Free Frank Warner

Obama: Let’s be ‘successful’ against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan

This sums up President Obama’s speech last night on the new “surge”: Defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but don’t expect us to stay too long.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.…

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.…

Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.…

[S]ome call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.

Mixed signals? I’m a puzzled at how the president went out of his way to say the recent Afghanistan election was “marred by fraud” and then said, “We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.” It was too close to saying the Hamid Karzai government is illegitimate, but we’ll defend it anyway.

This was a little weird, too:

We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

What does that say of a war that even more directly threatens to snuff out lives and liberty, here or abroad? We’ll sit it out if the price isn’t right? There goes Taiwan.

No victory. Missing from the speech: The words “win” and “victory,” but three times President Obama called for “success” in Afghanistan.

He also mentioned “freedom” three times and “liberty” once, and described America as speaking for human rights and tending to the light of freedom -- struggling for freedom, though not necessarily fighting for it.

Frank Warner

Obama to surge with a goal of pulling out by July 2011

This will be an interesting experiment. President Obama reportedly will announce that, as he adds 30,000 U.S. troops for an Afghanistan "surge," he will set a goal of beginning to remove those troops in July 2011.

This certainly is not like President Franklin Roosevelt saying, on Dec. 8, 1941:

Always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this ..., the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory....

We will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

War of necessity. The new war approach is explained as "the era of the blank check is over." This has a few advantages. Setting a date as a goal for withdrawal might encourage the Afghanistan government to hasten its own army build-up. It also will remind a few Afghan fence-sitters that this is no war of conquest; America does not want to claim territory.

But let's be careful. In the last four months, it seems, we have done more to insult our allies in Afghanistan than we have to remind America of "the character of the onslaught against us."

We could use just a few words from the president about the necessity of absolute victory.

Frank Warner

Will the president say we’ve got to win in Afghanistan?

At West Point tonight, President Obama is expected to announce an escalation of the U.S. military role in Afghanistan, sending another 30,000 American troops to help secure that nation as it builds its first democratic society.

In this long-awaited speech, will Obama spell out his definition of victory? Will he explain how he settled for 30,000 more troops after Army General Stanley McChrystal recommended 40,000 more (besides the 70,000 GIs already there)?

Here’s what the president said on August 17 of this year when he declared the Afghanistan battle a “war of necessity.” He was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, meeting in Phoenix:

In recent years, our troops have succeeded in every mission America has given them, from toppling the Taliban to deposing a dictator in Iraq to battling brutal insurgencies. At the same time, forces trained for war have been called upon to perform a whole host of missions. Like mayors, they’ve run local governments and delivered water and electricity. Like aid workers, they’ve mentored farmers and built new schools. Like diplomats, they’ve negotiated agreements with tribal sheikhs and local leaders. …

But as we protect America, our men and women in uniform must always be treated as what they are: America’s most precious resource. As commander-in-chief I have a solemn responsibility for their safety. And there’s nothing more sobering than signing a letter of condolence to the family of servicemen or women who have given their lives for our country.

That is why I have made this pledge to our armed forces: I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. And when I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. I will give you a clear mission, defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That's my commitment to you. …

We will equip our forces with the assets and technologies they need to fight and win. So my budget funds more of the Army helicopters, crews and pilots urgently needed in Afghanistan; the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that gives our troops the advantage; the Special Operations forces that can deploy on a moment’s notice. And for all those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, including our National Guard and Reserve, more of the protective gear and armored vehicles that save lives.

Now, as we fight in two wars, we will plan responsibly, budget honestly, and speak candidly about the costs and consequences of our actions. And that's why I've made sure my budget includes the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, after more than six years, we took an important step forward in June. We transferred control of all cities and towns to Iraq’s security services. The transition to full Iraqi responsibility for their own security is now underway. This progress is a testament to all those who have served in Iraq, both uniformed and civilian. And our nation owes these Americans -- and all who have given their lives -- a profound debt of gratitude.

Now, as Iraqis take control of their destiny, they will be tested and targeted. Those who seek to sow sectarian division will attempt more senseless bombings, more killing of innocents. This we know.

But as we move forward, the Iraqi people must know that the United States will keep its commitments. And the American people must know that we will move forward with our strategy. We will begin removing our combat brigades from Iraq later this year. We will remove all our combat brigades by the end of next August. And we will remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. And for America, the Iraq war will end.

By moving forward in Iraq, we’re able to refocus on the war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March. A strategy that recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base from the remote, tribal areas -- to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war -- that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.

In the months since, we have begun to put this comprehensive strategy into action. And in recent weeks, we’ve seen our troops do their part. They’ve gone into new areas, taking the fight to the Taliban in villages and towns where residents have been terrorized for years. They’re adapting new tactics, knowing that it’s not enough to kill extremists and terrorists; we also need to protect the Afghan people and improve their daily lives. And today, our troops are helping to secure polling places for this week's election so that Afghans can choose the future that they want.

These new efforts have not been without a price. The fighting has been fierce. More Americans have given their lives. And as always, the thoughts and prayers of every American are with those who make the ultimate sacrifice in our defense.

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight. And we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy.

But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven, from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a -- this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

Going forward, we will constantly adapt to new tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed. And at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to help the Afghan and Pakistani people build the future that they seek.

Now, even as we lead and equip our troops for the missions of today, we have a third responsibility to fulfill. We must prepare our forces for the missions of tomorrow.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen adapt to new challenges every day. But as we know, much of our defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the post-Cold War world, with doctrine and weapons better suited to fight the Soviets on the plains of Europe than insurgents in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan. Twenty years after the Cold War ended, this is simply not acceptable. It is irresponsible. Our troops and our taxpayers deserve better.

And that’s why our defense review is taking a top-to-bottom look at our priorities and posture, questioning conventional wisdom, rethinking old dogmas and challenging the status quo. We’re asking hard questions about the forces we need and the weapons we buy. And when we're finished, we'll have a new blueprint for the 21st-century military that we need. And in fact, we're already on our way.

We’re adopting new concepts -- because the full spectrum of challenges demands a full range of military capabilities -- both the conventional and the unconventional, the ability to defeat both an armored division and the lone suicide bomber; the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and the improvised explosive device; 18th-century- style piracy and 21st-century cyber threats. No matter the mission, we must maintain America's military dominance.

So even as we modernize our conventional forces, we’re investing in the capabilities that will reorient our force to the future: an Army that's more mobile and expeditionary and missile defenses that protect our troops in the field; a Navy that not only projects power across the oceans but operates nimbly in shallow, coastal waters; an Air Force that dominates the airspace with next-generation aircraft, both manned and unmanned; a Marine Corps that can move ashore more rapidly in more places. And across the force, we’re investing in new skills and specialties. Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages that they speak and the cultures that they understand.

But here's the simple truth. We cannot build the 21st-century military we need -- and maintain the fiscal responsibility that American demands -- unless we fundamentally reform the way our defense establishment does business. It’s a simple fact. Every dollar wasted in our defense budget is a dollar we can’t spend to care for our troops, or protect America, or prepare for the future.

The other shoe. The president went on to promise he’d cut wasteful military spending, but he’d increase military pay, improve military housing, child care and counseling, and offer better treatment for wounded warriors.

He didn’t elaborate then on how he’d win the Afghanistan war. Perhaps we’ll hear those details tonight.

Frank Warner

Tiger Woods drives car into tree, is taken to hospital

This doesn't sound good, except that while they're calling today's Florida accident "serious," it doesn't appear they kept him at the hospital.

It's possible police called his injuries serious because Woods' face was cut badly and everything looked more serious than it was. We'll see. Facial cuts can be serious.

A 2:25 a.m. crash into a fire hydrant and a tree?

Frank Warner

Mann and McIntyre: It's all about the tree rings

Bottom line: The global warming debate is over tree rings.

Scientists have counted on tree rings to give them a record of global temperatures, particularly for the 20th century, but also for earlier centuries for which tree samples can be found. Generally, the wider and denser the tree rings, the warmer the year was.

But that works only for the years up to 1960, according to Penn State's Michael Mann, a climatologist and global warming believer. Then, for some not-completely-explained reason, Mann says, from 1961 on, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator of temperatures.

Explanation needed. Mann says pollution, rainfall and other factors seem to have rendered tree-ring analysis useless since 1960. Steve McIntyre, the mathematician and global warming skeptic, says Mann has not explained why tree rings suddenly didn't work, and until Mann can explain that, scientists cannot blindly accept the premise that tree-ring temperature studies were ever valid. This question affects most major studies on global warming.

The "hide the decline" in Phil Jones' Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail referred to Mann's 1998 temperature chart that hid the declining reliability of tree-rings after 1960. Mann's chart apparently shows temperatures from 1900 to 1960, as reflected in tree ring studies, and then tacks on actual thermometer readings for the years 1961 to 1998.

Both Mann and McIntyre said this yesterday. According to skeptic McIntyre, the "hiding" was not exactly an exercise in deception, but McIntyre also said Mann has not yet fully explained why tree rings were a good measure until 1960, but a bad measure after 1960.

Hockeystick blade. This matters because 20th century temperatures are the "blade" of Mann's famous "hockeystick" chart. The chart shows temperatures far higher at the end of the 20th century than the early 20th century tree-ring numbers.

I have to admit, I had no idea until yesterday how central this tree-ring question was to the global warming debate.

Frank Warner

Phil Jones on Phil Jones

Steve McIntyre quotes Phil Jones:

In the Dec. 3, 2008, e-mail to Jones’ fellow global warming scientists, Jones says:

About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.

In the Nov. 24, 2009 Guardian, Jones says:

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

I hope Jones’ scientific work makes more sense than this.

Frank Warner

What does the global warming scandal mean?

The global warming scandal, as revealed in the more than 1,000 once-secret e-mails, means that, in the last 10 years, the people who we’ve been told were our best climatologists have found no evidence the world has continued to warm as they predicted, and much worse, that these same people have conspired to silence and punish anyone who would tell that truth.

No, it didn’t begin as a conspiracy. The global warming faith began as science, then became politics, then became religion. It’s grotesque how tied up in doctrinal knots these former scientists are. Now they should build their churches and leave science alone.

Frank Warner

How does Nebraska escape the recession?

Should we all be growing corn and sorghum?

Click here to see how unemployment grew over the last two years. The animation ends two months ago, but you get the idea.

Then ask yourself: How do Nebraska, north Alaska, Montana and North Dakota keep every worker working?

The first answer: They had no housing bubble, and they had sensible bankers.

Nebraska also has ethanol and hardworking farmers. North Alaska has oil, some of which actually is pumped. Montana and North Dakota's economies are balanced on expanding agriculture and oil exploration.

Energy production, sound banking, competition and freedom are fundamental to any economy. Get those basics right, and the other industries can grow with jobs enough for everyone. That map could look a lot healthier.

Frank Warner

Obama is learning, right?

More than a year after Barack Obama’s election to the presidency, I have to admit I have no idea where he’s going, either on domestic affairs or foreign policy. Right now, let’s look at foreign policy.

Obama’s recent trip to Asia marked the first time in my life that I sensed the world’s center of political and financial power had shifted from the democracies to the dictatorships. This is not an encouraging feeling. This is a Depression.

Lost stature. From Germany, Der Spiegel observes:

The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington's new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Thrill gone. The “Saturday Night Live” skit two days ago said it all. The Chinese are lecturing America about our reckless economic policies, including Obama’s health-care plan, and ignoring America’s calls for human rights. Obama looks helpless.

Now even Chris “Leg Thrill” Matthews is comparing Obama’s approach to Jimmy Carter’s malaise.

I can’t explain the “change” in our foreign policy. Where is listening to tyrants, but never acting against them, supposed to get us? Why do we expect concessions from our adversaries when we give away our chips before the bargaining begins?

No bargainers. America is not just any other nation. In many ways, we’re the only chance half this world has to remain free, and only chance the other half has to escape its chains. Our freedom continues to give us the strength to stand up to tyranny, but we need the will to use it.

I wonder if the Obama administration’s cynicism is so deep it can’t bring itself to demand anything, even fundamental human rights. I also wonder if this administration’s lack of real-world skills, specifically in bargaining contracts, has left its diplomats at a permanent disadvantage. (On the domestic front, I have a similar worry about its unfamiliarity with balancing budgets.)

We owe it to any president to give him a full year to test his policies, make adjustments and crystallize his approach as chief executive. Jan. 20, 2010, isn’t far. To this point, the learning curve looks flat.

Frank Warner

Global warming game: Reading the tree rings

John Hinderaker at Power Line gives us a tightly wrapped case study of how the newly exposed global warming e-mails betray a shockingly desperate dishonesty in academia.

Hinderaker’s case study: The clash between Keith Briffa and Steve McIntyre over Briffa’s finding that tree rings in Siberia prove that late 20th century temperatures rose so fast they could be charted sharply upward, like the handle of a hockey stick.

McIntyre, a global warming skeptic, reviewed the data presented by Briffa, a global warming theorist, and concluded Briffa might have “cherry-picked” trees in Yamal, Siberia, to assure that the global temperatures reflected by the tree rings were consistent with an earlier “hockey stick” chart, developed by Michael Mann.

In other words, McIntyre alleged that, considering the inconsistencies in Briffa’s data, Briffa might have ignored intentionally the Siberian trees that contradicted the theory that Briffa wanted to prove. McIntyre wanted Briffa to explain how he chose the trees that he sampled. He also wanted to know how many trees Briffa studied.

No loose cannons. According to the secret e-mails revealed two days ago, the response by the global-warming establishment to McIntyre’s challenge was panic and something worse than panic.

The “scientists” made little effort to check Briffa’s data. But even without confirming any of Briffa’s records and methods, the “scientists” announced falsely that they knew Briffa’s findings were valid. They did not know.

Reports Hinderaker:

The alarmists’ effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa’s co-author, Tim Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre’s critique. Osborn replied on September 29, 2009:

Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I’ll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He’s been off almost 4 months now and won’t be back for at least another month ....

Regarding Yamal, I’m afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that “The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result” is complete crap. Having one’s integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....

Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be directly contacted about this....

So: these scientists don’t really have any idea whether McIntyre’s critique of Briffa’s work is correct or not. Even Briffa’s co-author professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could “shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal.” But they don’t do it. Why? Because “he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn’t be directly contacted....” In other words, his loyalty to the cause of climate alarmism may not be absolute.

A silly game. Hinderaker’s case study goes into much more fascinating detail on the deception, and you really should read it all.

If this were the way scientists studied polio in the mid-20th century, millions more of us would be in wheelchairs today.

These e-mails help explain why so few of the global warming theorists call for the rapid expansion of nuclear power to replace CO2-intensive coal and oil. Under the surface, they don’t believe global warming is serious. To them, as the e-mails prove, it’s just a game between “us” and “them,” and “we” keep our jobs only as long as we look like we’re scoring points.

Frank Warner