We have also added two special sponsorship levels, the "Patriot Eagle Sponsor" and the "Patriot Sponsor." Each sponsor level receives special benefits that are described on the registration page. Click here and click on the "Register Now" tab to find out more.

• This year's event will begin with a dessert reception and Welcome Event on Wednesday, June 27^th, at 7:00 P.M.
• Thursday, June 28^th is our Legislative Briefing day, which includes the very popular legislative awards luncheon on Capitol Hill.

PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS, THE AWARDS LUNCHEON WILL BE LIMITED TO THE FIRST 250 PEOPLE WHO REGISTER FOR THE CONFERENCE. LAST YEAR'S CONFERENCE WAS A SELL-OUT, SO DON'T DELAY! IF YOU PLAN ON ATTENDING THIS YEAR, PLEASE REGISTER TODAY!

This Photo should stun and sadden everyone who loves America !

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on
their addresslist, in three days, all people in The United States
of America would havethe message. I believe this is one photo
that really should be passed around.
________________________________________________________________     
The name of the book Obama is holding is called:

The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow
Muslim.(Fareed Zakaria)

"Post" America means: The World "After" America !"

Obama czar proposed government should 'infiltrate' social network sites, chat rooms, message boards.      Just prior to his appointment as President Obama's so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should "infiltrate" social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. 

Read full story here.

Obama to 'take on' Netanyahu after election? Palestinians say White House asked them to delay demands till 2nd term.      The Obama administration asked the Palestinian Authority not to make any major demands until after the presidential election in November, a senior PA official told KleinOnline. 

Read full story here.

Also new at KleinOnline:

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: Hamas to open 'embassy' in Tunisia:
more >>

REPORT: Look who Obama's new czar is tied to:  more >>

AUDIO: Shocking desecration at Mount of Olives:  more >>

Exposing Kinsey sex atrocities goes global

Alfred Kinsey's belief in child sexuality, with all of its impacts on children and society, now circles the globe, but a campaign to reveal the truth about his efforts to legitimize pedophilia is following right behind.

Judith Reisman, a visiting professor of law at Liberty University, popular lecturer and former consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, recently concluded a trip in which she delivered seminars on the fallacies of Kinsey's arguments in Rome, Ireland and London.

Read the latest now on WND.com.

Plus!

A new quo warranto lawsuit has been filed in Washington over Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, but unlike similar challenges brought by noted attorneys since before Obama was elected, this one is by a contender for the presidency.

A quo warranto action, which dates back nearly 1,000 years in Western civilization, is a challenge to an official to document on what basis he or she holds the office.

Click here for details.

YouTubers punish Girl Scout for her beliefs

The online video-sharing website YouTube can be a cruel place for young people, especially for teenagers who dare to criticize homosexuality.

WND reported in 2009 the story of 12-year-old ChristianU2uber, whose video arguing same-sex marriage is morally wrong resulted in a stream of responses that called him a "fag in denial" and suggested he "kill Christianity, and then kill yourself."

The response was so vicious, WND reported, that Internet crime specialists in Texas tracked down the boy and his family and persuaded ChristianU2uber to remove the videos and receive counseling. Now, another teenager, this time a 14-year-old from Ventura County, Calif., named Taylor (last name withheld), has been forced off the site by the cruelty she faced for protesting the admission of transgender boys into the Girl Scouts.

Read the latest now on WND.com.

Plus!

The Defense Department and top Marine Corps brass responding to a video that apparently shows four U.S. Marines urinating on bloodied bodies in Afghanistan should be standing up for brave American warriors instead of kowtowing to radical Islamic lobby groups and Afghan leaders, says talk-radio host Michael Savage.

"What have the Taliban done to our troops? What have the Taliban done to the Afghanis? What are they responsible for in terms of human degradation?" Savage asked his "Savage Nation" listeners last night. "Why is our government punishing our Marines instead of saluting them?"

Click here for details.

With Iran, Obama is in WAY Over his Head 

Salute to Tim Tebow 

Legislative Update Summary                        Subscribe Now 

Overcriminalized.com provides the Legislative Update Alert to e-mail subscribers interested in legislation pending in Congress that could perpetuate the dangerous trend of criminalizing more and more social and economic activity.

JOINT REPORT
Without Intent: How Congress Is Eroding
the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law

Congress's legislative process is so badly broken that it creates many vague, overbroad criminal offenses that fail to protect the innocent. This unprecedented study provides solid analysis and practical solutions.

ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY!

America is in the throes of overcriminalization: We are making and enforcing far too many criminal laws that create traps for the innocent but unwary and threaten to make criminals out of those who are doing their best to be respectable, law-abiding citizens.

>> Click Here To Order Your Copy!

One Nation Under Arrest highlights a major effort to return the criminal law to its traditional and proper role in society: to ensure public safety and protect the innocent. With first-hand stories from victims of overcriminalization, One Nation Under Arrest sheds light on an insidious problem that few recognize or care about but which is vital to the fundamental values of the Republic and our concept of justice.

>> Click Here To Order Your Copy!

About

"Overcriminalization" includes:

1. Federalizing crime that properly belongs under state and local jurisdiction;

2. Imposing criminal penalties upon persons who acted without criminal intent (mens rea);

3. Applying criminal sanctions to conduct that historically has not been considered wrongful.

The Legislative Update Alert includes bills our researchers have identified that add or expand federal criminal offenses or penalties, but it generally does NOT include bills involving drugs, firearms, or crimes of violence.

Please visit us at Overcriminalized.com

Optimistic Poll Data 

Posted: 14 Jan 2012 03:50 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

We are awash in poll data these days, but two recent surveys, both offering grounds for optimism, are worth singling out. The first is a Reuters-Ipsos poll released earlier today that finds Mitt Romney with a 21-point lead in South Carolina. Reuters-Ipsos has Romney at 37%, with Ron Paul and Rick Santorum at 16% each. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry bring up the rear-well, except for Jon Huntsman-with 12% and 6% respectively. If this survey is at all predictive, Republican voters are not responding positively to Gingrich's and Perry's attacks on Romney's work in the private sector. That's a good thing, in my opinion, regardless of whether Romney is your candidate.

The second finding is from Rasmussen Reports, a matchup between President Obama and Ron Paul among likely voters. I find it remarkable that Obama leads Paul only 43-37%. Paul is a candidate with strong but limited appeal, sort of like anchovies on pizza. It is extraordinary that an incumbent president can't get more than 43% of likely voters to back him against Paul, who is widely regarded as a fringe candidate. This strikes me as evidence of strong resistance to Obama among most voters.

Pundits generally say that Obama can be re-elected if the economy improves between now and November. Perhaps so; an improving economy obviously will help him some. My own view, however, is that disapproval of Obama is more deep-seated than that. Most voters who have been disappointed, if not appalled, by the Obama administration are not going to forget the last three years merely because of modest uptick in the economy. That's my hope, anyway.

O Governor, where art thou? 

Posted: 14 Jan 2012 02:56 PM PST

(Scott Johnson)

I've been wondering what rationale Haley Barbour could possibly have had for the blizzard of pardons he issued on his way out of office. Now that he has explained, in an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, I've gone from mystification to anger.

Governor Barbour explains that most of those pardoned had already been released from prison. What about the remaining 26 pardons and the pardons of murderers still incarcerated? Governor Barbour invokes gubernatorial tradition as well as his and his constituents' Christian faith to account for these pardons. Relevant details are spelled out in this article and to some extent they comport with the governor's explanation. However, I don't think the Christian rationale invoked by Governor Barbour to support the pardons cuts it, though I leave it to Christians to comment on his understanding of Christianity.

Steve Hayward asked: What the heck was Haley Barbour thinking? Reading Governor Barbour's explanation and watching the Fox News video of his interview, the question becomes: What would Haley do?

Reader Nick D'Orazio - a Power Line Prize winner who tied for third place in the competition - has created a video borrowing from my favorite Coen Brothers movie to express his disapproval for the governor's explication of the pardons.

I asked Nick to comment on his video. He writes:

Here's the point I wanted to make. Barbour's pardons are what you get when you believe in the "humanitarian" view of punishment. It demonstrates that if a friendly bureaucrat believes that after 20 years, a murderer has been rehabilitated, he should be released without regard to whether or not they have fully paid for their crimes as specified by the justice system.

C.S. Lewis warned us about this in The Problem of Pain:

"Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself... What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it..? And what can be more outrageous than to catch me and submit me to a disagreeable process of moral improvement without my consent, unless (once more) I deserve it?"

Barbour in the same interview says (at 4:56): "When my grandchildren are over at the governor's mansion, we trust them to play with and be looked out for by these people." I think the governor forgets that the victims of these murderers were not on the estate of a man who had the power to pardon them if they behaved themselves or bring down the wrath of an angry grandfather if they did not. I dare say that Governor Barbour would not want his grandchildren to be with these men in the vulnerable situations that the victims were when these murderers killed them.

There is noting sacrosanct about the sentence imposed by judge in a given case. I don't have a problem with the exercise of the pardon power when appropriate, but I find Barbour's defense of the pardons to be wanting.

A word from William Shawcross 

Posted: 14 Jan 2012 08:23 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

William Shawcross is the distinguished journalist, historian and author. He is also the son of Winston Churchill's lawyer, the prominent former Nuremberg prosecutor and Labor MP Sir Hartley Shawcross. He thus provides something of a living link to Churchill whom we are especially proud to claim as a friend of our site.

Mr. Shawcross's new book - Justice and the Enemy: Nuremberg, 9/11, and the Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - has just been published. It is a book that addresses a subject close to our hearts. Indeed, it is one that we have written about here frequently over the years and a few of our items appear in the text and footnotes to the book.

The book has been favorably reviewed by John Yoo in the Wall Street Journal, where a related column by Mr. Shawcross also appeared. Today the Journal also publishes Mr. Shawcross's selection of Five Best books on the Nuremberg trials.

Mr. Shawcross is visiting the United States in support of the book. I've been begging him for a paragraph or two explaining why his book would be of interest to our readers, as I know it will be. This morning he took time out at LaGuardia Airport, about to board a plane to Chicago, to file this column providing the story behind the book:

In November 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he would put Khaled Sheikh Mohammed on trial in Manhattan and immediately drew protests from New Yorkers who did not relish a return visit of al Qaida in any fashion. In the ensuing row, my editors at PublicAffairs, who had published my defense of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Allies: The U.S., Britain, and Europe in the Aftermath of the Iraq War, in 2004, called and said, "William your father was Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg. Write a short sharp book saying that was how we dealt with the monsters then - here's how we should do so now.

I blithely thought, Why not? It would be nice to write a little of my father, whom I loved and admired, and Nuremberg was a part of my growing up. I used to listen to fragile 78 rpm records of my father's speeches for the prosecution. I found his descriptions of Nazi crimes chilling.

I am not a lawyer and so I found the book much harder than I expected. But it is now complete and just published - Justice and the Enemy: Nuremberg, 9/11 and the Trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.

What I have tried to do is to put the proposed trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed into the context of Nuremberg. I have sought to explain the extraordinarily difficult dilemmas that would have faced any US Government after the horrific attack of 9/11 - particularly in light of bin Laden's repeatedly stated ambition to acquire and use WMD against the world.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama, who constantly attacked President Bush for his policies in the war on terror, praised Nuremberg. He said that "part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who were are but also about the rule of law."

I agree with Obama that Nuremberg was a success and should not be dismissed as "victors' justice." But what he failed to acknowledge was that the defendants at Nuremberg had far fewer rights than those at Guantanamo under the Military Commissions created by President Bush. Indeed, were a Nazi transported by time machine from Nuremberg to Guantanamo he would be astonished by the privileges and safeguards which were suddenly available to him.

The most fundamental is this: at Nuremberg there was no right of appeal against the judgement of the Military Tribunal. By contrast anyone convicted at Guantanamo can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. In other words he will have all the safeguards of anyone convicted in an Article III court. That is worth remembering in the months ahead as reformed military tribunals come under sustained attack from the left and from powerful human rights organisations.

That is another huge difference from 1945. At that time none of the human rights organisations that are so influential today even existed. Apart, that is, from the US Armed Forces and their democratic partners. The US military was then, and still is today, the greatest defender of human rights that the world has ever seen. Think of the millions rescued from tyranny by American forces throughout the 20th century - and in the first ten years of this decade. Without the extraordinary commitment of American blood and treasure the world would not have enjoyed any such stability as it finally won during the century of totalitarians and mass graves.

I live in London and believe very strongly that we Europeans are shockingly casual about the debt we owe those mostly young men and women from all over the United States. And that is why I fear Obama's refusal to accept the concept of American exceptionalism. Without American commitment, a free Europe will be under serious threat. The last one hundred years have shown that only America has the power and the optimism to defeat the forces of nihilism, whether they are fascist, communist or radical Islamist.

We are most grateful to Mr. Shawcross for allowing us to draw our readers' attention to his new book with these personal reflections.

Endgame in Afghanistan 

Posted: 14 Jan 2012 05:24 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

Our friend Pete Hegseth, founder of Vets For Freedom, is now posted to Afghanistan, where he has been training Afghans as well as American and coalition troops. His reports on the situation there are as knowledgeable as any you can find. Here is his final dispatch - long but worth reading through to the end - before he heads home next month:

We brought in the New Year around a bonfire-drinking "near beer" (the non-alcoholic version, unfortunately), smoking cigars, and enjoying grilled sausage prepared by our German friends. It was a pleasant evening in the cold Kabul air that I won't soon forget. I spent a good portion of the evening gazing into the flames, thinking about the year that has been, and what might be in store for 2012. So far, there have been multiple snowfalls in Kabul-making Minnesotans feel right at home.

Two thousand eleven was a long, but fulfilling, twelve months. When the year began, Samantha and I thought we were headed to the 25th Infantry Division in Alaska to prepare for a deployment to southern Afghanistan; when that fell through at the last minute, I joined the Minnesota National Guard-first training in northern Minnesota, then to New Jersey to mobilize, and finally for the past eight months in Afghanistan. It's been difficult to be away from Samantha and Gunner for so many special moments, but I wouldn't change a thing.

Our country has seen similar highs and lows. From killing bin Laden (I was jarred from my bunk at Fort Dix at the news) to the surge in Afghanistan, American courage was on display in 2011. At the same time, massive problems dominated the headlines. From U.S. credit downgrades, to political gridlock (super-committee, anyone?), to economic stagnation, to massive defense cuts, to Iranian belligerence and new Chinese aircraft carriers, 2011 presented a multitude of challenges that will persist well into the future. My next email will touch on these topics, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Two thousand twelve promises more challenges, but also opportunities (as a new year always does). Personally, I'll soon be returning to Minnesota-eager to reunite with my family. In fact, my return has been hastened by the requirement to train our replacements in New Jersey later this month; so, I should be back-for good-by early-to-mid February. (In fact, I'm in-transit right now-currently in Kyrgyzstan). As a nation, we obviously still have choppy international water to navigate (one of which I'll elaborate on below), as well as a presidential election that will shape the direction of our country. May God bless our nation's endeavors on all fronts.

(Speaking of elections, a number of you have contacted me about an online effort regarding the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota. I cannot comment on this independent effort, but am humbled by the confidence of others. I have not made any decisions about what the future holds and will not do so until I'm back home and off active duty status).

Finally, with my deployment in the home stretch, I cannot thank everyone on this list enough for your incredible support. The emails of support, encouragement-and especially prayer-have poured in for the past ten months. And the boxes (and boxes and boxes) of care packages have been non-stop and incredibly generous. In particular, I received an email from a woman in Texas just before Christmas that blew my mind. She wrote:

"So very sorry to have not written sooner. Also, very sorry that we haven't got another package out to you. I had heart surgery on Nov. 8 and didn't return home until Dec. 19th. It was touch and go and I coded 42 times. Still barely able to walk, so give me some time. Have already purchased a favorite of yours for the next box, just need to "fill" it out to a decent package. Have not forgotten to pray for your safety and that of the rest of our troops. May the Lord bless you all!"

She had heart surgery-where her heart stopped 42 times!-and she's apologizing to me for not sending me a care package!? She can barely walk and only been home from the hospital for a week, and she is praying for me!? Truly amazing. Truly a blessing. And truly a testament to the American spirit. Her case is clearly exceptional, but her efforts are exemplary of the outpouring of "we have your back" support during this deployment. You have continually lifted my spirits and served as a reminder of America at her best. Thank you all.

Now, for the final time from Afghanistan (and Kyrgyzstan), below is my current assessment of the future in Afghanistan. As always, it's a bit long, so grab a frosty beverage and proceed at your own risk.
________________________

The Endgame in Afghanistan

My first email from Kabul was entitled "First Impressions" and the caveats I used in that email remain unchanged. Afghanistan is such a dynamic place-layered with umpteen complexities, contradictions, mysteries, and unknowns-that a holistic understanding of the country, let alone the conflict (overt and covert), is nearly impossible. That said, over the past eight months I've had the opportunity to challenge my first impressions, test hypotheses, and attempt to understand the true nature of the conflict. This section represents my modest-if declarative-initial attempt at distilling what I've learned and making some observation about America's eventual endgame in Afghanistan.

Rather than break down my assessment categorically as I did in previous emails, I will instead look at the war through a lens provided by an insurgency expert who visited us this past summer. His name is Gérard Chaliand and the day we spent with him was fascinating. In addition to authoring over 40 books on guerilla warfare, he has also been a participant/observer of over a dozen insurgencies around the world-including Afghanistan in the 1980s, and again during the current conflict. Listening to him was like sitting in a semi-circle around Yoda himself, absorbing the insight and knowledge of a rare specimen.

Mr. Chaliand visits Afghanistan yearly, but said his 2011 trip was his last. When asked why, he said, "Because I know how it will end. The Taliban control the countryside and are growing in support throughout the country by providing an effective underground government structure. The seeds of their return were planted long ago-much before Gen. McChrystal's 2009 counterinsurgency strategy-and their ascension is now inevitable. International forces started doing the right things at 'half past eleven' and now it's too late."

While I certainly didn't share his pessimism then, I've come begrudgingly to agree with his assessment today. The Taliban-by mitigating their negatives (brutality, ethnic exclusion, and overt association with al Qaeda) and accentuating their perceived positives (swift justice, longevity, and ideological cohesion)-have gained, and maintained, a psychological grip on the Afghan population. While most Afghans, especially non-Pashtuns, do not want the Taliban to return ("hearts"), they are grappling with-and calculating accordingly-the looming reality that the Taliban will outlast U.S. forces ("minds") and eventually challenge a weak, corrupt, and fractured Afghan Government for control of the country.

This isn't to say that we couldn't achieve a more advantageous outcome for the United States; of course if we got rid of the 2014 withdrawal deadline completely, were truly willing to remove Taliban and Haqqani safe-havens in Pakistan (we know where they are!), and purged the Afghan government of its most corrupt nodes we could "change the game" of this conflict. But for various reasons-be they domestic politics, a nuclear-armed Pakistan (a lesson for Iran, I would suggest), and a trepidation with undermining corrosive "Afghan sovereignty"-it is highly unlikely we will make the hard choices necessary to level the playing field. A bad outcome in Afghanistan isn't inevitable, but in light of current realities, it is likely.

However, the policies we pursue in the coming years will impact the degree to which the outcome here is bad, or less-bad. Our commitment to training and mentoring Afghan security forces will be central to determining the future of this country. If we do it right-truly creating a multi-ethnic force that will defend the interests of most Afghans-it could be a vanguard against total Taliban control and a buffer against outright civil war. If we do it wrong or hurriedly, we're merely indiscriminately (and heavily!) arming different elements of an Afghan army that will eventually turn its guns on each other. In my opinion the later outcome is most likely, but not inevitable.

If you know me, I'm not one for pessimism, and certainly not interested in undermining the efforts of our troops in harm's way. Afghanistan is nowhere near a John Kerry-esque "who will be the last American to die for a mistake?" situation. Our effort is noble, our cause just, and our military sharp. But at the same time, my sentiments are in keeping with most Coalition members over here-even if they're unwilling to say it. We soldier on. We will fight until the end. But with our ear to the ground and our boots in the snow, we can feel the undercurrent in Afghanistan. As the clock ticks to 2014, we become more irrelevant as Afghans make decisions (hoarding, segregating, and hedging) regarding a post-American future in their country.

While I don't like acquiescing to a "non-victory" in Afghanistan, we will have nonetheless achieved an outcome in Afghanistan that is an exception to the rule in the so-called "graveyard of empires." From a historical perspective, whenever we "leave" we will be the first "invader" that left on our own terms-a not insignificant accomplishment. Thankfully, and necessarily, I'm fairly certain our commitment to Afghanistan will continue on a smaller and enduring scale-and in doing so we will have done everything we can to create the conditions for a friendly and capable (at least on paper) Afghanistan government to determine their own future. It may not end well, but it won't be for a lack of U.S. effort, courage, and ingenuity.

As supporting evidence for these heavy-hearted assertions, I would first submit my previous two emails (here and here). My feelings on the fundamentally corrupt Afghan government, Pakistan safe-haven, the 2014 deadline, Taliban capabilities and more are clearly stated in those emails-along with facts and financial figures. However, I'd like to take one more broad look at our mission in Afghanistan, as it currently stands in January of 2012. In doing so, I'll use Mr. Chaliand's closing statement to us as a framework for examination. He said, when looking at a counterinsurgency conflict, we must: "Never believe your propaganda, always re-asses the facts, challenge assumptions, and don't rely on wishful thinking." Wise words, and a useful filter for analyzing our mission in Afghanistan.

"Never believe your propaganda..."

The Coalition narrative (I don't consider it "propaganda," because we're beholden to the truth-unlike our enemies) in Afghanistan is as follows: the "surge" summer of 2011 has inflicted serious damage on the Taliban, especially in the south; and at the same time, we are aggressively pushing Taliban re-integration programs, training increasingly capable Afghan security forces, and working to improve local governance. But, as I've said before, only half of this is grounded in reality. Yes the "surge" has allowed U.S. troops to push the Taliban out of traditional strongholds in the south, significantly disrupting their operations. However, there is also evidence that, despite heavy casualties, the Taliban have been able to regenerate themselves quickly, maintain their military and shadow-governance networks, and are waiting us out.

More troubling is the fact that we have not seen the ripple affects we needed the surge to induce (as it did in Iraq). While re-integration numbers (fighters giving up the fight) are increasing, they still include very few Pashtuns, especially Pashtuns from the south. Most of the re-integrated fighters are from the north and west, places not known for Taliban support. Second-and more importantly-Afghan governance at the local and national level has not decisively taken advantage of the surge environment to improve capability and legitimacy. While there are great programs (like Village Stability Operations and the Afghan Local Police) working to create the conditions for local governance, there hasn't been-nor will there be-an Anbar-style tribal awakening like we saw in Iraq, largely because of the segmented and fractured nature of Pashtun society in modern Afghanistan. And without a legitimate government in Kabul and in the provinces, the chances for a stable outcome are minimal.

Another aspect of our narrative is that the 2012 "fighting season" (April to October) will be a decisive moment for our forces. We will increase our gains in the south, and degrade the Taliban enough to create the space for increasingly capable Afghan forces and a burgeoning government. There are three big problems with this. First, the idea of a "fighting season" is misleading. While violence is higher in the summer months, the non-violent aspect of this conflict doesn't stop. When we're not fighting (and sitting snug on our FOBs for the holidays), the Taliban continues to spread their influence through local dispute resolution, mobile Sharia courts (seen as increasingly legitimate by the people), and propaganda. Second, while we have achieved a critical mass of soldiers in the Afghan National Army, their ability and motivation to continue the fight when we're not in the lead is still suspect (more on this below). Finally, it's hard to overstate how damaging the 2014 deadline is in creating these outcomes. As the perception of 2014 gets closer, our influence-by point of fact-will diminish. The Taliban can stand back and wait us out because we told them how long to wait.

"Always reassess the facts..."

The fact is: facts are sticky in Afghanistan. And, depending on whom you're talking to-especially amongst Afghans-they are always different, and oftentimes contradictory. So, rather than only talk "facts" now, I'd like to do a quick comparison between old facts and new realities.

Fact: In 2004, President Hamid Karzai was elected the President of Afghanistan, and seen as legitimate by wide swaths of Afghans as well as around the world. Reality today: Not only is the Karzai government corrupt and dysfunctional, it is already seen as illegitimate by most groups inside Afghanistan and as a complete money-pit to international donors. In fact, by any fair assessment, it can barely be called a "government" by traditional standards; it's more like a ruling mafia. Bribery, nepotism, and blatant disregard for the rule of law and their own constitution are off the charts. The ruling elite are getting rich off international aid while regular Afghans scarcely see their lives improve. All-the-while, the Taliban exploit this fact through piercing propaganda. The end result is that we continue to prop up an Afghan government that is seen as increasingly illegitimate by the people, all the while hoping "peace talks" with the Taliban will provide an exit ramp for the war. The Taliban doesn't want to work with the Afghan government, they want to replace it.

Fact: Since 2001 the United States has spent $456,000 an hour, every hour, on non-military developmental aid alone, and has spent even more on the military. Reality today: Afghanistan is an international donor state, almost completely reliant on international aid money to function. They have almost no tax base (save import taxation and...untaxed opium) and 97% of Afghanistan's Gross Domestic Product is linked to foreign aid. We pay for their government and military, and have created financial realities that are completely unsustainable. Take, for example, the Afghan Army. This year we will spend $13 billion on training and equipping the Afghan Army, while the Afghan government will take in less than $2 billion in revenue. Some tough financial realities loom: either we cut spending and reduce the size of their Army or we continue to pay for it. The former would mean-for certain-the Afghan Army would eventually capitulate to the Taliban; the later that we continue to pump billions into Afghanistan's Army while we downsize our own (a bad idea, by the way). Not not only is Afghanistan's current situation unsustainable, but spending in the country for the past decade has distorted their economy and government more negatively than positively.

Final fact: In 2001, the U.S. was attacked by al Qaeda from Afghanistan, where the Taliban granted them safe-haven. Reality today: Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the ropes, and the Taliban are wary of their association with al Qaeda. Yes the groups still coordinate, but it's not the rock solid alliance it was ten years ago. Vice President Biden recently said that "the Taliban is not our enemy." I respectfully and adamantly disagree (as would, I suspect, the families of those U.S. troops killed by the Taliban). Any group openly fighting and killing our soldiers is our enemy. But the more important question is-does the Taliban pose an existential threat to America and our interests? They might tell us during negotiations that they will swear off association with Al Qaeda, but just like the Iranian denial of nuclear weapons-we should not believe them. There isn't a scenario where a radical and violent Islamic group taking control of Afghanistan is a good outcome; however, we can still salvage conditions where the Taliban are not able to utilize, or provide, substantial haven for radical Islamists with global ambitions.

"Challenge assumptions..."

The largest and most dangerous assumption we make is that there is a nation called "Afghanistan" and a collection of people called "Afghans." Neither is correct, but that assumption continues to fuel our push for a multi-ethnic military and government that holds sway inside the arbitrary boundaries of Afghanistan. Having spent time with Afghans from multiple backgrounds-Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras-it's painfully clear that beneath the surface of the "we are Afghans" talk are true feelings of ethnic and tribal affiliations that supersede an "Afghan" identity. History, language, violence, custom, mistrust, and animosity separate these groups-and a flag, a national anthem (only in Pashto, which angers Dari speakers) a "government" and a western-style Army are not enough to create a nation where none exists. I could tell story after story about this, but suffice it to say-this country is fragmented, and won't unite in time to fight an ideologically cohesive, Pashtun-based Taliban movement.

In regards to the western-style Army I mentioned above, the assumptions we make with this force will have lasting, and potentially positive or negative impacts. Not only have we attempted to create a multi-ethnic institution that will represent all Afghans, but we've also built an Army in our image-with strong conventional capabilities and a Non-Commissioned Officer Corps, where none has existed before. We are producing new units at a rapid rate, recruiting from all backgrounds and then sending them to the Consolidated Fielding Center (CFC) in Kabul where multi-ethnic units are established and trained, before being sent to the field. There's nothing wrong with that; but the problem is what happens after that, on three fronts:

First, each new unit is given millions of dollars of brand new weaponry and equipment, with minimal actual accountability. The kandak (battalion) commander is responsible for the equipment, some/much of which eventually ends up missing (and sometimes on sale in Pakistan). For example, a heavy weapons kandak leaves the CFC with approximately eighteen brand-new 50-caliber machine guns, and dozens of smaller-caliber heavy weapons and RPGs. I challenge you to walk into any National Guard armory in the States and ask how many functioning 50-caliber machine guns they have. They'll probably pull out four beat-up 50-cals with rusting barrels, likely dated back to Vietnam. If things don't end well, someone will use these weapons-and it might not be our friends.

Second, while units are formed as multi-ethnic entities, once they get to the field a slow, but deliberate, self-segregation is starting to occur. Soldiers from the north try to get back to the north, and likewise for soldiers in the south. A Tajik ultimately wants to fight alongside Tajiks from his area, and likewise for Pashtuns and other groups. What you could end up having is a series of regional armies with more commitment to their area then to "Afghanistan." If things don't end well, they will end up fighting each other-with weapons we have supplied them. On the flip side, if things move forward as we plan, these units will be a bulwark for the state. There are certainly many multi-ethnic units in the field, fighting bravely together and doing great things. The question is-will this be the rule, or become the exception?

Third, even once the units are fielded-and assuming they are fighting for "Afghanistan"-we are currently making big assumptions about their capability to eventually independently operate and sustain their activities. With U.S. support-which includes things like logistical resupply, air support, and medical evacuation-many units currently do well in the fight. But if we take that away in 2013, 14, or 15-will they sustain the fight? And will they push into enemy territory? Many Afghan units have become accustomed to U.S. support, and may not be willing to fight an emboldened Taliban without the robust U.S. support they receive. They're also accustomed to being paid well, while their Taliban counterparts fight for nothing. Our brave soldiers will mentor and train them to make them as capable as possible, but if they don't develop their own systems soon, the Afghan Army house of cards could come falling down more quickly than anyone would like to admit.

Finally, I came to Afghanistan with the assumption that this battlefield is central to defending the United States. In the realm of perception and international opinion it is still very important; how we "finish" in Afghanistan will send strong signals to the rest of the world about whether we finish what we start. Recent events in Iraq make this plainly clear. However, the question is whether the cost in Afghanistan is worth the outcome? As my British colleague says, "is the juice worth the squeeze?" I think seeing this through, while gradually drawing down, is worth doing. That said, larger and more strategically significant issues staring us in the face need to take a higher priority. We need to muster our political courage and confront our crippling domestic debt. (Did you know that, by 2015, just the interest payments on our debt to China will pay for its entire military?). We need to ensure our force posture and military might is capable of deterring a rising China. And we need to do what is necessary-including military action-to prevent a nuclear Iran (the fact that we can't do anything in a nuclear-armed Pakistan should demonstrate that). There are obviously plenty of other challenges as well (especially at home), and spending money the way we are today in Afghanistan prevents us from confronting these challenges.

"...and don't rely on wishful thinking."

If you've read the previous two sections (and my previous emails), then I hope most of your "wishful thinking" has been stripped. That's the point-we can't wish our way to victory (as we say, "hope is not a strategy"). But we can look at the world the way it is and craft strategies to effect a more-desirable outcome. From where I've been sitting in Afghanistan, thankfully it's clear that General Allen understands this; and as a result we've already seen (and will continue to see) a shift in our strategy from counterinsurgency to security force assistance. It's a subtle, but important change. Instead of U.S. units taking the military lead in the field and trying to "partner" with Afghan units in the process, the lead responsibility will now fall to Afghans. Our soldiers will serve as embedded advisors, with 12-16 man teams embedded inside every Afghan unit-pushing the Afghan Army (and Police) to the point where they can defeat the enemy on their own. U.S advisors will start with infantry units trained to clear and hold areas of insurgents and gradually shift toward support units, including helicopter units, logisticians and other support personnel. This change makes complete sense and is the best strategy to securing a less-bad outcome for us.

At the same time, General Allen continues to talk about a post-2014 presence for NATO and the United States. This is extremely important as well. The Afghan Army, and the Taliban, need to be convinced that we won't just leave in 2014-but will instead maintain an enduring, and strategically significant, presence. The perception (as opposed to the reality) of 2014 is what is most damaging to our effort-and from General Allen and all elements of command, there is a clear effort to erode this perception. It won't change overnight, but we must aggressively pursue a counter-narrative.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the ongoing "peace talks" with the Taliban (aptly placed in the "wishful thinking" section). It appears that both the U.S. and the Afghan government have approved a Taliban "office" in the country of Qatar, from which they can hold peace talks. Right now the Taliban is only talking to the U.S., which angers President Karzai. In fact, the Taliban's most recent pronouncement on negotiations rejected Karzai, his government and the Afghan constitution-which is not a promising starting point. From our side, there are talks of a prisoner exchange from Guantanamo, as well as ceasefires, etc. The U.S. insists that the Taliban would have to forswear violence, stop harboring international jihadists, and recognize the Afghan government and constitution. It is highly unlikely they will agree to all three; therefore, which one would we be willing to cave on? If they keep their weapons, they'll keep fighting; if they continue to harbor terrorists, then our entire effort is for naught; and if they won't recognize the Afghan government, then they're never join it.

I honestly don't have the slightest idea how these talks will unfold, but we're being shortsighted and "wishful" if we think they will provide a silver bullet for this conflict. I'm fearful the beltway intelligencia, out of options and desperate for a rapid solution, will seize on this idea-regardless of underlying realities. The Taliban will not be content to share power in good faith; and since they think they're "winning," they're not likely to capitulate to our demands. Their negotiation strategy is based on (again) waiting until 2014 when the United States could be forced to compromise on the most important aspects of the post-2001 order in Afghanistan.

In the end, we clearly cannot abandon Afghanistan-pulling our troops out now would be a disaster. On the other hand, maintaining our effort at the current scope and cost is not commensurate with the benefits. The surge, led by the finest generals the American military has to offer, was the right approach; however, it was undercut from the outset-when we told the enemy when we were going to leave. Having tried "more troops" (albeit, half-heartedly) and in light of political realities, the best course of action now is to continue drawing down our troops, bolster our advising mission, and emphasize our continued-if much scaled down-commitment to the outcome in Afghanistan. Despite our mistakes, we cannot abandon this mission-lest we invite larger problems in the future. Going forward, a robust advising mission, along with continued targeted special forces raids, could be sustained in perpetuity with minimal cost and most of the benefit of our current presence.
________________________

As I've said before, it remains the honor of my life to serve our great country-first in Guantanamo Bay, then Iraq, and finally in Afghanistan. I can think of no greater privilege than to wear our nation's uniform, and to defend the ideals we all hold dear.

I'll close by reiterating something I wrote in July. I urge you to remember the guy-dirty, tired, sweaty, and hungry-on patrol somewhere in no-man's-land Afghanistan. He is fighting as I type this, and as you read this. We must always remember that, and remember him in our prayers. He is the linchpin of this effort, and the one who bears the brunt of all the policies we execute.

I plan to continue writing about Afghanistan-as well as other pertinent topics-in the coming months. And I'll probably send out another "cap-stone" email once I'm officially back home. I won't bombard you with emails, but hope to continue bringing some first-hand insight to challenges facing our nation-abroad and at home.

Again, thank you for the love and support-and keep the prayers coming for the guys still in in the fight.

Godspeed my friends,

Pete Hegseth

The Real Iron Lady 

Posted: 13 Jan 2012 07:14 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

A fictionalized version of Margaret Thatcher's life, produced by her liberal foes, is now in the theaters. That isn't all bad: even a liberal version of Lady Thatcher puts almost all modern politicians to shame. But the Heritage Foundation has created this video to remind us of the real Iron Lady, now more than ever an inspiration to all who love freedom:

January 13, 2012

On Today's Program   

Premiere Night - 2 new shows coming to GBTV!
This Wednesday on January 18th, tune in for the premiere of an entire block of primetime original programming on Glenn's network - GBTV. GBTV is getting bigger and better with the series premiere of the new weekly reality show "Independence U.S.A." and a new daily news series, "Real News from The Blaze." What can you expect to see Wednesday on Premiere Night? Check out the PREVIEW VIDEO and get the full rundown here.

WaPo: If Tebow were Muslim he would be hated

The Washington Post asked the question, "Tim Tebow: would we love him if he were Muslim?" making the assumption that there is no one out there who is irritated at the Tim Tebow craze. But the article only got more ridiculous from there, positing the theory that if Tebow were Muslim he'd be hated because after all, look what happened to former NBA star Chris Jackson! Why is Jackson the worst example ever? Find out HERE.

New anti-Romney ad reveals shocking allegations

As Mitt Romney's lead grows over the rest of the GOP field, so does the desperation from the other candidates. No one is more desperate than Newt Gingrich, who has unleashed a series of truly remarkable attacks on Mitt Romney. Are they hitting him on flip flops? Romneycare? Nope - instead they are focusing on his 'vulture capitalism', his ability to speak a foreign language & the oh-so important 1983 family vacation to Canada. Reaction on radio today. 

Meghan McCain: I'm just like Ronald Reagan

Somehow Meghan McCain was invited to appear on the Jay Leno program despite the fact she's accomplished virtually nothing in her life other than being the daughter of Senator John McCain. The interview served only as more evidence that the totally awesome Meghan McCain shouldn't have even the smallest emoticon of a platform to pretend she's a conservative. She capped the interview with the shocking insinuation that she is just like Ronald Reagan. Yeah, totally ridic. Reaction on radio today.

VA school district caught lying about indoctrination song

Remember the recent story about the parents at an elementary school in Virginia who were furious that their students were made to sing a ridiculous song about the 99% and Occupy Wall Street? And remember how the school district responded to complaints from the parents by laughably arguing the kids came up with the lyrics all on their own? Turns out the school was lying their faces off about it and the song was indeed mostly influenced by instructors. Full story at The Blaze.