By Nick Dial

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines”- President Obama, 5/19/2011.

Speak for yourself, Mr. President. While you represent the United States as a figure head, you do not have the right to serve as a mouth piece for the American people as a whole. We have a voice of our own, and Statements such as “we” and “America believes” when dealing with our dear friend Israel, and your absurd way of selling out a faithful ally is both naive and unwarranted. When dealing with radical positions that support your picture perfect view of the world such as this, try using words like “I” or “it is my opinion or position.” After all, you have had no problem using words as “I” in the many other policies you have pushed, including the killing of Bin Laden. Why start bringing us into the mix now?

President Obama’s recent position on Israel is not just naïve, it’s extremely dangerous. Apparently Obama fails to understand the fact of what the word “security” means. This president cannot commit to securing our own borders, and yet he has the audacity to lecture a nation surround by countries that vow its destruction give up their much needed buffer zones between them and the very people that want to kill them. Has this Harvard graduate never picked up a history book? Is he not aware that Israel was attacked while holding these very borders he is pushing for them to withdraw too? This president acts as if the very discontent between the Arab nations and the Jewish state of Israel hinges upon these borders, and therefore return to these borders would magically erase the hostilities the Jewish people have faced for centuries.

Between 1947 and 1948, the Palestinians took the offensive against Israel after its declaration of a state. With over 6,000 casualties, it was among the bloodiest of conflicts to take place in the region. In 1956, Israel again was attacked, this time through organized resistance to Israel, such as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization). In 1967, known as the Six Day War, Israel was attacked once more, this time in a combined effort by its neighbors such as Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, and once again, Israel thwarted this assault on their nation. After the six day war, Israel had gained territories which expanded their borders. In 1973, The Yom Kippur War was launched by the Syrians and Egyptians, causing Israel again to be dragged into a defensive conflict. Also, let’s not forget the ongoing acts of terror and indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli neighborhoods by the Palestinians and Lebanese.

I wonder… how would Obama handle such national security issues with the U.S., if our neighbors conducted themselves in such a way? What if Canada and Mexico vowed for our destruction and were headed by Al-Qaeda? Would we stand for other nations telling us how we should conduct our national security? Perhaps we would be expected to go back to pre-Mexican American war borders and expose millions of Americans? I think not, and Israel is no exception. The pre-1967 borders would leave Israel with a very thin strip of land. Looking at the below image, you can see its narrowest point at Netanya, which is a faint 9 miles wide. Israel’s main airport would be a mere 3 miles from hostile borders, well within missile range.

What President Obama is doing, is basically stating that Israel should commit tactical suicide with their national security. Lebanon and Palestine are both headed by terrorist organizations, HAMAS, and HEZBOLLA.

Following the president’s speech, HAMAS released the following statement:

Obama’s Mideast policy speech Thursday was a “total failure,” Hamas said Thursday evening.

“The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama,” said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. “Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel’s crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel’s occupation.”

“We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances,” the Hamas spokesman said, while adding: “We object to intervention in our internal affairs.”

Based on what HAMAS has stated, they have made it clear that the borders of 1967 are no more relevant today than they were back in 1967. The only difference HAMAS sees is the fact they will have to cross more miles to push into the heart of Israel during an invasion. When you have Arab nations that clearly state they feel as if Israel has no right to exist at all, how can this president logically expect such nations to negotiate? The only achievement this president has done by taking this position, is validate the anti-Semitic movement of hostile Arab nations toward Israel, insult a loyal ally, and do all of this while in the safety of the United States. Perhaps if the president were personally exposed to the very real dangers the Israeli people face on a daily bases, he would not be so quick to take such foolish positions on a topic he apparently knows little about… military strategy and national security.

References:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Centenary+of+Zionism/The+Arab-Israeli+Wars.htm
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/hamas-to-obamas-anti-israel-speech-we-will-not-recognize-israel-under-any-circumstances/

By Nick Dial

Troop morale in Afghanistan is reportedly low. Before asking why this would be, let’s look at some of the events that have transpired in the last year. Obama announces he will close Guantanamo bay with no preformulated plan on how this would be achieved. He then decides to suspend military tribunals in favor of civil criminal approaches, which would result in detainees having the advantage due to the fact they were not captured on a battlefield and not in a situation where police conduct a formal investigation and tag evidence. Obama then pushes for Miranda rights to be read to prisoners captured on the battlefield; something of which they have no constitutional entitlement to in the first place.

With this alone, one must question;  what, exactly is the tact being used here?  Obama changed the rules of engagement for U.S. troops, stating they cannot fire on a structure from which they are receiving fire. They must first see the enemy, something which more often than not is impossible when taking hostile fire from a structure 300 plus yards away. According to one report in Afghanistan, “U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village”. These new rules resulted in the death of several marines when they became pinned and ran low on ammunition. Fact is, a president that has never served in combat is dictating how our troops should conduct themselves in combat and as a result they are dying.

The questionable decisions, however, don’t stop there. Obama has cut funding for research and development, insulted our European allies with denial of the promised missile shield, and continues to drag his feet with Afghanistan. President Obama personally picked General Mcchrystal and yet he does not show much interest in meeting General Mcchrystal’s recommendations. General Mcchrystal requested troops in August of this year, yet it took the president until October to meet with him for a mere twenty- five minutes. General Mcchrystal requested 40,000 troops and what does Obama do after procrastinating for more than a month? Nothing, he stalls more saying he must wait for a clear election in Afghanistan.  The president has repeatedly shown that other priorities come before the troops. How do you explain to your military that booking seven talk shows to promote health care and flying to Copenhagen to promote the Olympics in Chicago is more important than addressing the war in Afghanistan in which our troops are fighting and dying?  The president has stated that we are no longer “at war with terror”, acts of terror are “man caused disasters” and “we are no longer at war with Jihad”. Perhaps the troops and the enemy didn’t get that message, because we have dead heroes coming back home in caskets from fighting Islamic Jihadist!

When does incompetence turn into all out betrayal? Earmarks and pet projects are nothing new when it comes to Washington, but what about when funds for the military are taken away from our troops and given to pet projects instead? According to the Washington Times, “Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis” (2009). The article goes on to state “$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat” (2009). This recent act is simply a slap in the face to the troops by this administration. How can we expect the morale of our troops to be high when this administration continues to put its own self -serving interest before the troops?  Have they no shame?

References

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/

By Nick Dial

On September 17^th, 1939, Russia forcefully invaded Poland storming the borders  along with Hitler’s Germany during the start of the Second World War. Russia had inflicted unspeakable acts against Poland’s military personnel after being defeated and apprehended. In 1940, The Soviets had executed approximately 25,700 Polish officers. This event came to be known as the Katyn Massacre. The Russians put the blame on the Nazis, but after the fall of the Soviet Union and an admitted testimony by Gorbachev, the truth was finally settled on who was really behind this horrific act. To say the least, the Polish people have not forgotten the oppressive nature of the Russian government and their lust for power in that geographical region of the world. For others around the world not bearing the scars of the Soviet Union, to remind them of the Kremlin’s long history of deviant actions, just take a look at the Georgian- Russian conflict that transpired this last year in 2008. Russia had indiscriminately fired on non military targets in cities, killing civilians. Russian troops were caught on camera pillaging towns of goods and private property. Video of Russian military vehicles were seen towing away private boats and cars.  Surveillance footage even revealed Russian troops robbing banks at the height of the conflict. This behavior only goes to show the old ways of the Red Block are still in full force and provide testament to the brutality and lack of honor the Russian government and military still possesses to this day.

The reason the aforementioned history is important, is because one should  understand the history in that region to comprehend ,if anything, why this issue should be handled with the up most care. Unfortunately, it would appear that the Obama Administration does not care for such formalities and are so eager to distance them self from Bush implemented programs, that they continue to wreak havoc in their haste and throw histories hard learned lessons to the wayside. September 17^th was the 60^th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Kremlin. What does the administration do? They give the Russians a gift by telling our allies we will no longer go forward with the scheduled missile shield that was promised by the Bush Administration. Russia has been beating their chest ever since the plan was announced and even threatened a nuclear strike against Poland for having such a facility. Their excuse was that they would not tolerate an offensive missile system in Poland. Problem was, however, the missile shield was not offensive in any way; it was defensive and designed to protect the U.S. and her allies from any rogue nations that would fire a missile. Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and even Russia if it were to happen. That was the key issue though; Russia did not like the fact that a system threatened their power and influence in the region. Plainly put, Russia does not want their power challenged in any way and like a typical bully, they began to intimidate any nation that would cooperate with NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), seek NATO membership, or cooperate with the U.S. in hosting any missile defense.

The Obama Administration has stated their reasoning for such a move is because reports have come out that Iran cannot yet reach far enough into Europe. While this is debatable, there are several other questions that must be addressed. Just because they can’t now, doesn’t mean they won’t be able to five years from now. What about North Korea’s hostile behavior? China is a rising military power that is often  on shaky ground. What about the fact that Russia may one day become a hostile factor again? They at the very least should have sat down with our allies and discussed any issues. Instead, they disrespectfully betray them in a move to appeal to “Russia’s better nature” as this administration put it. The last time a nation attempted to “appeal to Russia” in good faith was in 1945. At the close of WWII, Russia was struggling to create a jet fighter with a reliable and powerful engine. In good faith, Britain provided the Russians with a Rolls-Royce jet engine. The Russians took the engine, copied it and never looked back. What did they do with the gift they had received?  American pilots quickly found out in Korea when Russian Mig-15 fighters began attacking them over Korean airspace. A hard lesson had been learned about trusting this “ally”- and it was trouble ever since.

Obama claims that cost is a factor for scrapping missile defense. They say that it is not economical to fire a $70 million dollar missile to destroy a $15 million dollar missile. With this logic, they are actually saying American lives along with the lives of our allies are simply not worth the money. After all, what is the alternative? Without this system in place ,in the event of a missile fired, things will go boom and people will die as a result. The other problem with this stated position is the fact that this administration is so willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on pet projects, but continues to act as if national defense is a luxury that is a waste of both time and money. Let’s break this down. The following list was taken from the Stimulus Bill -  all things that congress and this administration considered so important, that it had to be passed right away or face terrible consequences, remember?

• $2 billion earmark to re-start Future Gen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees…

• $150 million for Smithsonian Museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”

This is just a small sample of the pet projects that was rolled into a “stimulus bill”; a bill aimed at creating jobs. As you can see, almost none of these do anything to create jobs and yet a system that is designed to defend the nation and protect human life is not economical? It’s a good thing their spending 600 million on hybrid vehicles for federal employees. This will stop a missile threat. In fact, the 600 million spent on hybrids would pay for 8.5 of those missiles designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in case of a launch.

Part of this administrations largest problem is in two key areas. One, they don’t study their history. Two, they lack any sort of significant foresight on matters of national defense. Recently Obama stated he was scrapping the F-22 Raptor, the most advanced fighter in the world. He states it costs too much and there is no need for us to have such advanced weaponry. Once again, lack of foresight. China and Russia  are both trying very hard to catch up to us in regarding  military technologies and are working hard to build a fighter to match it. Air dominance is the key to winning today’s wars and the point to remember is that we build weapons to fight tomorrow’s wars, not today’s.

Once again. we must look into the pages of history. In the 1930’s Germany was leading the world in military technologies. A major example of the Obama Administration’s attitude with defense can be taken right from history. The Germans had the wisdom and fortitude to realize that tanks were the future in ground combat. The United States was still caught up in the old ways of infantry and continued to have horse mounted cavalry rather than investing in tanks. When Germany launched their Blitzkrieg campaign in 1939, the world watched in horror as these perfected steel monsters rolled across Europe unchallenged. The Germans had provided a perfect example of military technology taking the lead. The United States was forced to scramble in an effort to catch up for the time they had lost, and the result was an inferior tank that was vulnerable to the German counterpart. Many men died as a result. The German tanks were so superior to the Allies, the Germans called the American Sherman tanks “Tommy Cookers”, due to the way they lit up after taking a hit. The German tanks were so advanced they actually achieved a 10 to 1 kill ratio in combat.

Because of the hard learned lessons of WWII, the United States made great efforts to never again be  caught at such a disadvantage. The evidence of how important this factor was came to light during the Gulf War. Iraq had the 4^th largest army in the world at the start of the war. Our stealth bombers were able to penetrate heavily defended air space and disable Iraqi forces, something that would have proved very difficult with conventional aircraft. Our M1-Abrams were so advanced to the Iraqi Russian built tanks that they were able to engage the Iraqi tanks a full mile before the Iraqi tanks were in range to fire back. The result was the defeat of the 4^th largest military in just 6 short months.

Today Russia is jockeying around for power. They are aiding the Iranians in developing nuclear capabilities, oppose to any sanctions on Iran, and continue to undermine the United States in regards to national security. The Kremlin has made inflammatory statements against NATO Western Allies. They are becoming very friendly with Cuba and Venezuela, both ant- United States, and to top it off, they have recently sold Iran one of the most sophisticated anti-air missile systems in the world, the S-300.  Given Russia’s continued behavior that constantly undermines the interest of the United States, why would we want to cozy up to such a government, all while insulting our allies in the process? My question is this; with all the billions being spent on frivolous pet and ear marked projects, an amount that could have paid for missile defense many times over, what will be this administration’s excuse if a missile is fired? I can hear it now, “don’t worry about the carbon from the mushroom cloud, we bought our federal employees hybrids to offset the carbon footprint!”