Category: military


On New Year’s Eve, December 31, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. It essentially gives the military the authority to indefinitely detain a terrorist without a trial or charge. Based on the wording of the bill, it would appear that American citizens could be impacted or affected by the bill.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorist,” said President Obama.

I know as president, there are times that certain concessions are made to get things accomplished. But on January 22, 2009, President Obama issued as one of his first executive orders was to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility within one year. The prisoners who were held in that facility were being detained indefinitely and that was against our constitution. Three years later, our president has signed into law a bill, which has the potential to curtail certain freedoms, and Guantanamo Bay is not closed.

As the president was signing this bill, he wrote a three page presidential policy statement raising certain concerns about the constitutionality of certain provisions in the bill. It is clear that the president had problems with the bill, and understands that there are inherent dangerous abuses of power in the NDAA.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union says, “This statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.” This means that citizens that protest an unfair law could be indefinitely detained with this new law.

All of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against this bill except two. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Chairmen of the Congressional Caucus stated that the NDAA does not represent the country’s principles. “We all grew up with the belief on the Constitution that we were innocent until proven guilty, and to have people detained, whether it is in this country or another country, without any kind of trial, and to detain people indefinitely is not what America stands for,” says Representative Cleaver.

As more Americans struggle with the terrorist suspected threat, more Americans will be suspected as un-American. Once someone is identified as un-American, they can be added to a list and their movements will be regulated and controlled. The country is moving to the right and the next two election cycles will establish the direction the country will take.

The NDAA is a bill that totals over 500 pages, and contains provisions for continued funding for the war in Afghanistan. Many of the political experts who do not support this bill are branding it as, “Act 2 or Phase 2 of the Patriot Act.” Everyone from the ACLU, worldwide human rights organization Amnesty International, to the FBI has expressed concerns about the bill.

All around the world, the Obama administration has been a major proponent of human rights and freedom for the residents, who are controlled by despotic leaders. Signing into law, a bill that is ambiguous, and curtails First Amendment rights has the potential to abuse human rights. Not only terrorist can be detained, but also affiliates and supporters can be detained.

It is imperative and necessary that this bill is challenged by human rights organizations, the ACLU, religious organizations, and American citizens. The constitutionality of the NDAA must also be challenged by a coalition of organizations, because our country must move forward, and reach its highest human principles and ideals.

Advertisements

When legislators in Congress are appointed to a “presidential blue-ribbon committee,” their importance raises in their party. Instantly, their influence is more significant, and the media begins to seek them out for interviews. The six Democrats, three from the Senate and three from the House, and the six Republicans three from the Senate, and three from the House comprise “Obama’s Super Committee.”

The “Super Committee” is a twelve bipartisan Congressional group who will work on a debt-reduction strategy to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion by Thanksgiving of this year. The twelve member panel has a historic opportunity to overhaul the Tax Code and entitlements. If the committee fails to produce a debt reduction plan of $1.2 trillion, across-the-board cuts would kick in evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending to make up $1.2 trillion in cuts.

The committee’s co-chairs are Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). The rest of the members are as follows; Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Senator John Kerry(D-MA), Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Representative Dave Camp (R-MI), Representative James Clyburn (D-SC), and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI).

There is a good cross-section of experience and knowledge on the panel, but I wonder if anyone has the courage to significantly cut the military’s budget and funding. In the last ten years, the military base budget has increased by 80% from $302 billion in 2000 to $545 billion in 2011, says the National Priorities Project. The total cost of the Iraq war since 2001 is $869 billion, and the cost of the Afghanistan war $487 billion.

Most people ignore the nation’s security budget, but that became a new line item in 2001 with homeland security. This is a hard line item to arrive at because it flows through dozens of federal agencies. It started as a request for 16 billion, but in the last ten years the government has spent $636 billion.

When the figure for military spending for the last ten years is added up, the number is around $8 trillion. This is the number that the National Priorities Project has used, but a recent study published by the Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University took a broader approach. By including funding for such things as veterans benefits, future cost for treating the war-wounded, and interest payments on war related borrowing, they came up with an additional $3.2 trillion.

These additional expenses increase the number for military spending in ten years to be around $11 or $12 trillion. With all the serious discussion on reducing the debt, it would seem logical to take a hard look at military funding and spending. There are some on the Super Committee who are against cutting military spending and believe that funding should be increased.

Nevertheless, the question must be raised, is our country safer with all the money being spent, and is the money being wasted? For the last ten years, the government has tries to do an audit with the military, and they haven’t had any success. There are so many secret funds, because of national security, an audit is vertically impossible.

Everyone knows that there is fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in the military’s budget. It would appear that in the military’s budget, the legislators could find $600 to $700 billion to cut over the next 5 to 10 years. Cutting another $500 billion is going to be tough and the Super Committee has its work cut out for them.

The president is finally getting the parties to sit down and arrive at a compromise. All eyes and the media will be focused on the Super Committee for the next four months.

There are defining moments in each president’s term of office. The death of

President Obama

Osama bin Laden may become the most important incident that President Obama has done as the leader of America. This successful mission has given Americans the opportunity to be patriotic and believe in the president.

There will always be a debate on what happened to the body and why was it buried at sea? There will always be the non-believers who don’t believe that Osama bin Laden was a real person, and news of his death was a fabrication of facts and information.

Mitt Romney

But for the millions of Americans who feel they have been vindicated by Bin Laden’s death are able to celebrate with other citizens. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney called it “a great victory for lovers of freedom and justice everywhere, and praised our intelligence community, and military, and the president.”

President Obama’s poll numbers have increased by 10%, and he is being congratulated by many of his enemies. This is a great time for his presidency and he has changed the national narrative into a positive discourse about our strengths as a nation. The president is now thought of as a powerful commander-in-chief, who is under control and can fulfill his promises.

In 2008 during the presidential campaign, Obama promised to bring the troops home from Iraq, and

Al Queda

pledged to pursue Bin Laden until he was caught. “We will kill Bin Laden. We will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority,” said Obama in an October 2008 debate during the campaign.

The president’s track record has been based on transparency, integrity, and credibility, and with the killing of Bin Laden, it is hard not to trust the president. Even Al Qaeda has publicly issued a statement that Bin Laden is dead. They have confirmed the information from President Obama that he is dead.

President Obama could not have better timing with his announcement on last Sunday. The president will benefit from a new wave of patriotic sentiment, as he begins to campaign for his re-election for 2012. President Obama was able to accomplish the mission of the death of Bin Laden in 2 ½ years, when President Bush had tried to complete it, in 8 years, but was unsuccessful.

Rush Limbaugh

Even Rush Limbaugh said, “Thank God for President Obama,” and he was always condemning everything the president proposed. Many in the opposition party, who are diehard Republicans are acknowledging a job well done. They are being forced to concede that the president is not weak, and he has the ability to protect American citizens.

As the entire country celebrates the death of Bin Laden, it is necessary for our leaders to re-evaluate our foreign policy. For the past 10 years, our country spent $400 billion dollars to track down and kill someone, who at one time was a friend and ally. There is some thing fundamentally wrong with our foreign policy when our enemy is living in a country that claims to be our friend.

The killing of Bin Laden closes a chapter on the war of terror, but it does not end the insanity of global killing and war. Our president was able to get the job done with 2 helicopters, 40 navy seals, and great intelligence. But our president is spending trillions of dollars around the world, and we are not sure who we are fighting.

Life at this moment is good in the White House, and many citizens are proud to be Americans. But America needs a foreign policy, where there is less violence and less of an over-use of military power.

On Monday, March 28, 2011, President Obama held a nationallytelevised speech where he

President Obama

attempted to give his plan, strategy, and reason for bombing and intervention into Libya. Based on his explanation, the bombing of Libya was necessary to save lives and promote freedom. It is a limited invasion in terms of time and scope and the international coalition has prevented massacre.

Without America leading this global coalition, Gadhafi would have showed no mercy on his people, and he had already compared the rebels and demonstrators to “rats.” In certain parts of the country, Gadhafi had turned tanks, bombs, and soldiers on innocent citizens, and the people need food and medical supplies.

As a result of the conditions, the United Nations initiated a “No-Fly” zone, an arms embargo, and put a global freeze on Libya’s billions of assets. There are certain Arab countries that are also supporting the “No-Fly” zone, but there are others that do not support the bombing of a sovereign country.

Libya has Africa’s largest oil reserves, and certain countries believe that the “vital interest” in Libya. There are other countries in that region in the world where citizens are being murdered and not allowed to demonstrate and protest, but the existing government is still supported by the United States.

Last week there was a London Conference where 36 countries and the UN Secretary General Bar Ki-moon, which was hosted by Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron.

British Prime Minister David Cameron

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

This conference tried to work out a plan to get rid of Gadhafi. The media gave the impression that all the major countries are supporting this NATO coalition, but only two African countries: Tunisia and Morocco, attended the conference. The entire African Union refused to attend the London Conference, along with China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

As the Libyan conflict continues to intensify, it is obvious that the strategy and plan must be continually made “up on the fly”. During President Obama’s speech on the Libyan conflict, he was adamant that there will be no ground troops, and the leadership of the military operation is no longer under the control of the United States.

But many American citizens do not believe President Obama when he says that his administration will not attempt to overthrow Gadhafi by force. “To be blunt,” said Obama, “we went down that road in Iraq.” Nevertheless, it appears that President Obama is following in President Bush’s footsteps and the Libyan strategy is starting to get messy.

Dr. Boyce Watkins from Syracuse University has surveyed over 650 African Americans and 27% are against President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya. There were 24% who supported the action, and 49% who were undecided. As this conflict drags on, it is a recipe for confusion and spending money that we don’t have.

Many African Americans are starting to not trust President Obama, and skeptical of our military and government. Many believe that we should stop trying to police the world and concentrate on the problems at home.

Minister Farrakhan and many African American leaders are criticizing the United States government for launching military action against Libya without justification. They have accused America of just wanting Gadhafi out of the picture to secure oil interest and set up a puppet government. They are asking for a ceasefire on all sides in Libya, and let the people vote on whether Gadhafi should remain in power.

This is a good idea, but in Libya there will be no peaceful transfer of power. Gadhafi has demonstrated that he will murder to stay in power, and President Obama has stated that he desires a regime change.

In the final analysis, whether we agree or disagree with President Obama, history is not on the side with Gadhafi. He will probably leave and live in a friendly country with his billions, or he will die in his country trying to stop the movement of freedom.

Gaddafi speaking

 

Muammar Gaddafi has been the president and leader of the African nation of Libya for 41 years. His country is the third largest oil producer in Africa, and he is the African Union President and a member of the Group of Eight, (G8). Strategically, his country is a very powerful force in global politics, and his oil is very important to countries all around the world.

A defiant Muammar Gaddafi said, “I am not going to leave this land. I will die here as a martyr. All of you who love Muammar Gaddafi go out on the streets, secure the streets, and don’t be afraid of the rebels. Chase them, arrest them, and hand them over.”

Gaddafi is determined to win this political upheaval from anti-government protesters

Libya protesters in the streets

and armed rebels, who he calls “rats and mercenaries” who he says “deserves to die”. Gaddafi’s power is entrenched in every element of the society and he is not going down without a fight. In order to remain the leader of the country for 41 years, he has survived through opposition and bloodshed.

The majority of the Arab and African countries are ruled by dictators, kings and royal families. These royal families and dictators control every element of its residents’ lives and they are extremely rich and wealthy. They believe that they have a divine right to rule with an iron fist.

The price of gas in the United States continues to increase with the instability of this region in the world, and Muammar Gaddafi has ordered his security forces to sabotage the country’s oil facilities.  The sabotage is meant to serve as a message to Libya’s rebellious tribes: “It’s either me or chaos.”

With the third largest oil producer in Africa unable to produce oil, the price of oil will continue to increase, and many of the worlds most powerful countries have started to impose sanctions on Libya. The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 to freeze the foreign assets of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and four aides, and banned them from traveling. The goal of the sanctions is to isolate Gaddafi and force him to step down.

It has been suggested that Libya has $130 billion in reserves in the treasury in the country. It also has $70 billion in foreign assets around the world and $32 billion just in England. There are $500 million in many different banks in the United States.  

President Obama

President Obama has condemned the “outrageous” crackdown by the Libyan security forces on protesters. “The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and unacceptable. So are the threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters,” said Obama. There have been pictures by the media where Libyan warplanes and helicopters have dropped bombs and fired on protestors and civilians.

The United States has closed its embassy in Libya, and supports unilateral sanctions against the country, freezing billions in government assets. President Obama and his administration have taken a harder position on Libya, once it was able to evacuate its citizens and diplomats from the country.

There are other military options being discussed behind closed doors, but at this time they are not being released to the media. Since 2008, the United States has worked to develop a friendlier relationship with Libya. There has been limited military cooperation; therefore the United States is not in a hurry to develop a confrontational strategy with Libya.

Gaddafi’s son says that ¾ of the country is under control and only certain parts of the country are controlled by armed rebels. As the Libyan protest continues and evolves, it will be interesting to see what happens.

President Obama wants the violence to end and can suggest to Gaddafi to step down. With hundreds of billions at stake, there is no way that Gaddafi will go away. For generations he has been considered a rebel leader and the entire world is waiting to see if he will win again.

At the present time, the 2011 budget has not been signed by the president, because both Houses cannot agree on spending cuts and what to fund. As a result, our government is operating on a continuing resolution that comes to an end on March 4, 2011.

Speaking at an event

Dick Morris, political author and commentator

Many conservatives in the country believe that in order to get President Obama’s attention that the Republicans should force a shutdown over health care funding. The ultra-conservative Republicans want the size of government reduced and they are wiling to try different tactics to make this a reality. “There’s going to be a government shutdown, just like in 1995 and 1996, but we’re going to win it this time,” said Dick Morris at the American for Prosperity Foundation Conference.

Conservatives have taken the position that the deficits and recession are a result of Democratic policies and they are holding the Obama administration as the culprits. The conservative Republicans believe that they have a mandate from the American people to stop spending money and slash government spending by tens of billions of dollars.

Recently, the Republicans in the House voted to cut $61 billion in federal spending this year from the budget. This is setting up for a budget confrontation, between the Democrat-controlled Senate over the 2011 budget. Senate Democrats have made it clear that they are not willing to accept the $61 billion cuts that the Republican House has proposed.

“Read my lips: We’re going to cut spending,” House Speaker John Boehner, told reporters

Speaker of the House

 last week when announcing he won’t accept a short-term extension without some spending reductions. It appears that the House Republicans are drawing a line in the sand and they are refusing to budge.

As the Congress gets closer to the March 4, 2011 deadline, the two sides will have to make concessions if they plan to keep the government running. If the government was to shutdown, it would halt military pay, veterans’ benefits, Social Security checks, and government functions such as food-safety inspections. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has introduced a temporary spending measure to keep government agencies running through March 31, and buy time for talks.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi

Many political experts and pundits expected in the 112th Congress that there would be gridlock with the new conservative Republicans elected in the mid-term elections. These Republicans want to eliminate 100 social programs and cut funding for 100 more. The cuts would impact programs in education, environment, health care, energy, science, the Peace Corps, and the Social Security Administration.

The Obama administration has not responded or established their position on the cuts. It is very early in the debate over the cuts, but leaks from the White House are the cuts could hurt the recovering economy. Many also believe that the cuts are too much too soon and they could cause a lost of jobs.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is urging Republicans to negotiate a compromise. “Now that House Republicans have gotten this vote out of their system, I hope they will drop the threats of shutting down the government and work with the Senate on responsible cuts that allow our nation’s economic recovery to continue,” said Reid.

Harry Reid, Senate majority leader

This issue is not going away, because everyone is passionate about their philosophy and mindset. There is validity in both side’s positions, and everyone is pointing a finger at each other. Collaboration and compromise is the way to come to an agreement, but very few are willing to give in.

The government shutdown is possible if both sides refuse to budge. Nobody wins and millions will be hurt in the process if the government shuts down.

Uproar in Egypt

As the drama unfolds in Egypt, it becomes increasingly clear that the United States government will have to make a decision on what side they support. The script is very similar around the world, where certain regimes have been in power for thirty years. There is an unfolding of a grassroots uprising, and democracy and human rights is at the core of the fundamental problem.

In Egypt, there is a call for a Democratic movement and President Obama finds himself in the middle of the conflict. In one breath, the United States is saying we want an immediate change in Egypt with free and fair elections. “Now means now,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said of Egypt’s transition, repeating

 that continued aid to Egypt would be influenced by the government’s responses to the crisis.

On the other hand, Egypt has been an ally to the United States and a close friend to Israel. President Mubarak’s regime has been good for Israel, because it preserved peace on the southern border. Since it was an autocratic regime, it did not have to be responsive to public opinion, and it could take a soft line on Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

As long as Egypt took a soft line on what happened to the Palestinians, the Israeli

President-Barack-Obama with Muburak

 government can maintain its current policies. But if the Egypt government became a responsive democracy, it would have to address public opinion and human rights.

President Obama has denounced the Egyptian government’s acts of “suppression and violence” during the protest, and called for “an orderly transition process right now.” Our president has stopped short of demanding that President Mubarak leave office immediately.

At this point, President Obama is doing a juggling act, because there are concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood is highly organized and they will play a role in the new democratic government. This group is a threat to the stability of Israel and rejects much of the United States’ agenda in the region.

President Mubarak has agreed not to run for office in September, but the hundreds of thousands protestors have indicated that’s not good enough. There have been clashes between the pro-Mubarak supporters and the protesters, and it appears that violence will accelerate. Some experts believe that the pro-Mubarak supporters are gangs that are being paid to create more violence and bloodshed.

Nevertheless, their army will be forced to bring order back to the country eventually, and the Egyptian army will be given a wide scope to detain people. The United States finds itself in a precarious situation, because the world is watching and waiting.

The United States has always been a leader for legitimate democracies around the world. Even though these are the values we project, for thirty years Egypt was not a genuine democratic country. President Obama knows that the decisions that our country makes in Egypt will determine what happens to our country in the rest of the region.

As the drama plays out, eventually there will be fair and impartial elections. The Muslim Brotherhood will play a vital role in the transition of power. Political Islam is a reality of doing business and politics in this region of the world and America can not discriminate against the Muslim Brotherhood.

If President Obama and the United States believe in transparency and inclusion in Egypt, the will and human rights of the people must be protected. With hundreds of thousands protesters demonstrating against the government, there is something fundamentally wrong with the present administration.

The United States is in a difficult position, but it should side with the will of the people. The values of democracy, freedom, and transparency are what we hold dear as the cornerstone of country. If we believe in these values, we should want the same in Egypt.

During the Thanksgiving holiday, President Obama was playing basketball and received a swollen lip which required 12 stitches. The media is digging and trying to find out who gave the president a swollen lip and on the other side of the world, South Korea and the United States are implementing military exercises with the 70,000 ton aircraft carrier, USS George Washington accompanied by 10 other smaller warships.

This operation is a direct response of North Korea shelling the small island of Yeonpyeong, on Tuesday, November 23, 2010, which killed four people and destroyed dozens of houses. The North said it was responding to live fire from the South into its waters.

“The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war due to the reckless plan of those trigger-happy elements to stage again war exercises targeted against the North,” said North Korea’s news agency. “The army and people of North Korea are greatly enraged at the provocation of the puppet group of South Korea, if they dare encroach again upon North Korea’s dignity and sovereignty even in the least.”

President Obama and the United Stated have aligned itself with South Korea, and China has aligned itself with North Korea. There are 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, and the Pentagon is quick to point out the naval exercises are “defensive in nature.” The Pentagon also acknowledged that this joint exercise is a reminder of U.S. military strength and American’s allegiance with South Korea.

The Korean peninsula is a very complicated region, and the Yellow Sea impacts the borders of the country of China. China has been low-key with its response to North Korea’s shelling of the island, and there has been a flurry of diplomatic activity with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and Chinese diplomats.

President Obama and China’s President Hu Jintao have a scheduled meeting in January 2011 in Washington DC, and a war between North Korea and South Korea would make the meeting extremely awkward. As a result, both countries are asking for restraint, and the world and the citizens of the United States are waiting for an official statement from President Obama.

China is protesting the United States and South Korea’s joint exercises following North Korea’s artillery attacks on Tuesday. China opposes any military operations near its territorial waters. “The Korean peninsula situation is highly complicated and sensitive, and all parties concerned should stay calm and exercise restraint,” said China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei in a statement.

As this tense situation continues, President Obama must walk on a tight rope, because China and the United States have common interest with the economic factor being the most important. The United States has a trade deficit with China of $226 billion and Chinese businesses are heavily invested in American markets. China needs American businesses and American businesses need the Chinese population to grow their business markets. The difference in ideological and government systems explains why the two countries do not trust each other and are neither friends nor partners.

The war exercises in the Yellow Sea started on November 28, 2010, and will last for four days. There are six South Korean War Ships and four other U.S. vessels: the USS Cowpens, USS Lassen, USS Stethen, and USS Fitzgerald. The participating forces will carry out firing and bombing drills, and these exercises will involve thousands of service personnel in the four-day drill.

No one can predict the outcome of this drill; however it is not helping to resolve the crisis and problems between South Korea and North Korea. Playing war games during a tense explosive situation can turn into an all out war where no one wins and everyone loses.

Check out Roger’s other columns at presidentobamawatch.blogspot.com

In Lisbon, Portugal during the third week of November 2010, there was a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). At this summit, the leaders of 48 countries decided that there would be no pullout in Afghanistan in July 2011. There are 150,000 troops deployed in this U.S.-led war, and the United States has 115,000 to 120,000 troops in the country.

At this NATO summit, it was decided that the target date for the end of this war would be at the end of 2014. In 2011, it would be the beginning of a transitional period where the Afghan troops would begin to take a more active role in the security of their country.

Presently President Obama, U.S. officials, and NATO leadership has decided to remain vague about their departure from Afghanistan. The U.S. has decided that NATO will play a larger role in the conflict, but the bigger question becomes, “Who are the U.S. and NATO really fighting?”

The U.S. has decided to partner with the Afghan forces; the majority of the Afghan soldiers are either new or they are paid Taliban soldiers who have decided to join forces with Americans, where they know they will be getting paid. Many experts believe in the entire country, there are only 200 to 250 Taliban soldiers fighting in the country.

Since 2001, there have been 1.6 million U.S. military personnel that have been deployed in the Afghan War, with the cost in the trillions of dollars. Some American soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan three or four times; after nine years, it is not stopping.

Many thought that the purpose of NATO Summit was to decrease the size of the troops, but instead they have decided to become more entrenched. President Hamid Karzai who is increasingly upset by the Western Troops presence will continue to get rich along with his family by remaining in power.

There has always been an allegation that the Karzai family is involved in selling drugs, but it has never been substantiated. Nevertheless, with other illegal charges surrounding the president, the U.S. remains one of the president’s prime supporters.

The Afghan country has no air force and navy, but the U.S. and the NATO forces have decided to remain in Afghanistan and train the police and troops, even though there is a trust factor. These Afghan troops and police can decide at any time they are going to quit and walk off their post. They can slip back in to their village and never be heard of again.

The U.S. and NATO can call this a war, but when there is no definitive enemy, it is hard to define if your strategy is winning or losing. For President Obama to tell the country that he is keeping our country safe by fighting the Afghanistan war is fraudulent and ridiculous.

The real reason for the NATO summit is for the countries to get on the same page and develop a strategic partnership. The world is changing and it is important that the alliance is internally cohesive, and strengthen the security and prosperity for all the member countries. By enhancing the cooperation of Europe and other Western countries, the United States does not have to stand alone, and can extend the Afghan War into 2014.

At the summit meeting in Lisbon, NATO leaders adopted a new “Strategic Concept” that will serve as a roadmap for the next ten years. The new “Strategic Concept” offers partner countries around the globe more opportunities for dialogue, and commit NATO to reinforce cooperation with Russia.

We all thought the Afghan War would end in July 2011. Maybe you can figure out why our president needs three more years to end the Afghan War, because I sure can’t.

Check out more PRESIDENT OBAMA WATCH articles at blogspot.com