http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9829/pub_detail.asp
June 28, 2011 Losing the Plot in Libya and Afghanistan <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.140/author_detail.asp> Presidential Policy: Does It Make the Grade?, <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.27/author_detail.asp> James Carafano, PhD Print This <javascript:%20printVersion()> E-mail This <javascript:%20emailVersion()> <javascript:void(0);> http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/images/share.png ShareThis <javascript:void(0);> Comments (0) <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/comments.asp?id=9829> http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20110627_LibyaBO.jpg Secretary Gates ended his long goodbye last week. The Senate unanimously confirmed Leon Panetta as his replacement. Confirmation hearings were also held for David Petraeus as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. All of this was over shadowed, however, by other news as the president mismanaged America's wars on two fronts. Congressional turmoil over the president's Libya policy persisted. The House pointedly rejected a resolution authorizing support for military operations. Other measures propose cutting off funding may be voted on this week. There is no question that the House's anger at the White House is well justified. "Obama's ham-handed approach has been an insult to the constitutional role of Congress in defining and punishing offenses against the law of nations, as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution," <http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/20/resisting-temptation-over-libya/> writes former Congressman and Heritage scholar Ernest Istook, "Obama failed to make any meaningful consultation with Congress before he committed American forces, much less obtain any type of actual approval from Congress." Yet, he rightfully adds, "Yes, it's tempting for Congress to "teach him a lesson" by voting to cut off U.S. funding immediately for Libyan operations. The power of the purse is Congress' strongest counter-balance to the President's role as commander-in-chief. But the countervailing argument is that our NATO allies-a key component of America's national security-have been pulled into the Libya fray based on assurances and urgings from the Obama Administration. Those may have been improvident, but they are real. A precipitous exit from America's role in Operation Unified Protector would pull the rug out from under our allies, making it less likely they would ever be willing to stand with America in the future when we have real need for their help." The need not to abandon NATO, but also send a clear message to the president has left Congress scratching its head on how to square the circle. Libya, however, is not the only controversy on the front burner. Obama also announced significant troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. While the president touted the drawdown as the "dividend" of success on the ground, that seems unlikely. Military advisors including General Petraeus and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen admitted they thought the speed of the drawdown was "risky." The fact is, the US counterinsurgency campaign required the NATO troops not only to build-up Afghanistan security forces, but also to drive the Taliban out of the southern and eastern parts of the country. In 2009, Obama gave the generals half the "surge" troops they requested. As a result, they only did half the job. US troops did significantly degrade the Taliban presence in the south. Now, however, as they turn to finish the job, they find they will have far less troops than they need. As a result, casualties could be far greater-and the mission may fail. In mismanaging both Libya and Afghanistan, the president has contributed greatly to "foreign-policy" fatigue in the United States. At a time when the US must remain vigilant about emerging threats-many are asking if the president won't act to protect US vital interests-why bother? That is a dangerous attitude to have in a dangerous world. For grossly mismanaging military deployments the president's grade for the week has to be an "F" for failure. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20090608_presidential_policy.JPG <http://www.fsmarchives.org/> FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor <http://www.fsmarchives.org/authors/id.27/author_detail.asp> James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affairs, intelligence, and strategy, military operations and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
