddam had turned Iraq into one huge ammunition storehouse for the supply of rockets and mortars to the jihadists, and the making of IEDs. . . . And with the Iraqi army disbanded, there was now a pool of people with knowledge of ordnance and explosives, and the incentive to use it against the Americans.

In Kaplan’s writings, it is clear he is no fan of the Bush administration, yet his book provides one of the best firsthand accounts of what our Army Special Forces and Marines have faced. The failure to respect and utilize local tribal sheiks to suppress radical insurgents was perhaps the most shortsighted error made in Iraq. After decades of oppression and firm control by Saddam’s regime, Iraqis lived in fear but knew who was in charge in their local areas. After disbanding the Iraqi army, we left no force other than the American military to suppress insurgents, something the Iraqi army had been successfully doing prior to our arrival.

Lest one think that the observation of one embedded journalist is unreliable, consider this excerpt from Newt Gingrich’s book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America:

The decision to have an American administration in Baghdad was a mistake. We seemed to be doing relatively well in Iraq until late May 2003 when the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) transitioned into power.

Instead of the CPA, we should have created an interim Iraqi government in June 2003 as we had in Afghanistan. It took only three weeks to identify Hamid Kharzai in Afghanistan. The people actually involved in Iraq’s interim government in June 2004 were all known and available in 2003.

The decision of the CPA to disband the Iraqi military, putting hundreds of thousands of armed young men out of work, was a disaster that our military warned against. Had the Iraqi army been kept intact-as General Tommy Franks and General Michael DeLong recommended-it is possible that most of the subsequent violence would have been averted.

History, in fact, provided ample tactical and cultural information about Afghanistan and Iraq that was apparently ignored in the design of “Shock and Awe” and other chest-thumping strategies. As quoted by Kaplan, in 1897 young Winston Churchill (in his Story of the Malakand Field Force) observed the following about Afghanistan, where the British Empire was attempting to hold sway against indigenous forces:

A roadless, broken and underdeveloped country; an absence of any strategic points; a well-armed enemy with great mobility and modern rifles, who adopts guerilla tactics. The results . . .are the troops can march anywhere, and do anything, except catch the enemy. . . .

“The unpractical,” Churchill replied, “may wonder why we, a people who fill some considerable place in the world, should mix in the petty intrigues of these border chieftains.” Some, whom Churchill calls “bad and nervous sailors,” would simply cut and run, even though that would be impossible in the circumstances, whereas others call for “full steam ahead,” that is, a dramatic increase in military and other resources until the frontier valleys “ are as safe and civilized as Hyde Park.” But, as Churchill intimates, there are usually neither the troops nor the money nor the will to do any such thing. Therefore, he concludes, the “inevitable alternative” is a system of “gradual advance, of political intrigue among the tribes, of subsidies and small expeditions."

Did we enter Iraq with small expeditions and forward operating bases (FOBs) spread throughout the country to assess and adapt to local tribal leaders and situations? No, we drove impressively to Baghdad in a glorified televised event, captured Saddam, disbanded the Iraqi army, failed to “grease the skids” with the local sheiks who employed small military forces of their own, and then Washington seemed surprised that an insurgency arose. Of course, bribing tribal sheiks sounds corrupt and even antithetical to the effort of establishing a democracy, but in reality a democracy can only succeed when each local tribe feels safe to go to the polls and feels adequately represented in the national government.

The tribes trusted their sheiks, but the U.S. CPA was loathe to deal with them and chose its own representatives for the tribes. We lacked adequate cultural intelligence to make appropriate decisions, and the sheiks and their armed followers were understandably offended. It would have been far wiser to “shock and awe” the tribal leaders with our monetary generosity. Gifts and yes, even bribes, would have made them forget the past payments expected of Saddam and secured their cooperation in securing local villages and cities against insurgents who could disturb this comfortable arrangement.

Was there military intelligence or training material that could have predicted this eventuality? Kaplan quoted the following from the U.S. Marine Corps Small Wars Manual(initially published in 1940):

Hostile forces will withdraw into the more remote parts of the country, or will be dispersed into numerous small groups which continue to oppose the occupation. Even though the recognized leaders may capitulate, subordinate commanders often refuse to abide by the terms of the capitulation. Escaping to the hinterland, they assemble heterogeneous armed groups of patriotic soldiers, malcontents, notorious outlaws. . .and by means of guerilla warfare, continue to harass and oppose the intervening force in its attempt to restore peace and good order throughout the country as a whole.

It seems clear that the Marines in 1940 were already providing keys to success in the War on Terror 61 years before 9/11, Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq. Kaplan and Gingrich also identified other mistakes that we have made that can still be corrected. Kaplan was embedded with a Marine unit in Al-Fallujah and witnessed what he described as progress in the battle against the insurgents there. Just as our military seemed poised to score what could have been a decisive victory, the Bush administration called for a cease-fire for, as journalist Kaplan writes in Imperial Grunts, media and public opinion reasons:

The focus of the media. . .on Al-Fallujah. . .was central to the decision-made at the highest levels of the U.S. government-to call a cease-fire that would end the Marine assault. This happened just as the Marines, strengthened by the arrival of a whole new battalion, may have been about to overrun the insurgents.

To be sure, the decision to invest Al-Fallujah and then pull out just as victory was within reach demonstrated both the fecklessness and incoherence of the Bush administration. While a case can be made for either launching a full-scale marine assault or continuing the previous policy of individual surgical strikes, a case cannot be made for launching a full-scale assault only to reverse it because of political pressures that were foreseeable in the first place.

The tendency of our political leaders to be swayed by media coverage and subsequent public opinion polls, led to decisions that rendered the tasks of the on the scene military commanders impossible. Those commanders are not being allowed to wage brutal war against a brutal enemy. Had we decisively defeated the insurgents in Al-Fallujah, one of the most violent areas of Iraq, the course of the war might have been vastly different than what we have experienced. Newt Gingrich went into more detail about our mistakes in the public opinion war, specifically that we have not waged one:

We also underestimated the effect of the Arab media’s propaganda campaign against us. We had no information program in the Arab world or in Europe capable of effectively communicating what we were trying to do. CPA media efforts were wrongly focused on American public opinion, not Iraqi public opinion. That made it much harder for us to mobilize Iraqis to our side.

In the global struggles against fascism and communism, the United States waged a military, economic, and propaganda war. Yet we have done nothing similarly organized and coherent in the war against Islamists and the rogue states.

While there is much to criticize about the management of the Iraq War, and plenty of blame to go around, the enduring lesson is that in the course of difficulty it is preferable to recognize and mend mistakes than to withdraw in defeat before the stated goal of the mission is accomplished. The stakes are high for our own security, our international credibility, and most importantly, the future of 50+ million Iraqis. The Boy Scouts are taught to always leave a place better than they found it. Regardless of how Iraq became a mess for us or who contributed to the mess, we are now obligated to leave Iraq better than we found it. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do, but we will not be leaving Iraq better than we found it if we abandon it to a Sunni-Shiite conflict that will quickly escalate and embroil neighboring nations eager to expand their borders and resources.

The only asset in short supply for Americans is patience. The media, possibly influenced by the initial “shock and awe” bluster, focus only on body counts, rarely reporting the rebuilding of infrastructure and other humanitarian work occurring in Iraq. But in fairness, the civilian affairs groups that typically provide humanitarian efforts have been largely unable to operate in Iraq because we have not yet secured the country from insurgents. As a result, as Kaplan describes effectively, our military is forced to fight insurgents while also rebuilding villages, schools, and utilities. The dissatisfaction among the troops in Iraq stems mainly from not being allowed to focus on the duty they are best trained for: engaging and killing the enemy.

Why are they not allowed to engage the enemy fully? Because casualty rates kill campaigns, and we are now in another election cycle. It is time for Republicans and Democrats who are serious about national security and winning the War on Terror to stop making war decisions based on small random sampling polls that purport to represent national opinion. Engaging the enemy more fully despite casualty risk, along with our propaganda efforts and outreach to local tribal leaders, can be corrected and proven effective, but only if we avoid a rash rush to retreat.

Spy The News! Poll Results: 2008 Presidential Candidates

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers to identify which 2008 Presidential candidate best represented their values. Here are the results of our poll:

Mitt Romney 33%
Rudy Giuliani 33%
Newt Gingrich 17%
John McCain 6%
John Edwards 6%
None on list 6%

Those not receiving any votes: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Sam Brownback, Bill Richardson.

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: Which Single Issue Would Prevent You From Voting For a 2008 Presidential Candidate?

Army Counterinsurgency Manual Gives "Graduate Level" Instruction to our Enemies

The timing of the Pentagon’s recent release of a newly overhauled counterinsurgency manual could not have provided a more appropriate illustration of the point I made in one of yesterday’s posts: we are our own worst enemy in the War on Terror. While our intelligence agencies, including the military’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, spend billions on efforts to infiltrate and/or monitor terrorist organizations worldwide in order to learn their methods and culture, those same terrorists can get far more detailed information about our military methods and predictable courses of action at no cost.

Our intelligence field operatives and support personnel risk their lives to obtain information about our enemies, yet those enemies can perform the same tasks from the comfort of their homes, hideouts, tents, caves, or wherever their Internet connections can reach. One click on this link (be forewarned the downloaded manual is over 12Mb) will open the U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine manual in full to your view. Of course, it is also now available to the entire world, so terrorists and nation-states who desire our destruction have a literal playbook to use in planning how best to thwart our stated goals and strategies. Newt Gingrich, in his Sunday interview on Meet the Press, stated that our adherence to free speech liberties in some instances may be suicidal. While I disagreed with the example he used to illustrate his point, the Internet availability of the new 282 page unclassified counterinsurgency manual certainly could be considered a suicidal practice for a nation engaged in a War on Terror.

If this is in fact a war, far more scrutiny should be given to what documents are released for public use. How much easier is it for our enemies to formulate effective strategies, political and military, when we provide them with a guidebook containing a complete explanation of all of the options available to our military and which ones are most likely to achieve victory? In the interest of fairness, should the Ohio State Buckeyes willingly provide the Florida Gators with their BCS Championship Game playbook with plenty of time for Florida to study it and develop plays to counter Buckeye intentions? Common sense would suggest this would not be a wise decision for Ohio State, and of course the Buckeye coaching staff is sufficiently wise to keep all strategy and operational planning close to the vest, revealed ONLY during the game at the opportune moment to achieve maximum effect.

The above example may seem ridiculous, and one would surmise that no team would be foolish enough to give away its playbook. The Defense Department, on the other hand, has for years published its field manuals, operational manuals, and military doctrine manuals for public consumption. The new counterinsurgency manual begins with a quote from a Special Forces Officer in Iraq: "Counterinsurgency is not just thinking man's warfare -- it is the graduate level of war" [emphasis added]. Accepting this statement as being accurate, I suppose that means the Defense Department, by releasing this manual for public use, is now offering insurgents and other enemies PhDs in Defeating the American Military.

The argument is always put forth that citizens need to have the ability to monitor the military, to make certain it is not becoming too powerful on its own. The fear of military coups is certainly justified by history. Pakistan is now led by a man who came to power through a military coup. General Musharaff later became President Musharaff after “elections” were held. If a coup can occur in a country with nuclear arms such as Pakistan, it is reasonable to fear one could take place anywhere, even here. This argument for public military publication is well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers resulted in the inclusion of many protections against concentration of power in any one branch of government or in the military. With a civilian Commander in Chief elected by the people, the likelihood of a strong military figure gathering a sufficient following to overthrow our government is very small. With Congress, also elected by the people, controlling the funding of military operations, the military is required to fully justify its operations and weapons programs, mainly through appearing before Congressional committees where Top Secret and higher classifications of information are shared.

It is in this context that the argument for open military publication unravels. The public is given control of the military through Congressional oversight and executive control. Of what use is an Army counterinsurgency doctrine manual to the average citizen? Would it be interesting reading? The answer for many would be yes. However, there are a lot of documents read in Washington DC every day that would truly fascinate everyone, especially our enemies. Interest alone is an insufficient reason for public release. Unprecedented access to information and facilities has been granted by the Defense Department to authors, Hollywood film crews, and reporters, usually in the interest of the Department “tooting its own horn.” In fairness, nearly every federal department is just as enamored with self-promotion, but this does not justify the practice, it merely exacerbates the problem of excessive openness.

While our intelligence agencies struggle to determine the intentions and capabilities of our enemies, we are, quite literally, an open book to them. If this is a War on Terror, then let us act as if it were a war and suppress the publication of military manuals for public use. Let us fully prosecute those (of either party) who leak sensitive documents, and above all let us make our enemies expend time, money, and personnel to fight us. Let us fight to win by keeping our playbooks out of enemy hands.

 counterinsurgency
 Defense Department
Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich on Jihad Web Sites: Meet the Press Part II

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, commented on the Global War on Terror, specifically the various surveillance tools used by our intelligence agencies to identify and track known and potential terrorists. The former Speaker used the example of the recent arrest of a home-grown Jihadist in Illinois to argue that free speech liberties should not include Jihadist web sites or material that encourages and provides instruction for killing Americans and other “infidels.” A portion of the exchange follows:

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.
MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech. So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal.

Perhaps even more ironic (and "suicidal") than Gingrich’s political example is that free speech rights have been held by various courts to include recipes for explosives, Ricin (and other poisons), methamphetamine, modifications to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic, instructions for “booby traps” including poisoned spikes, methods for fashioning silencers, and even the basic physics behind rudimentary atomic bombs. All of these are easily found through simple Internet searches on Google or any other popular search engine. The following titles are available through Amazon and are even conveniently linked together through the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section: The Anarchist Cookbook, The Poor Man’s James Bond, Improvised Munitions Handbook, Get Even, the Complete Book of Dirty Tricks, and Boobytraps Fm5-31. All of these works contain specific detail on lethal tactics that have been used in countless incidents to murder intelligence and law enforcement personnel worldwide.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy, as the Improvised Munitions Handbook and Boobytraps Fm5-31 are Department of Defense publications once provided only to Special Forces and other specialized components of the military. Predictably but foolishly, a new version of a Defense field manual arrives in print and the old versions are discarded and made available for public consumption. There are handbooks for snipers, dated documents used by our own snipers, available in public libraries. Are terrorists browsing these materials and implementing them against our own troops? Of course they are. As the author of the terribly misguided Anarchist Cookbook revealed, he compiled his book in anger over the Vietnam War and the idea of being drafted into a war he opposed. The book has been a bestseller among militia and anti-government groups in the United States, and many brave law enforcement personnel have been victims of boobytraps, mines, chemical bombs, and countless other tactics because the material in the book was used as intended. Although he now regrets having published the book, he, like the Defense Department, must face the consequences of having placed these recipes and tactics in print for mass distribution.

While I agree that the First Amendment does not protect speech that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. Government or that is treasonous, I respectfully disagree with the former Speaker on the necessity of removing all Jihadist web sites from the Internet for three reasons:

1. It is not practical. There is no shortage of web sites that distribute freely or sell for profit detailed instructions for how to kill, whether that is in reference to “infidels” or law enforcement officers, or the kid in gym class that teases. Most of the web sites visited by Illinois Jihadist Talib Shareef were likely operated in foreign countries that are not bound by our First Amendment and that do not cooperate with our investigations into Jihad incitement. Unless we are willing to systematically remove any and all materials in libraries and on the Internet that contain instructions involving weapons, hand to hand combat tactics, or other means for killing, we cannot ONLY remove web sites that provide such instruction in the context of Jihad. That would, in essence, be the equivalent of sending the message, “it is OK to build bombs, cook up poisons, and learn how to snipe others as long as you are not involved in an Islamic jihad.”

2. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? This argument, usually used in the context of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, applies most readily to this issue. Do the materials that instruct readers how to build bombs and concoct poisons kill people, or should those who read and implement the tactics be responsible? The War on Terror is an ideological war. It is not the availability of this material that foments Jihad or encourages young disillusioned men to act even in a suicidal manner. The materials may serve to make his task easier once determined to carry out an attack, but they are not responsible for placing in his mind the idea that “infidels” must be killed. That came from an ideology that he learned and studied, a religious ideology, albeit a radical and evil one

3. How do we wage war on an ideology? Web sites, like our presence in Iraq, do not foment anti-Americanism or jihad. Those were preexisting conditions. If what President Bush and others in both parties have repeatedly stated is true, that terrorists represent a radical version of an otherwise peaceful religion, then “closing down” any Jihadist web site would constitute a government suppression of religious expression, as odious and evil as that religious ideology may be.

We should enlighten, instruct, edify, and convert those who hate us through living up our founding principles, while always being prepared to defend ourselves quickly and convincingly when necessary. This approach embodies the political savvy of another great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who aptly stated, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” While the Internet is certainly used to spread hateful ideologies, it is an equally effective tool for spreading the culture and tenets of democracy. The Iranian government is working feverishly to block satellite TV and the Internet from its citizens, particularly young students, precisely because the Internet means choice. The presence of hate-filled material is not responsible for terrorism. What we should ask ourselves and our leaders is, “what are we doing to fight the ideology itself, the motivating factor that foments Islamic terrorism?” Platitudes and censorship are not effective tools in the War on Terror.

Perhaps before we "close down" jihadist web sites we should eliminate books and web sites through which our own military and law enforcement entities are making instructions for killing our intelligence operatives and military personnel readily available to the world. If the terrorists cannot learn the methods from a jihadist web site, they will simply visit their local American library, or ship directly from Amazon.com.

Defense Department Newt Gingrich Anarchist Cookbook Meet The Press War On Terror McCain-Feingold Jihad Amazon.com Illinois

Newt Gingrich on Iraq: Meet the Press Part I

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, offered a concise explanation for why the Iraq War is plaguing the current administration.

Gingrich, never one to speak in generalities, stated explicitly why he believes the execution of the Iraq War has been a failure from the beginning and will continue to fail unless this administration adopts one of the originally proposed strategies:

But Captain Travis Patriquin. P-A-T-R-I-Q-U-I-N. He did a stick figure briefing on how to win in Al Anbar and it will break your heart. Because he said, ‘Look, there are sheiks in Al Anbar who’ve been the local power structure for 1300 years and they know how to run the place. They know how to track down the, the, the bad guys. They know what to do. And a bunch of 26-year-olds come in with Bremer and write a law that said, “The sheiks are irrelevant. We now represent modernity.” And we’ve now spent three years not knowing what we’re doing, not knowing who the bad guys are, not knowing who the good guys are. And you, and you see this stick figure presentation by this young Marine who was killed just a few weeks ago and it makes you want to cry because we, starting in June of ‘03, violated virtually every principal I know about how to be effective in this kind of country.

Gingrich made it abundantly clear that military commanders and civilian appointees, including General Abizaid and especially L. Paul Bremer, ultimately chose not to work with the local sheiks to root out the extremists and “insurgents” in Iraq. Instead the administration and its military leaders chose to impose a distinctly American regime-change operation.

The tragic (although this situation can still be remedied) consequence of that decision was that while the poor Iraqi citizens who were overjoyed to see Sadaam Hussein toppled were not joined in celebration by the more wealthy sheiks who found themselves tribally emasculated and replaced by a foreign military presence. As well-meaning as our military presence may have been and continues to be, to the sheiks it was viewed as an affront to their long-held power and ability to control radical elements of all sects within their local regions. Instead of utilizing these sheiks, the administration’s strategy marginalized them and no one should be surprised that the sheiks have offered only marginal assistance in identifying, tracking, or capturing terrorists ensconced in regions the sheiks previously controlled.

Unfortunately, now that Democrats have won the majority in the House and Senate, there is no talk of a move toward inclusion of the sheiks. The only strategy under consideration is to see which Senator or Congressman can set the earliest withdrawal date so he/she can take credit for bringing the troops home.

Newt Gingrich Paul Bremer Meet The Press War On Terror Iraq War