Sunday night classroom

Pencils ready, boys and girls? In order to have a good school year, you need to listen carefully to the word from on high. Senator John will be your instructor. Put away your regular textbooks and get out that special lesson plan from Acorn Publishing. Make note of the three most important words I say. Start composing your loyalty letter about "How I will help Senator John take over all of radio." What a happy time we'll have as my mesmeric voice beams into your home or car for the Sunday night classroom. What killjoys your parents are, for even suggesting that YOU might be excluded from the national group bonding experience that patriotic kids across the land are taking part in. But fear not, children. In this case the word from on high is not White House propaganda. It's clear thinking from atop the Continental Divide. And your instructor is not a liberal potentate empowered to withhold school funds and broadcasting licenses. He's just a legislative has-been with no captive audience.

In other words, attendance at the Sunday night classroom of Backbone Radio is voluntary. Listening is up to you; roll won't be taken. And in comparison with Obama's command performance in schools next Tuesday, we promise a lower pomposity factor and a higher truth quotient. Please tune in for...

** Noted educator Bill Moloney on the presidential teach-in... a Labor Day alert from Mark McKinnon of the Workforce Fairness Institute... and a rundown on Barack's radical advisers from Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity.

** Plus a reality check on Afghanistan and Iraq with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross... and the stranger side of Colorado politics with Mike Littwin.

Awaiting those loyalty letters, JOHN ANDREWS

Obama shortchanging defense

(Denver Post, Sept. 6) Peace and prosperity are what ultimately lift the polls and win national elections. A big reason why the president and congressional Democrats fear losses in 2010 is not just their unpopular health care takeover. It’s that many Americans neither feel safer nor richer in September of the young hero’s first year. Remember last January? Obama was going to exit Iraq, win Afghanistan, and tame Iran. His pork-laden stimulus bill and eye-popping deficits would “save or create” countless new jobs, keeping unemployment below 8% (it’s now in the mid-nines). He was hailed as the next FDR. But campaigning turned out to be easier than governing. Colorado has particular reason to feel bait-and-switched. Only about a thousand stimulus-related jobs were identified in the state by a recent Denver Post survey. Meanwhile our economy, long accustomed to strong defense employment and thriving military installations, sees zilch from a White House that loses no love for the Pentagon.

Never mind that when speaking at Invesco Field a year ago, the future president pledged to “rebuild our military” and proclaimed his “sacred commitment to give (our forces) the equipment they need in battle.” Or that Vice-President Biden, addressing Air Force cadets in June, asserted we need a “robust, vibrant, and growing” air arm, because “peace without military strength is an illusion.”

If Biden is right, and many of us believe he is, then his boss’s budget priorities are doubly wrong. They’re not only misguided for keeping the peace, and for war-fighting if necessary. They also miss obvious opportunities for recession-fighting and job creation.

“Everyone in Congress who is defense-minded, Democrats as well as Republicans,” says Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs), “is astounded at the way defense is being slashed while dollars are thrown at everything else” in the name of economic stimulus.

The $1.2 billion Obama is refusing to spend on missile defense, for example, is “laughably small” in comparison with his projected budget deficits in the trillions, Lamborn points out. So the rationale must be an “anti-defense bias,” he believes, and not some theory of how to revive the economy. After all, FDR’s own military buildup following 1940 did more for prosperity than all his stimulus spending in the 1930s.

It’s bizarre to see this president flexing his political muscles to kill some of our most successful military programs and the jobs that go with them. His veto threat recently killed the F-22 Raptor program, which builds the most advanced, stealthiest, longest-range strike fighter in the world, and employs tens of thousands of skilled American workers. Lockheed, a major Colorado employer, will lose work as a result. The company may later enjoy big contracts for a successor fighter, the F-35 – but back-loaded stimulus is no stimulus at all.

By itself, the F-22 cancellation doesn’t prove much about Obama and the Democrats. Some Republicans sided with them, including military hawk Sen. John McCain, budget hawk Sen. Tom Coburn, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But this free-spending administration has been stingy on one weapons system after another – the F-18 Hornet, the next airborne tanker, the Future Combat technology for ground forces, and as mentioned before, anti-missile defenses.

Cutting the missile interceptors, warns Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Aurora), “poses a direct and grave danger to our national security at a time when we face threats from North Korea and potentially from a resurgent Russia and a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Agreed, congressman. But you are talking reality, whereas this administration operates on far-left ideology. It’s driven by Barack Obama’s fixation with green jobs despite their economic downside (witness Spain’s awful experience), and by his vision for “a civilian national security force that's just as well funded” as the military. Those notions may earn a rebuke from voters at next year’s election, which can’t come soon enough.

'Strongest Tribe' well worth reading

Like most news junkies who had followed the war in Iraq on a daily basis for six years, I thought I was pretty well informed. However when I read Bing West’s The Strongest Tribe I was stunned at how much I had missed- not just unreported or misreported events but also how to think about those events in balanced perspective. Soon after the lightning overthrow of Saddam the mainstream media began to turn against a war they had never much liked in the first place. As the war ground on their reporting disproportionately revolved around suicide bombers in Iraq and grieving families in America. Most books that promised “deeper analysis”- even well written ones like Bob Woodward ‘s trilogy- revealed a clear liberal bias and left us yearning for some Paul Harvey to tell us “the rest of the story”.

We find such a person in Bing West whose book is long on “on the ground” reporting and short on political opinion. It radiates an evenhandedness that gives a reader great confidence in its veracity.

West was a career military officer who distinguished himself as an authority on counterinsurgency warfare in Viet Nam. That war produced relatively few good books, but West’s classic The Village is one of them. Later he would serve as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan.

Published in 2008 the book covers the war from the beginning through the success of the “Surge” which snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. West employs a strictly chronological approach and avoids those annoying back and forth digressions that confuse readers.

West comes down hard on both civilian and higher military leadership who through most of the war utterly failed to define a unified and coherent American mission in Iraq. Whether it was Defense (Rumsfeld) vs. State (Powell) in Washington or their counter-parts (General Abizaid vs “Proconsul” Bremer) in Iraq their conflict and confusion over strategy profoundly undermined mission effectiveness on the ground. Underlying this confusion was an American naiveté and general cluelessness concerning cultural/historical and political realities in Iraq.

The State Dept. seemed to think that giving Iraqis a few PowerPoint presentations on tolerance/diversity, constitution writing, and Roberts Rules of Order could swiftly transform their country into an up and running self-defending democracy.

Having achieved their quick battlefield victory a la Afghanistan, the Pentagon wanted to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and while waiting to do so corralled its soldiers in large isolated bases from which the troops “commuted to work”.

Having no coherent plans for “post-victory” operations both Defense and State bought into the bizarre “Light Footprint” doctrine which suggested that the very sight of American soldiers so inflamed young Iraqi males that they immediately ran to the nearest Al-Qaeda recruiting office to become instant jihadists.

All this confusion went on for three years (2003-2006) during which Iraq spiraled downward into chaos and the American people soured on the war.

The great strength of West’s book rests on his frequent and lengthy stays in Iraq mostly spent embedded with American troops. He persuasively demonstrates that local American commanders and local Iraqi leaders (notably the Sheiks of Anbar Province) figured out what was wrong and what was needed long before the politicans and military brass in either Washington or Baghdad.

Finally a senior military leader emerged who grasped the validity of these local viewpoints. General David Petraeus saw clearly that victory was impossible without local Iraqi support, and that support was absolutely dependent on Americans providing the people with the security and stability that would allow them to inform on and fight back against the detested foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda who were terrorizing them by systematically murdering their men and raping their women.

Petraeus took a strategy that had worked for a number of local American commanders and applied it country-wide. He took his troops out of their isolated bases and had them “move in” with the people and stay. Beginning in the deadly “Sunni Triangle” he also authorized local American commanders to recruit, arm, and pay local Iraqi males (“Sons of Iraq”) as fighting auxiliaries to the American forces. Thus empowered local leaders (mostly tribal sheiks) courageously faced murderous Al-Qaeda reprisals and blessed joint combat operations against a suddenly exposed and then decimated enemy whose power rapidly melted away in the face of this new turn of events.

Petraeus success in selling this new strategy which was the critical element in the success of the “Surge” was absolutely dependent on his views becoming known to key National Security Council staffers who orchestrated an “end run” around the Pentagon and the State Dept- both highly resistant to any notion of increased troop levels.

While West praises the gutsy decision of a politically battered President Bush to authorize the “Surge” despite the rampant and poisonous “defeatism” pervading Washington, he severely faults him for his passivity and unwillingness to challenge senior Cabinet and military leaders during the long period (over two years) when the situation in Iraq was clearly deteriorating. Citing Lincoln, FDR, and Truman as examples, West correctly insists that Presidents must be willing to aggressively intervene and even fire people when a war is obviously going badly. For too long George W. Bush failed that test.

Even more severely does West condemn the rank hypocrisy of Democratic leaders like Reid, Pelosi and Murtha who endlessly chanted their “support for our troops” while doing everything in their power to undermine the mission of those troops and also giving aid and comfort to the enemy by publicly announcing that “the war was lost” when in fact it was about to be won.

The real heroes of West’s book are American soldiers. Their valor uncelebrated by their country’s media, their mission undercut by politicians, and often poorly served by their own higher leadership, they fought against a savage and fanatical enemy in deadly battle spaces like Fallujah street by street, house to house, often room to room with incredible skill and bravery. West sternly reminds us that “They are not victims; they are Warriors”. Their individual stories- the best part of the book- will fill your heart with pain and pride.

The title of the book comes from the remark of a Sunni Sheik when West asked him why the top Al-Qaeda leader in Fallujah had fled the city in a woman’s dress. The Sheik pointed to a passing Marine patrol and in respectful tones replied “Because they are the Strongest Tribe”.

West closes his book expressing concerns about the future of the “Strongest Tribe” in a country whose martial virtues are being drained by the poisonous atmosphere of political division and cultural warfare.

We all should worry about a day when- like contemporary Europe- there will be nothing worth fighting for and no more volunteering young warriors even if there was.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.

Listen, think, decide

Editor: You thought blogging was inherently overheated? This coolly reasoned piece asks for our best as deliberative citizens sifting for truth in the health care melee. Scott Starin is Boulder County Republican chairman, a former candidate for Congress, and an aerospace engineer. The Art of Persuasion

In his book, "Rhetoric," Aristotle describes three fundamental methods of persuasion. The first method is the reasoned approach. Through logic, reason and historical reference, the persuader builds his argument upon facts and acumen. The second approach is the establishment of expertise. The arguer`s reputation precedes her argument and people are persuaded by the stature of the person. The third approach to the art of persuasion is political rhetoric. Political rhetoric plays on people`s emotions and usually has little to do with logic and reason and more on stirring up passions. This method is, unfortunately, most common in today`s political discourse. In considering the arguments on the current health care debate, it is interesting to listen to those trying to persuade and to decide which of these methods they are employing.

Undoubtedly, there has been political rhetoric on both sides of the debate. Examples of political rhetoric include quoting misleading or exaggerated statistics as justification for radical reform. Often these arguments do not indicate how the current legislation will address systemic problems in the healthcare industry. When you hear about disturbing statistics without tangible solutions, that is political rhetoric. On the other side there have been melodramatic descriptions of death panels or forced inclusion into public options. While there are legitimate concerns about the intent and purpose of the wording of legislation and where the interpretation may lead, people have over-stated the consequences of many provisions. When you hear about extreme repercussions without citation of specific code provision, you are listening to political rhetoric.

I have viewed the seven Colorado House Representatives` and two Colorado Senators` Web sites with an eye toward the type of persuasion they use to present their positions. Congressman Jared Polis` overview on healthcare makes an impassioned plea, stating "... Americans have struggled (with) high costs, inferior care, or no care at all. We must not be a nation where helpless children cannot receive necessary medicine or visit their doctors for routine check-ups because it`s too expensive." Can you feel the emotional tug here? Congressman Polis is a strong proponent of a single-payer system, citing reduced overhead rates as justification. Lacking in his argument, however, are examples of countries where the proposed reforms provide superior care and value compared to our current structure. To his credit, Congressman Polis` Web site does have the text of the bill as well as section-by-section analysis, as written by the majority committees. For completeness, minority summaries are highly recommended reading.

I believe that proponents of healthcare reform, as proposed in H.R. 3200, are losing support from the American people, not because of embellished claims of consequences (although that certainly is a component), but rather citizens are becoming more informed about the provisions of the legislation and the projected costs of these new entitlements. People realize that without massive governmental reforms these revolutionary changes to our healthcare system cannot be sustained in an economically viable fashion. Also, in my opinion, proponents of this healthcare reform are not providing adequate explanations of how this legislation will achieve the promises being made.

In today`s 24-hour media cycle, sound-bite society, it is difficult to present a reasoned argument to the American people on any subject, let alone one as complex and far-reaching as healthcare reform. Reasoned debate and critical thought are required to make meaningful decisions that lead to effective legislation. Those who argue that we must make these radical changes quickly do themselves and their constituents a great disservice. As the debate continues on, listen to those presenting their arguments. Without regard for your own preferences, decide whether the information presented is reasoned thought or political rhetoric.

Invitation: Remember 9/11

Join us Friday, Sept. 11, 730pm at Colorado Christian University when author and organizer Brigitte Gabriel speaks on "America Confronts Radical Islam." Take Cedar east from Garrison to CCU Event Center. Admission free but you must register at Centennialccu.org.[photopress:pix_brigitte_gabriel.jpg,thumb,pp_image]