Obama the Naive

Obama is a lot of things-some good-some bad. But the one area that needs superior knowledge and expertise Obama is woefully naive or inept-foreign policy. Back in 1996 a presidential candidate week in foreign affairs probably would have skated by. When questioned if he would meet, "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama answered.

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is Obama's naivety. There is a reason we are not meeting with these countries.

First of all, understand that if a country is willing to give on an issue, it usually telegraphs its move. Heads of state, for the most part, don't offer up something at a summit that hasn't already been fleshed out at the lower levels.

Many of the countries listed simply want to meet with the US to show that they can bring the US to the table on an issue. This gives their cause legitimacy. In most cases with the countries listed, the US doesn't want to legitimize their nuclear program or socialist ways.

To make a sweeping statement to welcome any country to talks is blindly naive and should result in a fading of the Obama campaign.

The way Clinton contradicted him and Edwards support of Clinton's response put Obama out on island all by himself looking very foolish.

Africa Doesn't Want Saving

From the Christian Science Monitor:

I hope people will realize Africa doesn't want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.

• Uzodinma Iweala is the author of "Beasts of No Nation," a novel about child soldiers. ©2007 The Washington Post.

There are a couple things in the article the author is trying to point out.

First of all it seems that Africa is a photo op for celebrities-Bono, Angelina Jolie & Madonna to name a few. The statement is valid. Are these celebrities there to help Africa, boost their careers, or a combination of both?

Would Africa be better off left to itself? How did the US help Somalia? Right now, the US is helping Ethiopia run off the only stable government Somalia has had in over 15 years.

With 1993 US failure in Somalia burned in the minds of the world leaders Rwanda was left to its own during the 1994 genocidal attacks. Now, how bad off is Rwanda compared to Somalia? Somalia which has heavy world intervention is still wallowing in chaos while Rwanda appears to have moved on.

No, genocide is not the answer, but maybe less outside influence is part of the answer.

Palestinians and Israelis Aligned Against Hamas?

On Friday Israel opened the cells to 255 Palestinian prisoners, some of them outright terrorists, and let them walk.

But this wasn't just an act of kindness, this was a cold hard political move.

But the first mass prisoner release in more than two years has the potential to harden the partisan divide between Hamas and Fatah, a secular party that has the backing of the Bush administration.

This animosity between Hamas and Fatah is a good thing. Finally, the world get to see the two faces of Palestine, the rational and the fanatical. The more the world supports the rational, the better the world will be. Hamas has shown its true colors in the Gaza strip by lashing out on other Palestinians who support Fatah.

Although, not all Israelis supported the release.

Israeli right-wingers were predictably furious at their government's decision to take 180 members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the militias loyal to the Palestinians' secular Fatah party, off its most wanted list last week. If they lay down their guns and behave for three months, it will let them move freely in the West Bank for the first time in years.

The key word here is SECULAR. For the most part these are not the religious fanatics of Hamas. If the world created an independent Palestinian state, these secular supporters would be less of a burden to Israel. By supporting the creation of an independent Palestinian state, Israel could put even more pressure on Hamas.

As pointed out earlier, in Jeruselem, some Palestinians prefer to live on the Isreali side because of security. And what Hamas is doing in Gaza is not helping its cause.

After last month's showdown between Fatah and Hamas left Fatah running the West Bank and the Islamists of Hamas in control of the Gaza Strip.

Before it's been Fatah and Hamas fighting against a common enemy, Israel. It would be an interesting turn of events if Israeli soldiers fought along side Fatah supporting Palestinians against a common enemy in Hamas.

Fear the Reaper?

The USAF fighter pilot should.

"With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," [Lt Gen Gary] North said.

The fighter pilot has had an iron clasp upon USAF leadership for generations. That reign is about to end. Oh, not in the near future, but in the next decade the era of the fighter pilot will have ended. A decade or two too late, but late is better than never.

The fighter pilot hasn't made the contribution to the military that the cargo pilot, drone pilot, the intel officer, the logistics officer or the space officer has since the end of the fight Gulf War.

The fighter pilot is about as useful as the horse mounted cavalry man was in the 1930s. Luckily the younger fighter pilot can see the writing on the wall. But until this generation takes control, we'll have the equivalent of Don Quixote in charge of the USAF.

Iraq's Center of Gravity

While reading COBRA II, I've read for the umpteenth time that the battle plan for Iraq was based on Baghdad as the center of gravity.

Clausewitz coined the phrase center of gravity which, "is the hub of all power and movement upon which everything depends."

Finally, while reading COBRA II I've realized that the center of gravity for Iraq wasn't Baghdad. Well, it may have been at during the initial push, but Baghdad had very little to do with the center of gravity for Iraq once American troops moved in. And for that matter once the American military moved in, Saddam Hussein wasn't the center of gravity either.

What filled this gap? If you look at Iraq and particularly the Rimadi push in the Anbar province earlier this year you get a clearer picture of what the center of gravity for Iraq is. It is the tribal chiefs.

I should have realized this after reading Generation Kill and One Bullet Away. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad a Marine platoon was trying to provide fresh water-without consent from the tribal leader. So the tribal leader forbade the population to accept the water from the Americans and no one took the free fresh water. The marines were stunned and then worked with the tribal leader.

The hub of all power and movement in Iraq rests with the tribal leaders. This is the center of gravity in Iraq, this is where the US must win the war.

You Can Lead a Country to Democracy...

But you can't make them drink the water. Corruption and shady deals might bring the US military down in Iraq. As more US Republican Senators abandon the Stay the Course ship, insights to the thinking may show it wasn't the US military's, President Bush's, or Donald Rumsfeld's fault (although I will continue to blame Rumsfeld the most).

"Simply put, our troops have been doing a great job, but the Iraqi government has not," [Republican Senator Elizabeth] Dole said. "Our commitment in Iraq is not indefinite, nor should the Iraqi government perceive it to be."

The lesson here is not to depend on any foreign nation to do anything for itself.

Imagine the US was to get involved in Sudan to stop the killing in Darfur. The lessons from Iraq would indicate that the US would have to use massive military power and boots on the ground (I know this sound obvious and has been part of the Powell Doctrine-but the last SecDef seemed to have forgotten this Principle of War). The US would have to also dismantle the government completely and declare martial law. Once in control the US military would also have to rule with an iron fist and quickly suppress any uprising with a vengeance. Unfortunately, with the way the modern news media works, the videos that will be displayed back in the US will turn the stomachs of Americans and the US would have to leave again with a loss.

Have American's lost their fight? Laws of Armed Conflict violations occurred nearly on a daily basis during WWII (read Rick Atkinson's Army at Dawn), but with a sympathetic press, these were over looked. The US now has a highly hostile press, much less sympathetic.

Can the US ever win another war? I doubt it, even the first Gulf War is considered a failure that lead to second Iraq War. The next war the US will fight and win will be in the cyberworld. Americans can't stand the sight of blood.