Category Archives: The World

Tom’s trip to China

Leave a reply

Remember this post? Remember that part of Tom Davis’ explanation for mistakenly not mentioning government restructuring in the fund-raising letter for ReformSC was that he was busy getting ready to go to China?

Well, I was going to link from that statement to some info about the China trip — but I couldn’t find any. Thinking that was pretty weird, I wrote to Tom,

Tom, this is
going to seem like a real whiplash-producing digression, but I cannot find a
word having been written anywhere about your trip to China. Was that a big
missed story? Was it intentionally kept quiet?
Maybe it
would be a good topic for an op-ed or something, if you were so inclined. How
did it go?

Here’s what he sent me about it, with the press release that I couldn’t find earlier appended:

Brad,
The meeting was great and would love to meet sometime to
tell you about it.  The main object was
to have

China


increase capital investment and trade in S.C. Currently, direct investment by

China

in our
state is $230 Million (with 1,600 jobs).

 

China


is a growing target of

South
Carolina

and other states.

China

realizes
they must follow the pattern the Japanese did in the 1970’s by increasing
imports from the

United
States

and locating manufacturing plants here.

 

While we hear about the imports into the

U.S.

from

China

regularly
in the media, we rarely hear about the export opportunities.

South Carolina

companies are
taking advantage of this growing market and our role is to help smaller and
medium-sized companies make export sales there. In only five years time,

China

as an S.C.
export market moved from number eleven in rank, to number 4 in 2006. In 2006,
exports from S.C. to

China

rose 12.5%
to more than $869 million dollars.

 

Another goal of the recent trip was to promote a China
Trade and

Investment


Park

being located in S.C.  The Chinese central government, through its
Ministry of Commerce, is considering setting up several Chinese
government-approved/designated Chinese Industrial Parks in several overseas
countries.  Letters and proposals
supporting this were sent by Commerce officials and the governor strongly
followed up on this with personal meetings with Chinese officials. 

 

We also wanted to promote Chinese Research Facilities
& Research Collaboration with SC Universities, particularly in the
manufacturing and medical areas.  In
manufacturing, one of the most likely collaborations is in relation to Haier’s
planned R&D facility in

South
Carolina

. Collaboration is also sought between

China

and

South Carolina

’s three leading
research institutions primarily in the areas of cancer research and gene
therapy. The Medical University of South Carolina is a rapidly growing research
environment. Extramural research support has consistently increased over the
past 10 years, topping $170 million last fiscal year.

 

Additionally, The South Carolina Biotechnology
Incubation Program is part of the State’s efforts to build the infrastructure
necessary to increase

South
Carolina

‘s knowledge economy and to participate in
growth of the nation’s life science industry. The J.C. Self Research Institute
of Human Genetics, a division of the

Greenwood


Genetic


Center

, serves as the academic anchor
for the Incubation Program with the collaboration of the State’s three research
universities:

Clemson


University

, the Medical University of
South Carolina, and the

University

of

South
Carolina

.

 

Finally, both

China

and

South Carolina

are challenged with
creating and retaining jobs and employment, as well as providing adequate
education and medical care in rural regions.

South
Carolina

proposes the creation of a formal collaboration
on strategies to enhance development on this challenging issue.

Clemson


University

is already in discussion
with

Tsinghua


University

to establish a training
program for Chinese government officials from the Chinese rural
areas.

 

As far as our office goes, no, this was not intentionally
kept quiet, but you are right in that it did not get a lot of press. The release
from our office on the trip is reprinted below. There were numerous other pitches for stories, but none caught on with
the press.

 

Tom
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Joel Sawyer

[email protected] 

 
Gov. Sanford to Lead State Delegation to World Economic Forum
 
GOVERNOR TO LEAD GROUP OF BUSINESS LEADERS,
LEGISLATORS TO WORLD FORUM IN DALIAN, CHINA
 
Columbia, S.C. – September 4, 2007 – Gov. Mark Sanford will
today lead a delegation of South Carolina business leaders and legislators to
Dalian, China for the World Economic Forum’s inaugural "New Champions" meeting.
    The Dalian conference presents a unique opportunity for the
state, given that Gov. Sanford was the only U.S. governor invited to attend. The
governor will be joined by a state delegation consisting of Marty Brown,
President of Colite International; Mike Johnson, President of Cox Industries;
Forester Adams, President of Joseph Walker & Co; Derick Close, President and
CEO of Creative Products Group for Springs Industries; Guerry Green, President
Screen Tight; and O.L. Thompson, President of O.L. Thompson Construction and
Chairman of Santee Cooper. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, Rep. Nikki Haley, and Sen. Greg
Ryberg are also part of the delegation as representatives of the S.C. General
Assembly.
     "I think attending this conference is a real compliment to
some of the people who’ve worked hard on behalf of economic development over the
years in this state," Gov. Sanford said. "In the global competition for jobs and
investment, South Carolina – like these private sector companies – has both some
real challenges and opportunities in what lies ahead in today’s world. We
believe this trip will result in some real dividends for our state down the
road, both as we learn more about how to compete in this new world and in
building relationships with global business leaders."
     The World Economic Forum is an independent international
organization, best known for its Davos meeting, which is held each March in
Davos, Switzerland. The attendees are the CEO’s of the world’s top 1200
companies. With this meeting, the WEF for the first time is engaging the next
tier of businesses – the New Champions/Global Growth Companies – that have
demonstrated a clear potential to become leaders in the global economy. There
will be 1,500 attendees from 80 countries, representing business, academia and
world leaders. The typical company represented has revenues between $100 million
and $5 billion.
    For more information about the World Economic Forum and the
Dalian Conference, log on to http://www.weforum.org.
 
                        -###-

Times: Thin Red Line extends into Iran

4 Replies

Just in case you thought that a) the Tommies were bowing out of the fight, or b) nobody in the Western alliance was doing anything but talking about Iran, Réalité EU‘s International Media Intelligence Analysis brings this report to our attention:

SAS Special Forces Ops in Iran
Britain ‘s Sunday Times reports that British SAS and American
and Australian Special Forces have been engaged in operations inside the Iranian
border to interdict weapons shipments. There have been at least half a dozen
intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and
Shi’ite militiamen. The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran
and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq .
UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up
arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra
airport. An SAS squadron is carrying out operations along the Iranian border in
Maysan and Basra provinces with other special forces, the Australian SAS and
American special-operations troops. They are patrolling the border, ambushing
arms smugglers bringing in surface-to-air missiles and components for roadside
bombs. “Last month, they were involved in six significant contacts, which killed
17 smugglers and recovered weapons, explosives and missiles,” a source said. It
was not clear if any of the dead were Iranian.

You’ll notice that our boys are involved too — but that’s on the Q.T.

I don’t deserve the credit

13 Replies

Gas1

After noting that one or two of my correspondents were — and I’m sure they were doing it for convenience’s sake — referring to the gasoline tax hike as "Brad’s taxing scheme," or using similar terms, I thought I’d better set the record straight.

I deserve neither the credit nor the blame. In fact, before I embraced the idea, I went through all the objections that y’all raise — disproportionate burden on the working class, cooling effect on the economy, etc. But I believe this is the best, clearest way to:

  • Spread the burden of fighting terror among ALL of us; it’s obscene that we’re not asked to do a thing beyond being inconvenienced at airports. (And while I worry about the poor as well, it’s interesting that David Brooks seems to think that raising the gas tax is more progressive than the SCHIP program. He must be correlating SUV ownership to wealth, or something.)
  • Cut off funding to some of the worst enemies we have in this world, who are made a little richerGas3
    every time we top off the tank.
  • Push us toward alternative fuels that are not only strategically smarter, in terms of making us less dependent, but much, much friendlier to this endangered orb. It would do this partly by making gasoline less marketable, but it would also…
  • Provide a lucrative new revenue stream to — take your pick — pay for the war, fund our neglected infrastructure, build public transportation (I’ll take light rail, please) and develop better fuels. My pick would be all of the above, if the stream were big enough.

I did not arrive there by myself. I was influenced by an array of other writers, who have hit this theme again and again over the last couple of years.

To answer the question asked by Jimmy Rabbite of prospective band members in "The Commitments," here are my influences, and links to their works:

Robert J. Samuelson
As the economist in the bunch, he presents the idea most credibly, thoroughly and convincingly. If a guy like Samuelson were against the idea, I’d be worried. His being for it gives me confidence in something that I arrive at in a more intuitive manner.

  • An Oil Habit America Cannot Break — October 18, 2006 —…Our main energy problem is our huge dependence on imported oil. For years, some remedies have been obvious: Tax oil heavily to spur Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and to drive a bit less, raise sharply the government’s fuel economy standards so those vehicles are available, and allow more oil and gas drilling. In recent years, we’ve done none of these things. It’s doubtful we will anytime soon…
  • Greenhouse Guessing — November 10, 2006 — …In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionallyGas2
    "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won’t materialize for decades, probably after they’re dead. For example, we could adopt a steep gasoline tax and much tougher fuel economy standards for vehicles. In time, that might limit emissions (personally, I favor this on national security grounds). Absent some crisis, politicians usually won’t impose — and the public won’t accept — burdens without corresponding benefits…
  • Seven Tough Choices We Will Not Make — January 17, 2007 — …Enact an energy tax equivalent to $2 a gallon on gasoline — introduced over six years, or about 33 cents annually. The purpose: to increase tax revenue and induce Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles….
  • Blindness on Biofuels — January 24, 2007 — …The great danger of the biofuels craze is that it will divert us from stronger steps to limit dependence on foreign oil: higher fuel taxes to prod Americans to buy more gasoline-efficient vehicles and tougher federal fuel economy standards to force auto companies to produce them. True, Bush supports tougher — but unspecified — fuel economy standards. But the implied increase above today’s 27.5 miles per gallon for cars is modest, because the administration expects gasoline savings from biofuels to be triple those from higher fuel economy standards….
  • A Full Tank of Hypocrisy — May 30, 2007 — …Today’s higher gasoline prices mostly reflect supply and demand. "Holiday travelers ignoring fuel costs," headlined USA Today before the Memorial Day weekend. Gasoline demand is up almost 2 percent from 2006 levels. Meanwhile, gasoline supplies have tightened. More refineries than usual shut this spring for repairs — some outages planned, some not (from accidents or dangerous conditions). In April and May, refineries normally operate well above 90 percent of capacity; in 2007, the operating rate was about 89 percent. Imports also declined for many reasons: higher demand in Europe; refinery problems in Venezuela; more gasoline demand from Nigeria. It’s true that oil companies will reap eye-popping profits from high prices. Still, the logic that steep prices, imposed by the market or by taxes, will encourage energy conservation is irrefutable. At the least, high prices would curb the growth of greenhouse gases and oil imports….
  • Prius Politics — July 25, 2007 — …But we’ve got to start somewhere

Why no one leads on energy

11 Replies

Check out this detail from a McCain speaking engagement today in Detroit:

   "We can’t keep this level of gas guzzling and make a strong impact on our dependence on foreign oil. It’s a national security issue," McCain said in response to a post-speech question about gas mileage requirements. His remarks were met with silence from a skeptical audience. "I noticed no applause," he said with a chuckle before a few people obliged.

Too often, when those in public life say the things that we Energy partisans take for granted, they are greeted with dead silence, or worse. And not always in Detroit.

Friedman took out his frustration in this regard, quite rightly, on the current president…

    Of course, we can pay for the Iraq war without a tax increase. The question is, can we pay for it and be making the investments in infrastructure, science and education needed to propel our country into the 21st century? Visit Singapore, Japan, Korea, China or parts of Europe today and you’ll discover that the infrastructure in our country is not keeping pace with our peers’.
    We can pay for anything today if we want to stop investing in tomorrow. The president has already slashed the National Institutes of Health research funding the past two years. His 2008 budget wants us to cut money for vocational training, infrastructure and many student aid programs.
    Does the Bush team really believe that if we had a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax — which could reduce our dependence on Middle East oil dictators, and reduce payroll taxes for low-income workers, pay down the deficit and fund the development of renewable energy — we would be worse off as a country?

… but the sad truth is, who is running on a platform that touts the kinds of sacrifices that we really, truly ought to be embracing? No one — at least not to the extent that I believe is called for. And personally, I am more than ready to follow someone who challenges me to ask the question that JFK proposed.

Finally, while we’re on the subject, I hope y’all all saw the piece we ran Monday from the British consul who recently visited:

    The recent meeting of Major Economies in Washington showed that
governments around the world have yet to agree whether binding targets
for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (favored by the United
Kingdom and many other countries) present a better way forward than
voluntary goals, the preference of the United States.
    But tackling climate change can bring countries together if we are wise enough not to let it drive us apart.
    The
United Kingdom shares its knowledge and experience with governments
around the world. Last year, the United Kingdom signed a far-reaching
agreement with California on climate change cooperation. Gov. Charlie
Crist enthusiastically supports the new U.K.-Florida Partnership on
Climate Change. And we have been in regular contact with members of
North Carolina’s Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change,
including a visit by parliamentarians from the House of Commons. We
would like to work with South Carolina too, if that would be welcome.

Yes, there are some leaders actually leading on climate change, and on energy independence. But neither Arnold nor Tony nor even Lula is eligible to run for president.

Joe Biden on having the juice to get thing done

13 Replies

Biden_001
By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
Why should voters in South Carolina’s Democratic primary skip the front-runners to pick Joe Biden as their nominee for president?
    Because, he explained to our editorial board last week, he’s the guy with the juice. He’s got the experience to have the knowledge, he has sound ideas based on that knowledge, and he’s got the credibility to sell the ideas.
    Today, he says, there’s no juice in the White House.
    Take the immigration issue. Why, we asked, did the recent comprehensive bill fail?
    “Bush,” said Sen. Biden.
    “That’s not a criticism,” he added.
    “I think Bush was more right on immigration than he’s been on any other national issue. But he had noBiden_019
credibility. He could not carry any of his base.”
    He said it was a failure of presidential leadership. “You’ve got the lamest lame-duck president in modern history now. And it is actually a shame. No fooling. Because the few things where you could generate a consensus with him, he’s not of any help.”
    So who has the juice? Joe Biden does, as he had demonstrated a few days earlier.
    The previous week, he had pulled off the apparent miracle of getting 75 members of the U.S. Senate — which meant getting a bunch of Republican votes — to vote for the centerpiece of the Biden platform: A plan to divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions under a loose federalist system.
    After all those pointless votes about timetables and such that other Democrats kept pushing, in full knowledge that they would not find their way into law, all of a sudden a consensus approach had emerged.
    How did that happen?
    First, “I don’t think there are 12 Republicans that support this president’s position,” which can be summed up in two sentences: “Stand up an Iraqi army so American troops can stand down. Two, strong central democratic government in Baghdad that will act as the first domino to fall through the middle east, generating the end  — if not the end, a fatal blow  — to terror.”
    Under that approach, the purpose of the surge was “to give the warring factions breathing room… to make a political accommodation.”
    Biden_007
But there’s no such accommodation. Sen. Biden says a lot of senators have been over to Iraq and talked to real people. And what have they learned?
    “Nobody  — nobody, nobody, nobody — thinks there’s a possibility of establishing a strong unity government that can gain the support of the Iraqi people and bring security and economic prosperity to Iraqis. Nobody.
    “Every success that exists in Iraq has been at the local level. That’s where the successes come.”
The only ways the surge has worked, he maintains, is where it has enabled local, homogenous authorities to run things their way, without interference from Baghdad.
    Last year, only 1,000 Sunnis stepped forward in Anbar province to join the national police force run by the Shi’a-led government in Baghdad. “The national police force is corrupt,” says Sen. Biden. “It is zero; it’s worse that zero. They’re death squads.”
    “Eliminate it.”
    The surge worked when Americans “said to the tribal leaders, look guys, you can patrol your own streets. You mean we don’t have to have the central government here? Absolutely. Good.” So “10,000 people show up from the tribes…. They’re patrolling the streets. They still haven’t gotten it under control. But it’s a lot further down the road, and no one’s talking about a national police force.”
    Look at Kurdistan, he says, which has had local autonomy for some time. “And so everyplace you look to, it comes down to devolving power, where there’s any possibility of it working.”
    How did he sell the Senate on this? First, “I’ve been working these guys and women for a year on it; I’m like a broken record on it.” He sold it on the merits, but it was also appealing because it didn’t involved the constitutional problem of trying to tell the commander in chief how many troops he can send where when.
    But it also came down to juice, to credibility: “I think if you ask Lindsey or you ask other Republicans, they trust me; I don’t ever play a game with them. I think that they think I know something about thisBiden_022
issue, and I have not been one who is saying things that they know is not rational.”
    As opposed to certain other people seeking the Democratic nomination: “How can you say on stage, almost to a person, that I will not withdraw troops; I’ll have to have troops there, combat troops there for X amount of years, maybe to 2013, and by the way, I’m voting to cut off funding for those troops, yesterday?”
    So unlike certain people named Clinton, Obama and Edwards, “I have some credibility with these guys that I’m not playing a political game with them.”
    What about bringing troops home? “What I don’t want to do is fly under false colors here. I don’t want to tell the American people that if this plan is adopted, all Americans come home,” he said.
    “If this plan were adopted, it’s the only way in which you could justify keeping American forces there.”
    But if it weren’t adopted, unlike his rivals, he’d get the troops out right away.
    “I would not withdraw from the region. But I’ll be damned if I’m gonna continue to have my son’s generation stuck in a position where they’re on the fault line, and the only thing they’re there to do is keep things from getting worse,” without any prospect of them getting better.
    So that’s his deal: He’s the guy with the plan, and the juice to get it done. And last week, he had the cred to make folks believe it.

For video from this editorial board interview, click here.

Biden_031

Time to get real in Iraq debate

14 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
NOW THAT we’ve put a fortnight and more between us and the Petraeus testimony, can we go ahead and have a realistic, honest, come-to-Jesus kind of discussion about Iraq?
    I think we can. The “surge” has created that opportunity.
    The idea behind Gen. David Petraeus’ strategy was this: Apply enough force in the right places, and you can create a secure space in which a political settlement can be achieved.
    The promised measure of security has been achieved. Just as importantly, there is broader acceptance in this country that significant U.S. forces will be staying in Iraq for some time. The consistently implied threat that we might yank our troops out at any moment contributed greatly to insecurity in that nation — encouraging terrorists, and discouraging would-be allies from working with us against the terrorists.
    For the moment, that threat is gone. If it wasn’t obvious before, it was certainly on display at a Democratic candidates’ debate at Dartmouth last week. The three candidates most likely to win their party’s presidential nomination moved beyond the fantasy that’s been offered too often to their base — that we could have the troops out of Iraq before George W. Bush leaves the White House. They acknowledged that in fact, we can’t even promise to be out by the time the next president’s first term is up in 2013.
    That was a significant step. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have walked a razor’s edge for some time, trying to say things that please the “pull ’em out now!” constituency, while at the same time leaving themselves room to be pragmatic and sensible later on, should they be so fortunate as to find themselves in a general election campaign.
    This can sometimes lead to dissonance. For instance, in the debate, Barack Obama repeated confusing assertions he made in an op-ed column in The State, in which he first said “all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.” But his very next words were “We will then need to retain some forces to strike at al-Qaida in Iraq.” OK, if all of the combat units are out, what will we “strike at” them with? Boy Scouts? Or will the units used to “strike” be smaller than brigade strength? If so, how effective do we think they’ll be? Isn’t this a return to the “less is more,” minimalist force approach that led to the failures of the thoroughly discredited Donald Rumsfeld? If we’re going to free up “combat brigades” from other, nonspecified tasks, why don’t we send them after al-Qaida too?
    But the magic number “2013” provides a measure of clarity. It says, We’re there. We’re going to be there. So what are we going to do now?
    The question works both ways. Once Democrats accept that we can’t bug out, they can start getting real about what maintaining a commitment means. One answer was offered last week. The Senate majority took a break from futile, please-the-base gestures long enough to join in a bipartisan resolution supporting the idea of dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions — a proposal long advocated by Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sam Brownback.
    But “What next?” applies with equal force to Republicans who backed the “surge” all along: Now that our soldiers have done their job, where’s the political settlement in Baghdad?
    Sen. Lindsey Graham surprised some last week when he told TIME magazine that he’s willing to give the Maliki government until Christmas to get its act together, and not much more than that.
    What? Is one of the biggest fans of the surge, as “never say die” as anyone, ready to throw in the towel? No. But with the U.S. military having done, and continuing to do, its job, no one can make excuses for an Iraqi government that doesn’t take advantage of the opportunity thus provided.
    “The challenges and the problem areas in Iraq are not lost on me as a big fan of the surge,” he told me over the phone Friday. “I’m trying to let people know that when you say the political is not moving at the appropriate pace, I agree with you, and I acknowledge” it.
    “I want people to acknowledge the security gains, because they’re real, and quit trying to minimalize them. That’s just not fair.” Nor would it be fair or reasonable, he suggested, for him or anybody else to make excuses for political stalemate.
    “I would be the first to say, 90 days from now, if they haven’t delivered anything… regarding the major political reconciliation benchmarks, that it would be clear to me they’ve gone from just being dysfunctional to a failure,” Sen. Graham said.
    At that point, “We need to look at a new model: Is it wise to give more money to the same people when it’s clear they don’t know what they’re doing, or are incapable of performing?”
    That does not, of course, mean pulling our troops out. It is the continued troop presence that gives us the options we have — and puts the onus on the Iraqi government.
    For his part, Sen. Graham was not among the three-fourths of the Senate that endorsed Sen. Biden’s partition. To him, giving in to the idea that Sunni and Shi’a can never live together is as objectionable as endorsing Apartheid as a way of keeping the peace in South Africa.
    Others disagree. But the wonderful thing is that we are now disagreeing about a way forward, rather than arguing about how quickly we can back out.
    With progress like that, I can actually believe that a political solution can be achieved — in Iraq and, yes, even in Washington.

Graham sets Iraq deadline: 90 days

9 Replies

This was just brought to my attention:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, a pivotal Republican vote in the U.S. Senate on Iraq policy, is willing to give the government of Iraq until Christmas to get its act together.
    But not much more.
    Graham told TIME Wednesday that the Iraqi leaders have 90 days to start resolving their political differences with real legislative agreements or face a change in strategy by the U.S. "If they can’t do it in 90 days," he said, "it means the major players don’t want to." …

I’m going to see if I can get ahold of Lindsey for some elaboration…

‘Death to the filthy and accursed America’

Leave a reply

Did you witness Ahmadinejad’s speech to the U.N. yesterday? Did it strike you as sort of lackluster, not quite up to his world-class whack-job reputation? A big letdown after the buildup?

Me, too. But give the guy a break. He didn’t have his homeys to whip him up into the zone. Today, courtesy of MEMRI, we have a video of how our boy does on his home court. Here’s a link to the video, and here’s an excerpt:

Following are excerpts from an address by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV, on February 11, 2007.

Crowd: The cry of all people on Earth is:

Speaker: Death to the filthy and accursed America

Crowd: Death to the filthy and accursed America

[…]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: During this years celebrations of the revolution, you have witnessed some of our scientists’ technological and scientific achievements, [such as] the prevention and cure of the deadly AIDS disease. They are the ones who created this disease. They are the foundation for this disease. But the dear humanity-loving, and believing Iranian people is inventing the cure for it, and will place it at the disposal of all humanity.

That Ahmadinejad is one fine humanitarian; you’ve gotta give him that. Here he is, all in a sweat to cure AIDS, and they don’t even have any gay people over there.

MEMRI also calls attention to the following past performances:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: So What If Two U.N. Resolutions Were Issued against Us? America Cannot Cause Iran Real Damage

Following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on January 23, 2007.

To view this clip click here.

Interviewer: Aren’t you concerned at all about the future of the country?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: No, I am not. Why should I be? Despite all the internal and external problems, the U.N. resolutions and sanctions… No, I am not concerned, because I know the country very well. I am not claiming that others don’t know it, but I know it well: Its history, its people, and its capabilities. I may be the only president who has visited 345 towns and cities in Iran. I sat down and studied each and every town and city their abilities, their history, their people, their culture, their traditional clothing, their language, their capabilities, their natural resources, and their projects.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The Western Countries Should Pick Up the Zionist Regime by the Arms and Legs and Remove It from the Region; U.N. Resolutions Are Illegitimate; America and England Are the Enemies of the Iranian Nation

Following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 1 TV on October 20, 2006:

To view this clip, click here.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: This [Zionist regime] was established in order to swallow up the entire region, and to place it at the disposal of the world forces. It is a big lie that it was done in order to protect those killed in World War II, and in order to compensate them.
    Over 60 million people were killed in World War II. Let’s assume you are right, and six million [Jews] were among those killed. How come none of you mourn the other 54 million? Why don’t you pay reparations to them? Why don’t you ever think about them? All your sorrow, your pity, your mourning cries are over [victims] who were counted by I don’t know whom…

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: As Soon as Iran Achieves Advanced Technologies, It Has the Capacity to Become an Invincible Global Power

Following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on the Iranian news channel (IRINN) on September 28, 2006:

To view this clip, click here.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Today, words like morality, spirituality, human nobility, courage, greatness, and affection are meaningless to the great powers.
    Today, the aggressors of the world are embroiled in many contradictions. On the one hand, they generate wars in many places around the world, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of the desire and demand for peace. On the one hand, they kill the peoples in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and turn them into refugees, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of human rights. On the one hand, they operate all the terrorist groups in Iraq and Palestine, and set them upon the peoples, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of the war on terror.

Mike McCurry for the ONE Campaign

Leave a reply

   

Several years back, I went to the White House to visit South Carolinian Mike McCurry when he was Bill Clinton’s press secretary. He had a tough job at a tough time. It was at the height — or should I say, the depth — of the Monica Lewinsky madness. Here’s my column from back then.

Friday, he came to see me at my office, so now we’re even. He was in town on behalf of the ONE campaign. He was brought in by Adam Temple — formerly of the John McCain campaign — and Dave Wilson, the group’s Faith Community Director.

On the video, he gives an overview of what the ONE campaign is about.

You gotta keep ’em separated

8 Replies

Just now I was listening to the latest Democratic debate and heard Biden talking about Iraq partition, and it reminded me — I’ve gotten exactly zero feedback from our lead editorial Sunday. It took a big new step in the direction of the Biden-Brownback plan, of which I had previously been leery.

Did anybody read it? Did you have any thoughts about it?

Wonkish offerings from Romney, Obama

2 Replies

And for all you substantive-policy freaks out there, here are two appropriately dense offerings, which came to me in back-to-back e-mails today.

First, I got this note from William Holley, a very nice young man with the Romney campaign:

Good morning everyone –

 Please take a moment to look at Governor Romney’s newly
released Strategy for a Stronger America – a compilation of  more than 50 policy
proposals covering everything from fighting radical jihad to achieving energy
independence to ending illegal immigration to controlling federal spending.  You
can even download your very own copy, absolutely free of
charge.


Introducing the Strategy for a Stronger America, Governor
Romney wrote: "Our future depends on our willingness to hold to the principles
that have guided and built our nation.  It depends on the character and
sacrifices of the American people.  And it depends on leadership to craft and
implement a Strategy for a Stronger America." 

— Will

Right next to that was another earnest release from Barack Obama, which I invite y’all to read and tell me what you think of it. I MIGHT be able to wade through the highlights of a strategic-vision document, but it’s more than I can bear to obsess over tax policy — although I have great respect for Obama for doing so, because there’s a world full of folks out there who care about such:

Obama
Announces Major Middle Class Tax Relief Plan
Embargoed
Remarks Provided Below

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Barack Obama today announced a bold and innovative plan to reform America’s tax code so that it works for the middle class in a speech to the Tax Policy Center in Washington, DC. Obama’s plan would provide a substantial tax cut for nearly all working Americans, for homeowners, and for low- and middle-income seniors.   

Obama made the case that our current tax code reflects the wrong priorities by rewarding wealth instead of work, and he pledged to restore fairness to the tax code to strengthen the American economy.

Obama’s middle class tax relief plan would provide $80-85 billion in tax cuts to America’s workers, seniors and homeowners by:

  • Cutting taxes for 150 million Americans and their families,
    allowing them to get a tax cut of up to $1000.
  • Easing the burden on the middle class by providing a
    universal homeowner’s tax credit to those who do not itemize their deductions,
    immediately benefiting 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom make under
    $50,000 per year.
  • Eliminating the income tax for any American senior making
    less than $50,000 per year, eliminating income taxes for about 7 million
    American seniors.
  • Simplifying tax filings so millions of Americans can do
    their taxes in less than 5 minutes.

Obama would pay for his tax reform plan by closing corporate
loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens, closing the carried
interest loophole, and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the
top bracket.

The plan can be viewed in full HERE.

Unedited McCain footage

2 Replies

   


Today, I was "on the bus," as Ken Kesey would put it, with John McCain, attending events in Aiken and Lexington, and riding with the senator on his "No Surrender Tour" bus in between.

I have a lot more material than I can go through today, but in order not to keep my readers waiting entirely, here’s some fairly representative footage from the Lexington event — formally, the "Veterans Appreciation Lunch and No Surrender Rally," at 11:45 a.m. at the American Legion Post 7, just off just off Harmon Street.

The theme for the tour, which ends tonight in Charleston, was the war in Iraq, with McCain presenting points he’s been stressing — well, forever, really, but particularly since the Petraeus testimony last week. His message was pitched as an advance of what’s likely to happen next in the Senate, with Democrats and the president resuming the monotony of putting up an amendment with a withdrawal date, having it knocked down, putting up another one, etc.

Turnout was good at both events. You can see the SRO crowd at this one; the one in Aiken was much the same.

That’s all for now.

Six years on, adrift in a partisan sea

2 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
BACK IN the days of sailing ships, there arose a reassuring naval ritual: The captain would gather his midshipmen on the quarterdeck at the same time each day to “shoot the sun” with their sextants. The object was to establish the time — noon — and the ship’s location on the globe. It also fixed the positions of that captain and those aspiring officers in their societies and in history.
    At noon on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the attacks on America, I tried shooting The Associated Press for a fix on where we are as a nation. Searching for “9/11,” I got 23 hits within the past 24 hours. Here are a few of them:

  • Right here in Columbia, S.C., “First responders and relatives of victims of the 2001 terror attacks were to gather” for a ceremony in which they would sign a steel beam traveling the country. It would “be used in the construction of a museum at the site of the World Trade Center.”
  • Security improvements at the Pentagon have left it “less the office building it was and more a fortress. A burgeoning police force has been given state-of-the-art capabilities to protect against a chemical, biological or radiological attack. Stricter access is being imposed, with fewer vehicles able to drive or park close to the building. Structural improvements allow the building to better withstand blast and fire.”Afghanistan
  • Three photographs showed the wares of Afghan carpet sellers in Kabul who sell crudely woven woolen images of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. The captions are wondrously vague, failing to make it clear whether the commemorations are sympathetic or celebratory: “An Afghan carpet seller chats with a friend, not seen, as a small hand-made carpet is seen on the ground featuring the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center….”
  • “Felicia Dunn-Jones, who died just five months” after she inhaled part of “the toxic dust cloud that enveloped lower Manhattan,” was for the first time about to be mourned officially as the 2,750th victim of the attacks. The story goes into the acrimony surrounding the treatment of those who fell ill after that day.

    There was also coverage of a commemorative march, a psychology feature on how survivors of theFreedom attacks have become more “decisive” in their daily lives, a story that speculated whether Rudy Giuliani’s mob-busting resume was as important as his 9/11 image to his political future (no, said one expert), and some baseball linescores that happened to contain the numbers “9” and “11.”
    A group of midshipmen trying to reconcile these varied readings would have trouble finding their way. So as captain of this column, I decided to point my sextant at one point, and call it noon:

    Some balance: “While 83 percent of Republicans say the U.S. campaign against terrorism is going well, only 37 percent of Democrats agree.”
    Finally, a solid, accurate reading. I know exactly where I am — drifting in the American homefront doldrums, where the state of the world is a matter of partisan interpretation, a place where “Just one-quarter say the nation is ‘much’ safer than six years ago, 15 percent express a ‘great deal’ of confidence in the government’s ability to prevent attacks, and 8 percent say the fight against terrorism is going ‘very’ well. By contrast, two-thirds worry ‘a great deal’ or ‘somewhat’ about major terrorist attacks.”
    I find I want to set all the canvas my masts and spars will bear, to sail this ship as far from this place as I can get, as quickly as it can go. And I’d like to take the rest of my country with me.
    When I contemplate the schizophrenic responses of my fellow Americans even on something so basic and simple and existential as whether they think they are “safe” or not, I think almost any point in time would be better than this noon in this place.
    For instance, I’d prefer to be in the United States of September 2001. At that time, with the shock of horrific events fresh, we were too wise to be partisan. We saw ourselves as having a shared destiny, which we did (and do). Then, the opportunities of the past six years had not yet been missed.
    We still had the chance to take our NATO allies up on a joint fight against terror. The president of the United States had a golden opportunity to enlist us all in changing our lives to meet this challenge, particularly with regard to our dependence on foreign oil. Osama bin Laden had not yet slipped away from us at Tora Bora.
    The various opportunities to secure Iraq quickly and early had not been blown. No one had stood before a “Mission Accomplished” banner. We had not heard of Abu Ghraib. The Golden Mosque was still intact.
    Most of all, Americans of both political parties were united with us independents in wanting our country to succeed on the foreign battlefields where our troops fight real battles, ones in which life and death are not metaphors, and are immune to political interpretation.
    Just above my search results I see a banner on The Associated Press Web site and I click on it:
    “Gen. David Petraeus went before a deeply divided Congress on Monday, the commander of 165,000 troops heckled and attacked by anti-war critics before he began to speak. ‘Tell the truth, general,’ shouted protesters as the four-star general made his way into the crowded hearing room.”
    My God. Check your sextants again, young gentlemen. How did we ever get this far off course?

Tom Clancy’s back in business

3 Replies

We hear more and more about the return of the bad old days in Putin’s Russia. And now we have a Cold War scenario that reads like a passage from the first few hundred pages of Red Storm Rising. It came this morning via e-mail from International Media Intelligence Analysis, an alert service of Réalité EU. It’s based originally on a Reuters story:

The RAF scrambled four Tornado jets on Thursday to intercept eight Russian long-range bombers, the Ministry of Defence said. The ministry said the Russian aircraft had not entered British airspace. "In the early hours of this morning four RAF Tornado F3 aircraft from RAF Leeming and RAF Waddington were launched to intercept eight Russian "bear" aircraft which had not entered UK airspace," it said in a statement. Russia’s defence ministry published a statement earlier on Thursday which said 14 Russian strategic bombers had started long-range routine patrol operations on Wednesday evening over the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Arctic. The statement said six planes had already returned to base and that the other eight were still in the air. "The planes flew only over neutral water and did not approach the airspace of a foreign state," the statement said. "Practically all the planes were accompanied by fighters from NATO countries." Sky News said the Russian aircraft were heading towards British airspace and did a U-turn when approached by the British fighters. It is at least the second time in recent months that Britain has scrambled jets to intercept Russian bombers.

And so, having collected intel on Britain’s air defense capabilities, they turned toward home. And we are left to wonder why there are Bears, strategic bombers, still conducting — or is it, "once again conducting"? —  anything that could be characterized as  "long-range routine patrol operations." That’s pure Cold-War, finger-on-the-Doomsday-trigger stuff. And what sort of armament were they carrying?

And of course, Mr. Putin wants us thinking things like that.

Her Majesty’s Consul General

5 Replies

Every four years or so, a British diplomat will pass through Columbia, and want to talk politics — mainly
presidential, but they have some interest in knowing what’s happening on the state level.

For instance, when Martin Rickerd, Her Majesty’s Consul General out ofHmg3_002 Atlanta, came by last week, he had been asking some local folks about our governor. But mostly he was curious about what the presidential candidates were saying when they visited here — Georgia being somewhat less favored in the primary schedule than S.C.

Of course, I did my usual joke about who was he really, collecting political intelligence this way — SIS? That allowed me to segue to John LeCarre novels, which he also enjoys (although he hasn’t read The Night Manager, and he should), and in other ways avoid serious talk as long as I could, which is my strategy in most meetings. But I eventually shared some thoughts with him that I hope were helpful.

In return, he provided an update on how things are faring politically over on his side — which I found helpful because, let’s face it, I’ve been less interested in following such things since Tony checked out.

Here are some video snippets you may or may not find interesting:

Have we lost the war? Dems say yes, most say no

28 Replies

Here’s a crucial split in the electorate: Zogby says that while most Americans say the war in Iraq is not a lost cause, two out of three Democrats take the Harry Reid view:

A majority of Americans – 54% – believe the United States has not
lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between
Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in
three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of
Republicans say the same.

There’s a certain absurdity in focusing on whether Americans think the war is lost, as opposed to whether it is, which is a different thing entirely.

Unfortunately for the soldiers with their lives on the line, whether their struggles are for naught or not depends upon the political environment back home. So, as wrong as it may seem, a professional soldier can be kicking insurgent butt while winning hearts and minds among those Iraqis who want a decent country to live in, but if enough Americans back home are convinced it’s useless, the battle is lost. Why? Because the despair-mongers back home will say — regardless of reality on the ground — come home.

Weird, ain’t it? But so is life in our increasingly democratic republic.

Obama’s right about Pakistan. But who would follow?

24 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
BARACK OBAMA was right to threaten to invade Pakistan in order to hit al-Qaida, quite literally, where it lives. And as long as we’re on this tack, remind me again why it is that we’re not at war with Iran.
    OK, OK, I know the reasons: Our military is overextended; the American people lack the appetite; the nutball factor is only an inch deep in Iran, and once you get past Ahmadinejad and the more radical mullahs the Iranian people aren’t so bad, but they’d get crazy quick if we attacked, and so forth.
    I can also come up with reasons not to invade Pakistan, or even to talk about invading Pakistan. We’ve heard them often enough. Pakistan is (and say this in reverent tones) a sovereign country; Pervez Musharraf is our “friend”; we need him helping us in the War on Terror; he is already politically weak and this could do him in; he could be replaced by Islamists sufficiently radical that they would actively support Osama bin Laden and friends, rather than merely fail to look aggressively enough to find them; fighting our way into, and seeking a needle in, the towering, rocky haystacks of that region is easier said than done, and on and on.
    But when you get down to it, it all boils down to the reason I mentioned in passing in the first instance — Americans lack the appetite. So with a long line of people vying to be our new commander in chief, it’s helpful when one of them breaks out of the mold of what we might want to hear, and spells out a real challenge before us.
    Most of us believe that the baddest bad guys in this War on Terror have been hiding in, and more relevantly operating from, the remote reaches of western Pakistan ever since they slipped through our fingers in 2001.
    The diplomatic and strategic delicacy that the Bush administration (contrary to its image) has demonstrated with regard to the generalissimo in Pakistan has been something to behold. Now we see this guy we have done so much, by our self-restraint, to build up on the verge of collapse. We could end up with the crazy clerics anyway, or at least a surrender to, or sharing of power with, Benazir Bhutto.
    But even if all the conditions were right abroad — even if the mountains were leveled and a new regime in Islamabad sent our Army an engraved invitation along with Mapquest directions to bin Laden’s cave — we’d still have the problem of American political shyness.
    Same deal with Iran. In the past week a senior U.S. general announced that elite Iranian troops are in Iraq training Shiite militias in how to better kill Americans — and Sunnis, of course.
    So it is that the United States is asking the United Nations to declare the Revolutionary Guard Corps — less a military outfit than a sort of government-sanctioned Mafia family, with huge legit covers in pumping oil, operating ports and manufacturing pharmaceuticals — a terrorist organization.
    What is the response of the Revolutionary Guards to all this? Well, they’re not exactly gluing halos to their turbans. The head of the Guard Corps promised that “America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future.”
    General Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted in an Iranian newspaper as adding, “We will never remain silent in the face of US pressure and we will use our leverage against them.”
    And the United States is engaged in debate with other “civilized” nations over what names we will call these thugs. The world’s strongest nation — its one “indispensable nation,” to quote President Clinton’s secretary of state — ought to be able to work up a more muscular response than that. If we hadn’t gained a recent reputation for shyness, all we’d really have to do with those muscles is flex them.
    The one thing I liked about George W. Bush was that he was able to convince the world’s bad guys (and a lot of our friends, too, but you can’t have everything) that he was crazy enough to cross borders to go after them, if they gave him half an excuse. This worked, as long as the American people were behind him.
    If only the next president were able to project similar willingness to act, and be credible about it. A saber rattled by such a leader can put a stop to much dangerous nonsense in the world.
    But does the will exist in the American electorate? Not now, it doesn’t. When Obama said his tough piece, the nation sort of patted its charismatic prodigy on his head and explained that he was green and untested, and was bound to spout silly things now and then. (Rudy Giuliani, to his credit, said Obama was right. Others tut-tutted over the “rookie mistake.”)
    While we’re thinking about who’s going to lead the United States, maybe we’d better think about whether America will follow a leader who says what ought to be said — whether it’s on Iraq, Pakistan or Iran, or energy policy. Will we follow a president who tells us we should increase the price of gasoline rather than moaning about how “high” it is? How about a president who says we’re going to have to pay more for less in Social Security benefits in the future?
    Winning in Iraq and chasing down bin Laden are not necessarily either/or alternatives. This nation is large enough, rich enough and militarily savvy enough to field a much larger, more versatile force. Can you say “draft”? Well, actually, no — within the context of American politics with a presidential election coming up, you can’t. Not without being hooted down.
    That crowd of candidates is vying to lead a crippled giant. And the giant, sitting there fecklessly munching junk food and watching “reality” TV, can only blame himself for his condition.

That infuriating John McCain, or, How do you pitch to a hero?

6 Replies

Mccain1

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
HOW ARE YOU supposed to do your job with professional detachment when every time you see one of the main guys running for president, every time you read about him, every time he opens his mouth or takes an action in public, you think, “Hero”?
    How are you supposed to keep your rep when you keep thinking, I admire this guy? Of all things, admire! It’s embarrassing.
    On top of that, how do you do it when so many of the smart, hip, unfettered, scalpel-minded professionals around you snort when the hero’s name is mentioned, and use terms like “has-been” and “loser” and “that poor old guy”?
    It’s not easy. Maybe it’s not even possible. It wasn’t possible on Monday, when John McCain visited our editorial board.
    I presided as usual, asking most of the questions and so forth. But I never quite hit my stride. I was uneasy; I stumbled in bringing forth the simplest questions. It was weird. I’d pitched to this guy a number of times before with no trouble, even in post-season play. And here he was stepping up to bat in my ball park, where the rubber on the mound has molded itself to my cleats, and I can’t put a simple fastball over the plate, much less a curve.
    I kept remembering our last formal meeting with him, in 2000, on the day that we would decide whomMccain3
to endorse in a GOP primary that would either slingshot him onward toward victory, or enable George W. Bush to stop his insurgency cold. I wasn’t out of sorts like this. I had stated my case — my strong belief that we should endorse Sen. McCain — several days before in a 4,000-word memo to my then-publisher, a committed Bush man. I was fully prepared to make it again to the full board once the candidate left the room. And I was ready to lose like a pro if it came to that. Which it did.
    But now, 9/11 has happened. The nation is at war, and bitterly divided, even over whether we’re “at war.” And I keep thinking — as I sit a couple of feet from the candidate, aiming my digital camera with my left hand, scribbling the occasional haphazard note with my right, glancing from time to time at the audio recorder on the table to note how many minutes into the interview he said such-and-such, so busy recording the event that I don’t really have time to be there — this is the guy who should have been president for the past seven years.
    The odd thing is, a lot of people who now dismiss the McCain candidacy also believe he should have been president — that we’d be less divided at home, more admired abroad, more successful at war. But they talk like the poor old guy missed his chance. It’s like candidates have “sell by” dates stamped on them like bacon, and his was several years back. Too bad for him, they say. But I think, too bad for the nation — if they’re right.
    The best thing for me, as a professional critic, as a jaded observer, would be for those people to be right. I have no trouble assessing the relative merits of the other candidates in either major party. I even like some of them. Life could be good, professionally speaking, if that old “hero” guy really did just fade away.
    But he doesn’t. There he is, sitting there, being all honest and straightforward and fair-minded and brave and admirable. Dang.
    Go ahead, get mad at him. He’s let the moment get away from him. You can’t take a man seriously as a leader when he’s blown all that money only to lose ground, when he can’t stop his hired rats from diving overboard. Focus on his mottled scars. Murmur about how even the best of men slow down with age.
    But then you think about how this guy aged early. You look at his awkwardness as he holds his coffee cup, and you think about how the North Vietnamese strung him up by his broken arms, and all he had to do to end it was agree to go home. But he wouldn’t.
    That was then, of course, but it’s just as bad now. Think about how you asked him several months ago why he thought he had to do something about immigration now, when the only people who cared passionately about the issue and would vote on the basis of that one thing were the ones who would hate him forever for being sensible about it. He had no excuse; he just thought it was the right thing to do.
Mccainstarbucks
    You think of all the Democrats and “moderates” who egged him on when he was Bush’s No. 1 critic (which he still is, if you actually listen), but who now dismiss him as the president’s “lapdog” because he (gasp!) — supports the surge and actually, if you can stand it, thinks it’s working! These political goldfish forget that their favorite maverick criticized Bush for not sending enough troops, so of course he supports a “surge” when the president knuckles under and implements one.
    Oh, but don’t speak of such people dismissively. This ridiculously admirable guy at the end of the table, who long ago forgave both his communist torturers and the protesters at home who would have spit on him given the chance, won’t have it. When I speak less than flatteringly of the impatience of Americans on Iraq, he corrects me, and relates a list of perfectly good reasons for them to be fed up.
    So when it’s over, you try to produce a McCain column for Wednesday, but you can’t. Wednesday, Sam Brownback steps to the same plate, and your arm is fine. You interrogate the guy, assess him, reach a conclusion, and slap a column on the Thursday page. Three up, three down. You’ve got your stuff back.
    But Sunday’s deadline draws nearer, and it’s gone again. Desperate, you think: How about a bulleted list of what he said Monday? There’s plenty of it. Naw, that’s a news story, not an opinion column.
    And you know, you just know, that the one thing you can’t write is the truth, which is that you just admire the hell out of this infuriating old guy. The fans won’t stand for it. You can hear the beer bottles clattering around you on the mound already.
    But it’s no use. You just can’t get the ball across today.

For actual information regarding the McCain interview, and more, go to http://blogs.
thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

Mccain4

John McCain videos

Leave a reply

Here are clips from portions of the editorial board’s meeting with John McCain on Monday. These, as usual on this blog, were shot by me with my little Canon digital still camera that also shoots short video clips.  You can find some higher-quality video from the meeting, shot by Andy Haworth of thestate.com, by following this link.

xxxxxxxx

"The Surge is Winning:"
McCain on Iraq

xxxxxxxx

"They didn’t believe us:"
Why the immigration bill failed

xxxxxxxx

Why we don’t need a draft:
McCain on the military

xxxxxxxx

"Look at the Region:"
The War on Terror, beyond Iraq

xxxxxxxx

"I’m prepared:"
Why he can, and should, win in 2008

   

‘Burn, Baby, Burn’: Team Swamp Fox destroys opium worth millions

4 Replies

Counterfeit

Just received the latest dispatch from our man on the Kandahar front. Here’s the PDF file of the full report. Here are some excerpts:

Southern Afghanistan 16 AUG 2007
Dear Family and Friends:
Well, three months, 25% of the deployment has passed and Team Swamp Fox is doing very well and making measurable progress mentoring the Afghan National Police (ANP). Since we began combat operations in our AO we have only had one day off. There is a great deal of work to be done and much terrain to be covered. There has been so much that has happened since my last update I am finding it very difficult to begin.

What follows is a series of pictures from numerous missions over the past several weeks which illustrate the challenges the Government of Afghanistan (GoA) faces in eliminating Taliban and Al Qaeda without and the corruption within. I am encouraged each day by my fellow Swamp Fox teammates as well as my ANP counterparts. As you know from my previous emails the ANP is struggling to clean its house of those that would rape, steal and murder the population they are charged with protecting. One of the most encouraging signs developing here is the team of ANP “Regulators” that Team Swamp Fox is mentoring. This is only one of our many responsibilities working with the ANP.

The Regulators are established to receive additional specialized training to exemplify the high standards that should be present in the ANP and be the enforcement of those standards on other ANP throughout the Province at the direction of the Provincial Police Chief. We know that we, the US or ISAF, cannot bring about the necessary and sustainable change ourselves. It must come within the ANP itself. To see ANP officers correcting others and being proud of the uniform they wear and proud of their service to their country gives us all encouragement. Just as impressive to us has been the devotion that has developed in the Regulators for the members of Team Swamp Fox and us for them. When the Regulators finish their training, they will then train others and those will train others and those others and so on.

As you can see from these photos we have demanded a great deal from them and they have met the challenge with each mission and with each training day and as a result security is improving….

Burn baby burn… Millions worth of raw opium goes up in smoke. It took more than a day for it to completely burn. Had these drugs not been destroyed, they would most likely have been processed for sale in the UK and US and the proceeds of which would be used to support TB and Al Qaeda.

Stacks of counterfeit US $100 Dollar bills created in another nearby country unfriendly to US interests to be exchanged into Afghan currency and used to support the TB and Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan….

Having ANP ANA and American and Romanian Soldiers descend upon your home early in the morning can be an unnerving experience no matter your age. With every action we take we accompany an Information Operation (I/O) campaign so that we communicate the “who,” “what” and “why” we are present. By performing the cordon and search with the I/O campaign we connect with the locals and communicate the importance of their help and we send a clear message to the enemy…

TalibanThe Face of the Enemy… – One of the suspected Taliban fighters charged with
possession of illegal weapons,  ammunition, rocket and bomb making material in his  compound….

One of the best parts of the job is the kids. The first thing is they remind me of my own children at home and how proud I am of them. When seeing and Kids
speaking with the children and knowing the environment they are growing up in
how could you want anything else that for them than to have a secure and peaceful place in which to grow and learn. The girl’s school, which of course did not exists when the Taliban were in charge, is doing a fantastic job and the courses in both the boys and girls schools look very familiar and remind me of the challenges I had with such subjects as chemistry, algebra, physics and
geometry. They are also being taught English and they are all too proud to share
their knowledge as they point and say “bird” or “boy.”…

We all are privileged to serve our Country in this way. As do all who are deployed away from home, we miss our families and friends and we hope with each days work that it in some way merits the loss of our time with our families … that our work is making a difference. Even more so for those who have given all their tomorrows for this cause, we commit ourselves every morning to making sure that we leave this place better than we found it so that this place, Afghanistan, will never again be a place that exports the terrorism we saw visited upon our Nation on September 11, 2001. We have not forgotten why we are
here.

He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust. Psalm 91
Cheers, J

Beau_geste