What kind of a deal would Obama make with bin-Laden?

Why do I ask? Perhaps because the Obama Regime is considering making a deal with the most-wanted Taliban terrorist leader, Mullah Omar.

Joint Chiefs Chairman, Adm. Michael Mullen, top U.S. military official said last night that Taliban leader Mullah Omar could conceivably be part of a political settlement in Afghanistan, which he called the only way to bring peace to the tortured central Asian nation, battered by three decades of war.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen was asked about reports that Afghan and Pakistani officials were exploring peace talks with Mullah Omar’s Taliban group — known as the Quetta Shura — and the leadership of the Haqqani network, one of the most virulently anti-American groups in the Afghan insurgency.

“A political solution … is the only solution” in Afghanistan, Adm. Mullen said, addressing the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colo. “It’s hard to say … who would be a part of that, and I wouldn’t do that.” But he added, “It’s hard to rule out that political entities who are now the enemy might be a part of that.”

He went on to say that he had been struck by how unpopular the Taliban were in Afghanistan, where there was “no desire to return to any form of Taliban rule.” (Yet Obama is willing to hand the Afghan people back to the most brutal barbarians on earth)

At the weekend, CIA Director Leon Panetta was also asked about recent reports that several Taliban groups, including the Haqqani network and the Quetta Shura, were taking part in exploratory talks with Afghan officials — brokered by the Pakistani military — about a deal under which they would give up their arms, accept the authority of the Kabul government and, crucially, cut off relations with al Qaeda. (Yep, that’ll work, until the Americans leave)

“We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation,” said Mr. Panetta of the insurgent leaders, adding that serious peace talks were only likely to happen once the Taliban believed that they were going to be defeated. (Oh, really? Is that why the Taliban turned down control over 6 provinces in return for peace as offered by the Obama Regime?)

Adm. Mullen said that the crucial Kandahar offensive — against the Taliban’s stronghold and spiritual birthplace — had been delayed (indefinitely) because there were insufficient U.S. forces currently in Afghanistan (Thanks to Obama for giving only half the troop numbers Gen. McCrystal requested).

One third of the extra troops allocated by President Obama following his review of Afghan strategy last year still had not arrived, the admiral said, and he supported the decision not to act until they were in place. Washington Times

(I wonder if Omar will be eligible to get the $10 million reward on his head for coming to the negotiating table?)

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! Taliban are growing bolder!

MESSAGE TO GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: “No matter who is in charge, we will defeat you.” The Taliban in Afghanistan seem to be growing bolder, despite an increase in foreign troops. On Wednesday they attempted to storm a US military base at Jalalabad airfield, just east of the capital, Kabul. A suicide bomber detonated his car at the entrance as fighters clashed with international troops and Afghan security forces.

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

as-taliban-terrorists-are-emboldened-appeaser-in-chief-continues-ill-conceived-pointless-outreach-to-them

appeaser-in-chief-offers-taliban-a-deal-taliban-tells-obama-where-he-can-shove-it

sneaky-sneaky-obama-administration-tried-to-have-covert-talks-with-moderate-taliban

behind-the-scenes-obama-operatives-are-still-trying-to-negotiate-a-deal-with-the-taliban

hey-obama-there-are-no-moderate-taliban-in-afghanistan

while-our-appeaser-in-chief-keeps-trying-to-buy-off-what-he-calls-the-moderate-taliban

show-me-the-money-western-appeasers-propose-500-million-bribe-for-afghan-taliban

dhimmi-western-leaders-offer-taliban-a-sweetheart-deal

while-the-west-capitulates-the-taliban-stand-firm-on-preconditions-for-discussing-peace

as-obama-clamps-the-handcuffs-on-american-troops-the-taliban-grow-increasingly-brazen

obamas-rules-of-engagement-have-the-troops-dangerously-preoccupied-with-worrying-about-captured-enemy-fighters-rights

afghanistan-troops-wonder-which-is-the-bigger-enemy-the-taliban-or-obamas-rules-of-engagement

how-barack-hussein-obama-lost-the-war-in-afghanistan

virtually-hours-after-american-troops-withdraw-afghan-taliban-swarm-u-s-military-base

OBAMA REGIME is gutting the U.S. Navy

Obama needs money to pay for amnesty for 20 million illegals and healthcare for all. Why not cut it from the budget of the people Obama hates most? The Military.

American naval supremacy has ensured our nation’s strength both militarily and economically for the past century, but a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Obama administration’s budget proposal suggests that could be coming to an end.

Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the Navy would need to find cheaper alternatives to its planned “expensive weapons systems” and emphasis on a “blue-water Navy.”

And a report released by the American Enterprise Institute says although the Navy’s ships are more capable than those launched 15 years ago declining numbers of the right kinds of ships could translate into a reduced ability to react to crises around the globe.

This marks a retreat from over 100 years of American naval doctrine that has stressed the importance of sea power to maintaining the nation’s economic and military power. The administration’s policy change ignores the lessons of history and the looming threats of the 21^st century.

Uniform budget cuts

Alfred Thayer Mahan, the 19th century father of the modern U.S. Navy, first noted strong foreign policy and economics derives from the ability to project naval power. Adherence to his theories helped transform the United States from a third-rate power to superpower in the 20^th century.

Spain, The Netherlands and Great Britain each built maintained strong trading empires in the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th – 20^th centuries respectively do to the strength of their navies. But each saw its global power decline in proportion to it inability support the cost of its navy. British naval power collapsed following World War II amid economic pressures at home, which also contributed to the loss of its empire and its superpower status. And the U.S. Navy filled the vacuum it left behind.

The recent economic crisis and bailouts have left the American people shaken, and the administration’s plan to sap the Navy’s strength could further undermine American military and economic might.

The recent CBO report found U.S. Navy plans to buy 198 warships between now and 2040 falls considerably short of its needs in the same period, as existing ships are taken out of service. Many of the U.S. Navy’s key warships are between 20-30 years old and are nearing the end of their lives without viable replacements.

It also suggests the Navy’s plans call for an increased emphasis on support ships, such as supply ships rather than the more expensive warships that had been intended to replace existing vessels.

The navy has decided to cancel a class of new advanced cruisers, known as the CG(X) program, intended to replace the aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which the Navy plans to retire in the next 15 years. Former vice admiral, Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, finds the cancellation of the CG(X) program particularly troubling because of its ability to simultaneously target multiple ballistic missiles that might threaten Israel or other allies. Sestak isn’t convinced yet the navy’s alternative of building an upgraded versions of its Arleigh Burke-class destroyer design will fill in the gap created by its cancellation.

“They really are cutting back on the power-projection capabilities of the United States,” said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. “The inventory of ships, both surface and subsurface, is really worrying.”

Gaffney finds the emphasis on building littoral combat ships, designed to fight in shallow water near the shoreline, particularly disturbing because they are not designed for fighting in the open ocean.

“I think what we are going to find is the hollowing out of the Navy, and a sort of deficit … in the ability of this country to fight the nation’s wars if they have to be fought someplace else, particularly projecting power from the sea, “ he said. “These are the sorts of things that are going to be the legacy of the Obama administration.

“It strikes me that there is going to be a far less capable navy than we had in the past and that we certainly need today.”If the U.S. Navy retreats from its role as the guarantor of peace and commerce on the high seas, who will replace it ̶ China?

The Chinese have embarked on a major shipbuilding campaign of their own, and reports they plan on building two aircraft carriers by 2015. Others are expected to follow and would give them a growing ability to globally project their military power. And the interests of China are not necessarily the same as the United States.

Weakened American naval power would only embolden China and minor naval powers such as Iran at the expense of our nation’s economy and military power. “It’s kind of a binary thing, you either have ships around the world to represent your interests to protect your interests or you don’t,” Gaffney said.

As Mahan once said: “Force is never more operative than when it is known to exist but is not brandished.” Force structure is key in the nation’s ability to maintain its global naval reach and says the navy should consider basing aircraft carriers and other assets in striking distance of key trouble spots because they are cheaper and more effective, Sestak says.

Consequently, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the capabilities of the ships the U.S. Navy buys and its strategy in order to preserve America’s naval strength and help ensure prosperity. But the administration’s plans would not achieve these goals.

To continue the Obama administration’s intended path would be foolish because the cuts would be permanent and likely irreversible.

If the administration lets the Navy decline, it will inevitably be followed by a further decline in American military and economic power on the world stage. As a result, American power would go the way of the British Empire. Daily Caller

RELATED STORIES:

as-iran-gears-up-to-drive-us-naval-forces-from-the-persian-gulf-obama-is-cutting-the-navys-budget

obamas-national-security-plan-will-destroy-the-us-while-emboldening-our-enemies