Get Serious

Get Serious
Oliver North
Friday, December 11, 2009

WASHINGTON -- When I was a young Marine, we were encouraged to read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" as a primer on conflict. Our mentors were officers and senior noncommissioned officers who had served in World War II, Korea and the early days of the conflict in Indochina. These were serious men for whom the profession of arms was no trivial matter. They taught us that Sun Tzu's tome, from the sixth century B.C., was relevant to the fight we were headed for in Vietnam and would serve us well in the future. According to Sun Tzu, "The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Therefore, it is a subject that must be seriously studied." The most recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize appears to have ignored this sage advice.

Prior to President Barack Obama's departing for Oslo this week, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Mr. Obama would be "accepting the Nobel Peace Prize as a war president."

Gibbs' stunning response, uttered with a straight face: "Exactly."

Unfortunately, we are at war. But there is scant evidence in Mr. Obama's words, actions and schedule that he is a "war president."

On Dec. 10, our "war president" flew to Norway to accept a surreal Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" and his "work" to build a "world free of nuclear weapons." In accepting the award, Mr. Obama eloquently apologized for America's past failures -- going back to Woodrow Wilson -- and credited himself with "banning torture" and closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. In a brief "presser" afterward, he once again took pains to emphasize his arbitrary and unprecedented July 2011 withdrawal schedule for the troops he just ordered to combat.

If the war is important to Mr. Obama, why did it take 10 months to decide that there is a need for 30,000 additional troops to fight in Afghanistan? If those who fight the war are important, why was there no rebuke for Chris Matthews, the left-wing commentator who described Eisenhower Hall at West Point as "the enemy camp"? And if building public and political support for the fight against radical Islam in Afghanistan and Pakistan is crucial, why not deliver the address before a joint session of Congress?

Would a "war president" devote 92 percent of his public commentary, speeches, lectures, media appearances over 10 months to everything but the war? His "economic stimulus plan," TARP, the government takeover of the auto industry, the plan for government-run health insurance, global climate change and "carbon limits" each has generated more presidential words than "the war."

Next week, our "war president" is scheduled to fly to Copenhagen to attend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where 79 other heads of state have gathered to fashion a Utopian global agreement limiting so-called "greenhouse gases." While there, he can proudly point to a new -- and likely unconstitutional -- decision by his Environmental Protection Agency declaring carbon dioxide to be a "threat."

Mr. Obama promised to "focus like a laser" on the war in Afghanistan. But White House records show that's not where "our most traveled president" has spent his time:

March 31 to April 7: Mr. Obama and an entourage of more than 500 traveled to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, the Czech Republic and Iraq.

April 16-19: Our "war president" traveled to Mexico and then to Trinidad for the Summit of the Americas, where absolutely nothing of any import was negotiated or agreed upon.

June 2-7: Mr. Obama visited Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany and France. He bowed to Saudi Arabia's king, delivered a speech about a "new relationship with the Muslim world," and was cheered by Europeans.

July 6-11: The commander in chief traveled to Russia, Italy and Ghana and discussed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, abandoned a U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and talked about economics and climate change.

Oct. 2: Mr. Obama joined his wife and Oprah Winfrey in Copenhagen to champion Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics.

Nov. 12-19: Mr. Obama, accompanied by nearly 300 others, visited Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea. During this trip, our "war president" bowed to Japan's emperor.

If indeed Sun Tzu was correct about war's being of "vital importance," a matter of "life and death," and a subject to "be seriously studied," it's time for Mr. Obama to get serious.
_________________________________________________

Questions No One Wants to Ask Gen. McChrystal
Diana West
Friday, December 11, 2009

Gen. Stanley McChrystal's long-awaited testimony before Congress on the Afghanistan "surge" was, according to one account, "uneventful." The general himself, another story noted, was "a study in circumspection." And questioning from lawmakers was, said a third, "gentle."

That's a nice word for it. "Ineffectual" is more like it. Throw in "callous," too, given House members' obligations to constituents in the war zone, operating under what are surely the most restrictive rules of engagement (ROE) in U.S. history.

But not a single lawmaker appears to have ventured one question about these dangerously disarming ROEs, which, in Gen. McChrystal's controversial view, are key to the success of his "counterinsurgency" strategy. What kind of a commander puts his forces' lives at increased risk for a historically unsuccessful theory that depends not on winning battles against enemies, but on winning the "trust," or, as we used to say (and as Gen. David Petraeus put it in Iraq), the "hearts and minds" of a primitive people immersed in the anti-Western traditions of Islam?

That would have made a nice ice-breaker of a question for any lawmaker troubled by the Petraeus-McChrystal policy of elevating Afghan "population protection" over U.S. "force protection" to win "the support" of this 99 percent Islamic country, and the rules that American forces must follow to do so. If, that is, there were any lawmakers so troubled.

Things really tightened up back in July, when Gen. McChrystal essentially grounded air support for troops except in dire circumstances. This, in the words of British defense intelligence analyst John McCreary, is "like fighting with a hand behind your back." And with deadly results, such as the September firefight in Ganjgal where three Marines and a Navy Corpsman were killed when, according to McClatchy newspapers' Jonathan S. Landay, repeated requests for support were nixed due to "new rules to avoid civilian casualties."

As the Washington Times recently reported, the McChrystal counterinsurgency rules now include: No night searches. Villagers must be warned prior to searches. Afghan National Army or Afghan Police must accompany U.S. units on searches. Searches must account, according to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters, "for the unique cultural sensitivities toward local women." ("Islamic repressiveness" is more accurate, but that's another story.) U.S. soldiers may not fire on the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first. U.S. forces may not engage the enemy if civilians are present. U.S. forces may fire at an enemy caught in the act of placing an IED, but not walking away from an IED area. And on it goes.

Here's another ROE that Gen. McChrystal should have been asked to justify to all Americans who hope to see their loved ones return home in one piece. The London Times recently reported that Marines, about to embark on a dangerous supply mission, were shown a PowerPoint presentation that first illustrated locations of IEDs along the way and then warned the Marines "not to fire indiscriminately even if they were fired on."

Even if they were fired on? Could they fire at all - even "discriminately"? How long does Gen. McChrystal think troops can hold their fire and maintain healthy morale? And how about a progress report on the investigation into that deadly disaster at Ganjgal? Congress wasn't interested in any of these questions.

The Times story went on to note: "The briefing ended with a projected screen of McChrystal's quote: "It's not how many you kill, it's how many you convince."

Another question: How many you convince of what, general? Of the depravity of child marriage? Of the injustice of Sharia laws that subjugate women and non-Muslims? Of the inhumanity of jihad?

Of course not. In an oblique reference that likely took in Islam, Gen. McChrystal told Congress: "I think it's very important that from an overall point of view, we understand how Afghan culture must define itself, and we be limited in our desire to change the fundamentals of it.

Fine. I don't want to change Afghan culture, either. But acknowledging its roots in an ideology that is anti-Western is crucial to devising strategy for the region. That's obvious. But not to any of our leaders.

Final question: Are such leaders, civilian and military, doing their duty when they send the nation to war with a strategy that totally ignores jihad, the war doctrine of the enemy?