There is something you can do right now…you will find attached an invitation to an event scheduled for Dec. 5, featuring Joe Arpaio, “America’s Toughest Sheriff.” “Sheriff Joe” has very graciously agreed to raise funds for the “Freedom In Truth Trust.” The FIT Trust is the fund that was established to help us satisfy legal debts incurred during the 2006 campaign. You can read more about it at http://www.jdhayworth.com/fit-trust.html

You may not live in Arizona…but no matter where you call home, would you respond to the attached invitation and please send a contribution to the FIT Trust?

That would certainly be a factor in the decision we will make at the “Hayworth Hacienda!”

The irony of using the Spanish word in an appeal for a possible immigration-focused Senate bid is really something.

Instead, in a letter circulating to senators during final debate on next year’s defense appropriation, POGO’s good government watchdogs urge support for an effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, to kill funding for unneeded C-17 transport planes in order to free up cash to purchase helicopters for Special Forces missions. Coming equipped with photographs of IED-ravaged MRAPs — the alternative to the helicopters for troop transport in Afghanistan’s hard-to-navigate terrain — the group’s Danielle Brian writes:

In particular, we are concerned, based on documents and photographs obtained by POGO and published in the press, that U.S. Special Forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan lack sufficient heavy-lift helicopters for “white missions” to recruit and train local antiterrorist militias and engage the enemy in remote areas.[1] Without these helicopters, troops must use land vehicles, which are vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The full letter, obtained by TWI, follows after the jump, along with photos:

Dear Senator,

As you consider the FY 2010 Defense Appropriations bill, we ask that you support Senator John McCain’s Amendment 2580 to strike funding for unneeded C-17 cargo planes. Appropriating $2.5 billion for additional C-17s diverts money away from more urgent national security priorities.

In particular, we are concerned, based on documents and photographs obtained by POGO and published in the press, that U.S. Special Forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan lack sufficient heavy-lift helicopters for “white missions” to recruit and train local antiterrorist militias and engage the enemy in remote areas.[1] Without these helicopters, troops must use land vehicles, which are vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Of the last eleven deaths among U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, eight have been caused by IEDs.[2] We understand that there is a serious allocation problem with helicopter assets, therefore the problem could be partially solved by reallocation, a situation one former Special Forces General described as “really foul.” We have included photographs of land vehicles destroyed in missions that would have been otherwise been performed with helicopters, had the resources been available.

The Senate is well aware of how this mission directly impacts our national security: last June Defense Secretary Gates testified to the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee that we must increase our Special Forces capabilities, including buying more aircraft to support their missions.[3] Knowing this, we believe that spending $2.5 billion on unwanted and unneeded C-17s is unconscionable and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Pentagon’s analyses have found that the 205 C-17s in the force and on order will sufficiently meet future airlift needs, even under the most stressing situations.

We urge you to support our troops in the field by supporting Senator McCain’s amendment to strike the earmark for C-17 spending from the FY 2010 Defense Appropriations bill.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian

Executive Director

To understand why, really listen to McChrystal’s remarks to London’s Institute for International and Strategic Studies. The New York Times piece doesn’t do McChrystal’s performance justice. McChrystal reiterated his position that Afghan population security is necessary for a strategy to defeat al-Qaeda, but not at all in the thumbing-his-nose-at-Joe-Biden way that the Times portrays.

Instead, as I’ve been writing, McChrystal loudly and clearly defended Obama’s strategy review. Like a lot. When questioners asked if Obama needed to make a decision on Afghanistan strategy nownownow, McChrystal replied with statements like, “Sir, I don’t think we have the luxury of going so fast we make the wrong decision.” While the Times quoted McChrystal saying, about his resource request, “I think if you don’t align the goals and the resources, you will have a significant problem. If we don’t do that, we will,” it left off the preceding part of his answer:

I think any decision to go forward will not just be based on resources, it will be based on what are our goals. And I know people are re-looking what our goals and objectives are and redefining and clarifying those, and I think that’s helpful. Once they do that, I think the resources, of course, are linked to that, because obviously you have to have a ways and means match. So, I don’t think that if we align our goals and our resources, we will have a significant problem. Our problem would be as — if we didn’t.

Still not convinced? Want another quote? OK: “This is a necessary process we go through so we come to a clear decision, and then move forward, and I think once we make that decision — once he makes that decision, in concert with our international partners — then I think we’ll be in a much stronger position.”

Or how about this? When asked if he would “circumvent” some caveats placed by European parliaments on the use of their troops, he said, “I’m certainly not going to circumvent any political leadership, because at the end of the day, political leadership and the people are who I work for, and I’m proud to do that. I think the more deliberations we have, the more debate we have, the healthier this is gonna be. Because at the end of the day, we would be in much worse shape to have a decision made without that level of public debate.” You listening, Karl? Because McChrystal rebuked your old boss, not his current one.

And that’s likely to happen when McChrystal ultimately testifies before Congress. Military command is not the role for spoiled children who stamp their feet when they don’t get all the toys they want. It’s a responsibility for professionals like McChrystal who understand that they work for elected leaders who have to take a broader national strategy into consideration. McChrystal was faced with a room of people who were trying to open some daylight between him and Obama. And these were his responses.

Does the GOP actually think that McChrystal is going to rebuke his still-popular commander-in-chief to curry favor with the minority party? Indeed, even taking such a cynical view, it’s better for the GOP for McChrystal to testify after Obama’s decision, because if he remains in command while being dissatisfied with the decision, then the Republicans will more likely to exploit that fissure in testimony. But McChrystal has given no indication at all that he’d serve in that capacity.

This is a strange place for the politics of national security. The minority party is hoping that McChrystal will somehow decide that it’s in his interest to throw his chips in with a powerless party rather than exercise the responsibilities of his command and cultivate a constructive relationship with both parties. It’s that kind of thinking that led John McCain to become the 44th president of the United States, partnering with Mitch McConnell’s 60-seat Senate majority.

And for its part, there are even some on the progressive side who misinterpret recent McChrystal interviews to fit into some desired insubordination narrative, whereby Obama — and by extension, the progressive movement — is absolved of responsibility for the war because of the nefarious machinations of a revanchist military. None of this is remotely true. And McChrystal’s remarks in London, read in their full context, prove it.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

“This deeply regrettable decision sends the wrong message to Tehran, Moscow, and our European allies at a critical time in our effort to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Senator Joe Lieberman says in a statement. “Moreover, it means that we will have a less capable missile defense system to protect the United States and our European allies against the Iranian threat. The administration must take immediate and tangible action to reassure our allies in Central and Eastern Europe that we are committed to their security and independence.”

Every part of this is blinkered. For the actual Iranian short-range missile threat, the Obama administration is substituting the next wave of anti-ballistic missile technology for an outmoded one. Only a fool or a reflexively right-wing Connecticut concern troll would actually believe better technology provides a more porous defense. Additionally, what actually contributes to the “security and independence” of eastern Europe is improved political ties with Russia, and what doesn’t is an outdated-before-it’s-ever-deployed missile shield that Russia justifiably interprets as a needless provocation. Focusing better technology on Iran rather than inferior technology on Russia is a positive-sum development. It’s statements like this that demonstrate why the only people who think Lieberman is a serious defense thinker tend to lose presidential elections.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

“This is a different kind of campaign,” said Simcox. “I think I can tap into that $35 million base.”

Except for one claim:

In the interim, the president and his allies—and we count ourselves among them on this issue—must invest significantly greater effort to explain why, as the president recently put it, Afghanistan is a “war of necessity. [Emphasis added.]

That sets up an interesting game of chicken. How much does President Obama want to leave his Afghanistan policy in the hands of, shall we say, unreliable self-proclaimed allies? McCain, Graham and Lieberman’s op-ed is better positioned to allow the senators to denounce Obama if he doesn’t acquiesce to a prospective second troop escalation this year than it is to prepare whatever constituencies they possess to reluctantly support such a decision. (”…this middle path—which the previous administration pursued for too long in Iraq—that is a recipe for quagmire and collapse of political support for the war at home.”) Is that the kind of ally that the administration wants in the face of large and growing political opposition to escalation?

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

It is important to note that the case reargued today does not affect the core of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law – the ban on large, unregulated donations to the political parties by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals. Nonetheless, at stake in this case are the voices of millions and millions of Americans that could be drowned out by large corporations if the decades-old restrictions on corporate electioneering are called into question. Overturning the Austin decision would open the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending during elections and undermine election laws across the country. Those able to spend tens of millions of dollars, like a Fortune 500 company, are much more likely to be heard during an election than average American voters.

It was just six years ago that the Supreme Court upheld the electioneering communications provision in McCain-Feingold and nothing has happened in that time to warrant the drastic step of overruling that decision. During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts, whom we both voted for, promised to respect precedent. If he casts the deciding vote to overrule Austin and McConnell, it would completely contradict that promise, and could have serious consequences for our democracy.

“No real earnings growth in this report that would suggest sustained upward growth in this economy,” Holtz-Eakin said. “It cannot be considered good news that people left the labor force. If not for that, the unemployment rate might have creeped up to 9.6 percent, is my guess.”

Holtz-Eakin challenged Democratic rhetoric about the effect their policies have had in mitigating economic problems, though he allowed that “no one would argue that the stimulus has done nothing.” The problem: Some Republicans have argued exactly that. In February, Dick Armey, the former House GOP majority leader who now leads FreedomWorks, predicted that the stimulus would actually worsen the economic picture. “Taking money out of the private economy,” Armey wrote, “either through taxes or inflation… and spending it in a way that doesn’t offset the loss of money with real economic gains is worse than doing nothing.” In July, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the GOP’s whip in the Senate, suggested canceling the rest of the stimulus in a column that ran down the ways it seemed, to him, to be failing and wasting money.

Early reports are what they are, and there’s no indication in Starr’s piece how many troops McChrystal is going to ask for. But she makes a conspicuous reference to “troops and equipment for conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as more assets to deal with roadside bombs and explosives,” so that makes it sound like we’re talking about combat support units and not combat units themselves. Recall that when Gen. David Petraeus gave an account to the Center for a New American Security last month about the 2007 battle for Sadr City, he emphasized the robust ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) assets he devoted to the fight. It left me with the impression that there weren’t nearly enough of those in Afghanistan without Petraeus (if memory serves) saying so outright.

So now comes the wrangling. This has been walked back, but Jim Jones, the national security adviser, reportedly told commanders in Afghanistan not to bother asking for more troops. Defense Secretary Bob Gates, while not ever saying that he’s opposed to supplying more than the 30,000-troop increase that McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, requested last year, has signaled that he’d really rather bolster the Afghan security forces. (By my count, we’re at 27,000 more troops than last year, so the ceiling’s fast approaching.) He told a Senate panel in January he’d be “very skeptical” of additional U.S. troops for the mission beyond the 30,000, and he told the Los Angeles Times’ Julian Barnes recently that the troops and the American people are “tired” and won’t accept a long slog in Afghanistan.

Now that can cut both ways. Maybe Gates can be convinced that bolstering troop levels again is a way to avoid the slog. But two troop increases (and there was one announced last September, too) in one year can give the public the impression of drift. And justifiably so: Afghanistan strategy seems to have a lot of built-in drift. My guess is McChrystal probably knows that he’ll get one big opportunity early in his command to ask for more troops and he might as well take as much as he can get.

The political question: where’s the opposition? The right is basically silent or in agreement on Afghanistan. Its one critique, voiced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is that there aren’t enough troops. And while there’s discontent on the left in the netroots, only Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), has begun to stir as a voice of war skepticism. Domestic policy  is the only thing Washington cares about right now. Will McChrystal’s request change that or not?