Blog Stage 5: The trouble with Pakistan

In Southern Waziristan a fight is being conducted by Pakistan to halt the influence of the Taliban. Some critics say that Pakistan has begun the fight half heartily by arming themselves with only 28,000 soldiers, half of them being infantrymen. With an armed Taliban resistance of 10,000 plus militants is Pakistan doing enough? This was the critique Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made yesterday in Lahore, Pakistan.

The Taliban found refuge in the NW Pakistan region after the attacks made on New York city in 2001. This region is notably "the most dangerous place on earth", says the CIA. Historically old tribal wars have divided Waziristan into Northern and Southern territories the Taliban has gained strong holds in South Waziristan. The Taliban has been practicing sharia law in Waziristan and has successfully murdered 200 of the opposing Maliks or tribal elders in the past 8 years.

The United States has pledged an aid package to Pakistan in the amount of $7.5 billion dollars over the next 5 years. Some say this measure will encourage support for America. It appears from Secretary Clinton's candid remarks that the United States is expecting to see some results from our efforts there. Pakistan has been conducting an assault on the Taliban since their arrival and has been unsuccessful in disarming the militants or in slowing their growth. Recent opposition has been growing in Pakistan towards the United States for it's unmanned predator drone attacks. These attacks have had success in Waziristan but committing them within Quetta is drawing intense criticism. Pakistan feels that attacking Quetta diminishes Pakistani sovereignty and could possibly add fuel to anti-American sentiment. Intelligence sources for the US advise swift action before senior leaders of the Taliban move to secure locations.

Acting on our intelligence might make the battle to stop the Taliban even harder. It seems as if the only way to win this war on terrorism is to collectively have the world's support, but should we have to pay them for their support?

Blog Stage 4: Ariannas' shocking headline draws the masses

The Huffington Post co-created by independent-progressive, Arianna Huffington takes a liberal approach in its reporting. Ms. Huffington was recently recognized by Forbes as one of the 12 most influential women in media. Since it's inception in 2005, the Huffington Post has maintained a vast audience as well as a diverse reporting network. I was surprised after reading her recent post regarding Vice President Joe Biden. In her post, Ms. Huffington asks for VP Biden to resign, she sights his recent cover story in Newsweek as problematic to President Obama's war strategy in Afghanistan. The blow back of her editorial drew instant acclaim on the internet and news networks. That same day she was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer asserting that if VP Biden was to resign now he would be putting "principle above power". In VP Biden's interview he dissents from General Mcchrystal's idea of sending in more troops to Afghanistan when Al Qaida has rooted themselves in Pakistan. While agreeing with VP Biden's views Ms. Huffigton goes on to voice her seething disgust for the politician who confesses an opposing view in a personal memoir after the fact when it's to late to matter. She feels that when a political decision concerns war and peace an opposing view should be acted upon and that the VP's loyalty should reside with the American public not only with the President and staff. I find this post to be troubling in that it speaks volumes of her character as a quitter. President Obama chose VP Biden because of his foreign policy expertise and asking him to step aside would be asking for a key player to sit out when the game got tough. I want VP Biden speaking in our President's ear and I want him to bravely contribute his concerns regarding the war. His opinions are helping to craft policies that will hopefully be smarter and more successful for all involved countries. Her short sided off hand comment seems to me to be a ploy at gaining coveted media attention.

Blog Stage 3: Karl Rove's opinion on the war in Afghanistan

Karl Rove, former senior adviser to President George W. Bush, contributes a regular opinion column to the Wall Street Journal. The paper has a conservative ideological philosophy so it's intended audience would be for republicans or moderate conservatives. In this article, Mr. Rove claims that President Obama is neglecting the war in Afghanistan by not speaking to our top commanders on the frontline. He makes the claim that former President Bush spoke to commanders "every week or two" and that active communication assisted in forming a working strategy to fight insurgency on the ground. He views President Obama's actions to be "hands off" and foresees failure in this war. He asserts that up to this point President Obama has "treated the conflict as a distraction" from nationalizing the US health care system. Mr. Rove goes on in the article to criticize President Obama's current strategy of using surgical attacks or drone planes to fight insurgency. Citing the loss of foot soldiers and "actionable intelligence" as the determent to democratic efforts in Afghanistan. Mr. Rove places further criticism upon the shoulders of Vice President Joe Biden's war voting record, noting that he has consistently voted passively on war related legislation since the 1970's. Mr. Rove fears that Vice President Biden's presence weakens our military and country.

Karl Rove supports having the military act as strategists in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of the President. This method proved fatal in the past, so I'm glad that President Obama is trying to rally support in Congress for new ideas. President Obama recognizes the delicate balance between the tribal people of Afghanistan and the Taliban/aL Qaeda, he understands that you need to have the natives support to save Afghanistan from a future of oppression. And I'm glad that he's calling on the UN to assist in these efforts. However, I do agree with Mr. Rove in that active lines of communication whether it be with General Petraeus or Commander McChristal need to be visited often to understand our military's efforts on the ground.