Last week President Barack Obama approved a surprise mini-surge of 1,600 fresh Marines to Afghanistan ostensibly to sustain our tactical gains. But the real reason for sending more troops is the administration’s anxiety that time is running out on its failing Afghan strategy which jeopardizes its ultimate goal – denying al Qaeda “more space to plan their attacks.”

U.S. Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Mills, the commander in Helmand Province, where fighting remains most intense, said the fresh Marines will help him overwhelm the Taliban “with an increased operational tempo.” The surge Marines are part of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit currently deployed in the Indian Ocean.

The more compelling reason for sending fresh troops is the administration’s anxiety that time is running out on Obama’s strategy to transform Afghanistan into a viable state. “If wider insurgency were to engulf Afghanistan, that would give al Qaeda even more space to plan these attacks,” Obama warned.

Obama’s strategy won’t fail because of our troops. The 2010 surge of 30,000 fresh troops to the current 97,000 under the expert leadership of Gen. David Petraeus is making considerable progress against al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. Al Qaeda is under severe pressure – finding it harder to recruit, travel, train and plot attacks. The Taliban insurgents are losing fighters and ground to our combat-hardened troops.

But the crux of Obama’s Afghan vulnerability is his dwindling time commitment to an over- ambitious three-part war strategy: break the Taliban’s momentum and train Afghan forces to take the lead, promote effective governance and development, and earn Pakistan’s aggressive participation in the fight.

Obama announced his latest timeline commitment at the November 2010 NATO summit: “We agreed that early 2011 will mark the beginning of a transition to Afghan responsibility” with the intent to complete the hand-off by 2014. But Obama’s timeline promises probable failure, according to a 2008 Rand Corp. study of 90 insurgencies. The study found “it takes an average of 14 years to defeat insurgents once an insurgency develops.”

Consider why the administration’s unrealistic timeline combined with its three-part strategy creates anxiety for Obama.

Obama’s first focus area — break the Taliban’s momentum and train Afghan forces to take the lead – is the most promising of the three areas.

We are breaking the Taliban’s momentum for now, but our enemy is resilient and smart. His strength has not diminished despite our battlefield successes and our 12-to-1 fighter advantage. He survives by hiding in the population, emerging at a time and place of his choosing and enjoys sanctuary in nearby Pakistan. He also has the psychological advantage of knowing we are leaving beginning this summer, which he uses to maintain Afghan loyalty.

Fighting a hardened, resilient and smart enemy creates anxiety for the administration because it fears losing its hard-won momentum could force Obama to consider sending significantly more troops. That would be politically difficult, given the president’s commitment to begin withdrawing this summer.

There is also anxiety about the readiness of the Afghan security forces to assume overall responsibility by 2014. Our mutual goal with the Afghan government is to train and equip up to 400,000 soldiers and police while overcoming significant obstacles: illiteracy, drug use, high desertion rates and corruption. U.S. Government reports indicate the Afghan army is developing faster than the police, but given the aforementioned problems, the reports express considerable doubt either force will be fully ready by 2014.

Obama’s second focus area – promote effective governance and development – creates considerable anxiety for the administration because guerrilla war is political rather than military in nature. Afghan politics, which overshadows all government and development efforts, is incredibly corrupt — and that must be curbed before Afghanistan can emerge as a viable state.

Transparency International’s (TI) 2010 annual rankings identifies Afghanistan as the third most corrupt country in the world behind Myanmar and Somalia. TI defines corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” which “constitutes a major obstacle to democracy and the rule of law” and “results in a weak civil society.”

A 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable from Kabul illegally released by WikiLeaks confirms widespread Afghan corruption. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry assets in the cable, “One of our major challenges in Afghanistan [is] how to fight corruption and connect the people to their government, when the key government officials are themselves corrupt.”

Another 2009 cable illustrates the problem. One of Afghanistan’s vice presidents, according to the cable, was reportedly found in possession of $52 million in cash while visiting a foreign country. And another Kabul cable claimed Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the chief of the Kandahar Provincial Council, “is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker.”

After a series of corruption-plagued elections, the United States pressured Karzai to set up a High Office of Oversight and Anti-Corruption, but the Afghan president gave that office virtually no power, a move which reflects Karzai’s negative view of efforts to curb corruption. He said in a speech that anti-corruption units in his government are “destroying the national sovereignty of Afghanistan, and we will not allow it.”

Obama’s third focus area is Pakistan, which shares a 1,500 mile border with Afghanistan. The president’s strategy calls for regional cooperation “especially with Pakistan, because our strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border.” But Pakistan has not fully cooperated with Washington even though, according to Obama, Pakistan “recognizes that terrorist networks in its border regions are a threat to all our countries.”

Pakistan makes Washington anxious because it is an unreliable partner plagued with serious problems. It is engaged in a civil war with Muslim extremists, and its government under President Asif Ali Zardari is ineffectual in managing the country’s economy and responding to disasters like last summer’s massive floods. Besides, Pakistanis are more concerned about the threat from archrival India than its terrorist-infested frontier with Afghanistan.

But Obama hasn’t given up on the nuclear-armed Pakistan. Recently the president promised to “deepen trust and cooperation” with Pakistan and to “support the economic and political development that is critical to Pakistan’s future” even though officials in Islamabad are unreliable partners.

Obama’s surprise surge of 1,600 fresh Marines to Afghanistan is an indication of his anxiety about a failing war strategy. He must either abandon his counterinsurgency strategy for one exclusively targeting our real enemy – al Qaeda — or adjust his strategy’s timeline and find a new approach that prevents what appears to be Afghanistan’s inevitable demise.

It is an oppressive, oil-rich, terrorist-supporting, atomic-seeking, missile-acquiring, arms-proliferating and American-hating regime. Hint: Iran is one of this Latin American country’s few allies.

Venezuela, the culprit regime, is 5 times closer to American shores than the Persian menace and potentially far more dangerous. Yet President Barack Obama has no visible Venezuela policy to counter the growing threat.

Last year when Obama met Venezuela’s leftist leader Hugo Chavez, he smiled, shook the man’s hand then later explained that showing “courtesy” wasn’t “a sign of weakness.” But the South American pariah is modeling itself after radical regimes Iran and Cuba while Obama just smiles.

Consider the mounting threat posed by Venezuela, a nation only a couple days’ drive down the Pan American highway from Texas.

Chavez is radicalizing Venezuela with the help of Cuban intelligence agents, who are embedded throughout his government. Like Fidel Castro, his mentor, Chavez incorporated Cuban-style militias in the armed forces and criminalized protests to silence opposition.

This summer Chavez arrested anti-communist activist Alejandro Pena Esclusa, a former Venezuelan presidential candidate who opposes Chavez’s Marxist agenda. Esclusa predicted Chavez would face so much popular discontent in this fall’s elections that he would revert to foreign powers like Iran for protection.

Last year Esclusa also wrote “Chavez is providing the Venezuelan territory to Middle Eastern terrorist groups, not only to help him defend his revolution inside the country, but as a powerful deterrent against his international adversaries [read U.S.].”

As Esclusa predicted Chavez lost his super-majority this fall and then conducted a massive power grab. This month he pushed through the lame duck session of Venezuela’s National Assembly measures that granted him temporary power to decree laws, restrict Internet content and broadcast-media freedoms, to punish legislators who switch parties and allow him to nationalize private firms.

Incoming legislators labeled Chavez’s moves a “coup d’etat,” and one media outlet claims Chavez intends “to implant a communist system in Venezuela through a totalitarian and militarized state.”

Chavez has indeed turned to Iran for protection as Esclusa predicted. Last month the German magazine Die Welt revealed Iranian plans to establish a ballistic missile base in Venezuela, likely in response to American plans to station an anti-ballistic missile system in Europe that targets Tehran’s growing threat. The Iranian plans, which also support Chavez’s aim to deter the United States, were allegedly made during the Venezuelan’s October trip to Tehran.

Further, Die Welt reported Tehran plans to base long-range Shabab 3 missiles in Venezuela that are capable of reaching the United States. The basing agreement gives Chavez permission to use the missiles in case of an “emergency” for “national needs.” The Shabab 3 can carry three types of warheads: conventional, biological and chemical.

This fall we also learned Chavez has nuclear ambitions that might include an atomic bomb. Not surprisingly, Chavez has staunchly defended ally Iran’s nuclear program, which he insists is not making atomic weapons despite U.S. suspicions.

Chavez admitted to the press “We’re taking on the project of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” but no one should be surprised when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sells Chavez, whom Ahmadinejad calls “brother,” a uranium enrichment starter kit for a Latin bomb.

Chavez has long expressed an interest in developing a nuclear energy program, but U.S. officials, according to cables released by WikiLeaks, scoffed at Chavez’s nuclear ambitions due to the lack of domestic expertise.  However, the issue resurfaced this fall because of the case of a New Mexico physicist accused by U.S. authorities of offering to help Venezuela develop a nuclear weapon.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev turned the tables on Venezuela’s nuclear naysayers when he agreed this October to build a reactor for his Latin American partner. “We want our partner Venezuela to have a full range of energy possibilities,” Medvedev said. Not coincidentally, Venezuela and Iran are reportedly developing a reliable source of uranium in that country, and no telling what other joint projects the rogues are cooking up.

Venezuela also supports regional and international terrorist groups like its ally Iran, which sponsors the Lebanese-based Hezbollah, known for the 1984 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. A 2010 Pentagon report on Iran confirms Tehran provides Hezbollah with weapons and equipment to strike and threaten U.S. interests worldwide. And Reuters news service reported in 2009 that Israeli officials confirmed the Venezuela regime hosts Hezbollah’s major outpost in South America.

In 2003 Gen. James Hill, then-commander of the U.S. Southern Command, confirmed the presence of Arab militant terrorist groups – presumably Hezbollah — in Venezuela and that government’s ties to narco-trafficking terrorist organizations in Colombia. Further, a 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office report states terrorist-related drug corruption has reached the ministerial level in Venezuela.

Chavez, for example, just promoted loyalist Gen. Henry Rangel Silva to the top military position in the Defense Ministry. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department listed Silva as a drug “kingpin” involved in financing the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia a k a FARC, a terrorist organization with drug trafficking ties.

Venezuela’s terrorist and drug trafficking corruption links threaten the United States. Specifically, leaked 2009 Washington diplomatic cables state captured FARC computer files show Venezuela tried to arm the terror group.  Those cables expressed concern that Venezuelan missiles acquired by FARC might end up in the hands of Mexican cartels that “are actively seeking to acquire powerful and highly sophisticated weapons” and operate along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Apparently, Venezuelan arms have already landed in terrorist hands. A 2009 U.S. cable noted Russian ammunition sold to Venezuela was found in FARC hands and in 2008 Colombian officials found Swedish AT-4 anti-tank rockets and Russian SA-24 shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles sold to Venezuela were discovered in a FARC cache.

Unfortunately, the missile proliferation problem will likely get worse. The Russians reported to the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms earlier this year Venezuela’s purchase of 1,800 SA-24 missiles. The United States failed to stop that delivery, according to leaked cables, amid concerns Caracas might pass missiles to the FARC or Mexican drug gangs. The SA-24 is effective up to 19,000 feet.

Finally, Venezuela is arming itself for an unknown threat. In 2010, Russia gave Venezuela a $4 billion credit to buy more weapons such as tanks, fighter jets and air defense systems. This weapons credit deal comes two years after Russia delivered 472 missiles with launchers, 44 attack helicopters and 24 combat aircraft, according to U.N. records.

Caracas’ new arms buying spree threatens hemispheric security because Venezuela will continue its proliferation practices. The 2010 Russian sale of a Kalashnikov rifle factory to Venezuela is problematic given Chavez’s Marxist revolutionary ambitions and ties to leftist Latin groups. Potentially worse is Venezuela’s interest and Russia’s willingness to sell Chavez sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft missiles batteries, which could be used at home or transferred to Iran in violation of U.N. sanctions to protect Tehran’s nuclear sites from possible Israeli or American air strikes.

Chavez transformed Venezuela into a totalitarian and militarized state that threatens hemispheric security. Despite the inevitable cries of “Yankee Imperialism,” President Obama urgently needs a substantive policy that includes possible military action to get rid of this threat to the Americas.

Today President Obama signs the repeal of our 235 year old ban on open homosexuality in the military.  The repeal is made possible by the majority of our Congress, including many Republicans.   Homosexuals now enjoy the endorsement of the US Government – the wall is down, evil is flooding in.

It occurs to me that Congress and Obama are just like the officials at Sodom and Gomorrah who turned a deaf ear to Lot and his visiting angels.  Are we now expected to trust our children to a military which is forced to blindly accept sodomites?   I suspect many God-fearing Americans will discourage their children from joining the military and our country will be less safe as a result.   Worse, our enlistment margins are so thin now that in time conscription becomes inevitable and then the government will force our children into service with those God condemns.

It is clear most Americans are blind to this evil vis-a-vis national polls and those who see the evil either failed to speak loud enough or were too afraid to go against the corrupt culture.   This action by Obama and our Congress is evidence of our moral decline much as Rome, which became caught up in homosexuality, imploded. 

Once Obama signs the “Don’t Ask” repeal the Pentagon will establish a committee to begin the implementation process.  That process will last many months to legitimize homosexuality – make it a protected class.  The military will not complain and those who won’t tolerate this change will drift away or be forced out.   Our country, military will be weaker as a result and our enemies – especially Islamists who put homosexuals to death – will celebrate.

This radical change will adversely impact the military’s culture and serious incidents will be swept under the rug.  We have a precursor to this change that suggests how bad things could become.  The integration of women illustrates my point.  Yes, women serve our country well in the military but mixing young people in military settings especially far from home and in forced intimate situations hurts them and our military effectiveness and readiness.   Consider the following 34 years after the Congress promised the integration of women would be a non-event.

For many years the military pretended the issue of women in the ranks has been a great success but seldom does the military admit to the serious problems.  Just look at our very high sexual assault rates – 2009 the highest ever and 7% were homosexual assaults.  Young female service members have a suicide rate that is three times their civilian counterparts.  Their enlistment and retention rates are down, especially since 2001.  Why?  Plane loads of young service women become pregnant to win early departures from the war zones.  Many seek abortions and others use the Pentagon-provided “morning after pill” to kill their babies.   Sex, morality are tough issues for a military.  Does anyone believe repealing the ban on open homosexuality is going to be easier than our efforts to fully integrate women?

Will chaplains be silienced about their opposition to homosexuality?  The Pentagon promises no suppression of speech for chaplains who rightly believe homosexuality is a sin.  I’ve been speaking with chaplains.  They doubt the Pentagon’s promises.   Is this the end of the military chaplaincy?

The Pentagon’s report says there will be no medical impact but in the same breath it acknowledges homosexuals engage in behavior known to be associated with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS.  They know because I told the Pentagon working group that we have thousands of service members on active duty living with HIV/AIDS which they contracted primarily through sex, many homosexual sex.  These people are non-deployable which means other healthy service members must deploy in their place. 

The Pentagon says it’s too hard and expensive to separate open homosexuals from heterosexuals.   That’s a good reason for American moms and dads to think twice about entrusting their teenage children to a bankrupt government.

And this repeal decision comes during war and in spite of discouraging voices from our combatants.  This is absolutely irresponsible to ignore those who are at the tip of the spear.  Marine Commandant Gen Amos warned of violence.

Obama and the majority of our Congress called evil good.   A nation that follows evil leaders will be judged.  I fear for our country.

Conclusion:

• It is past time we get on our knees and humble ourselves before our God. 
• It is past time we speak boldly the truth to a culture blind to the pervasive evil. 
• It is past time we hold our elected officials accountable for their immoral votes. 
• It is time the Christian remnant be heard or else like Rome and Israel of old our nation will become little more than refuse for the trash heap of history.

The outgoing Democrat Senate majority failed twice to repeal the military’s homosexual exclusion law and yet it may pitch one last Hail-Mary, stand-alone repeal bill just as the lame duck session expires this week. Whether that effort succeeds or fails, the new Republican-controlled House and the larger Republican Senate minority should take up the issue in 2011.

If the Democrats succeed in repealing the homosexual exclusion law (10 U.S. Code, Section 654, which is often confused with the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” implementing regulations), the new Congress could block implementation by not funding or specifically prohibiting funding in the fiscal 2011 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and maintaining current legal sanctions.

Alternatively, Congress could oversee the integration of homosexuals to protect our all-volunteer force and their combat effectiveness by making the process consistent with federal statutes and policies (e.g., Defense of Marriage Act — DOMA) but only after conducting studies that may require additional stipulations and caveats.

Keep in mind the Pentagon’s post-repeal implementation plan is based on questionable assessments and flawed data, which are part of the report Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered to Congress Nov. 30. See my Human Events article, “10 Problems with Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask’ Report,” for details.

At the very least, Congress should require additional studies and hearings. Remember, Congress, not the executive branch, has the constitutional responsibility under Article 1, Section 8 to establish rules for the military. Congress is under no obligation to accept the Pentagon plan to facilitate implementation by changing laws such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice and should consider additional rules, policies and laws to guide that process.

But should the Democrats fail to repeal the law, the Republicans have many options. Here are two:

(1) The new Congress can ignore the issue with two caveats; closely monitor Obama’s Justice Department’s defense of the law and the Pentagon’s enforcement of the law.

Congress can justify ignoring the issue for now because, as the chiefs of the military services recently testified, our armed forces are fully engaged in two wars and don’t want this distraction.  But ignoring the homosexual issue won’t slow the gay lobby from pressing for relief in the courts. And the Obama administration, which loudly opposes the law, will undermine the law by slowing the discharge process for homosexuals found to be serving in the armed forces.

We already saw the damage done by one liberal judge supported by Obama’s lackluster Justice Department team. This summer a Riverside, Calif., district court judge declared the homosexual ban unconstitutional and then enjoined the Pentagon from enforcing the law.

Through a series of what appear to be deliberate moves by the Obama Justice Department, the injunction came dangerously close to lifting the ban across the entire military by judicial fiat.  

To counter future judicial malpractice Congress should hold the Justice Department accountable to vigorously defend the law and when in doubt Congress should file briefs in federal homosexual cases offering time-proven arguments.

President Obama has also essentially lifted the ban by centralizing Pentagon decisions regarding homosexual discharges. The number of discharges for homosexuality is drastically down because the administration created very high hurdles to launch investigations. Besides, very public support for repeal from Obama, Secretary Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, discourages commanders from enforcing the law.

To counter future efforts to bureaucratically lift the ban, Congress must demand Pentagon appointees enforce the homosexual exclusion law. It should closely monitor discharge rates and look for indications officials are creating a command climate that discouraged enforcement. Congress could restrict funding of the  Defense Department and the services if they refuse to enforce the law.

(2) A superior option would be to monitor the administration’s support of the law as outlined above and then sponsor several studies that scientifically examine the issue, followed by hearings. The studies won’t reverse the public’s growing naivete regarding homosexuality’s threat for the military but might blunt a future Congress’ or some courts’ reckless disregard for the military’s unique culture.

The studies are also needed to marginalize the Pentagon’s new repeal-only report before it is cited as an authoritative source in future homosexual court cases. Congressional studies must consider all policy options, the associated risks for each and thoroughly document the exclusion law’s findings.

The law’s findings reflect the military’s unique and vulnerable culture. Three of the 15 findings are: “There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.” “Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life.” And “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

The studies must also address the critical issue of manning the force, Congress’ primary constitutional responsibility. The Pentagon’s report dismisses the view that open homosexuality threatens recruitment and retention but offers little or no empirical support for that conclusion.

Hearings should follow the studies’ publication to thoroughly review the results. This approach will demonstrate Congress takes its oversight responsibilities seriously. And only then should Congress entertain readiness for enhancing changes to the exclusion law.

Repealing the ban based solely on the Democrats’ political whim and a cursory reading of the Pentagon’s one-option, flawed report is dangerous to national security and could be the opening salvo of a new culture war. But if repeal happens, the new Congress must take actions to preserve national security from radical social engineering while hosting hearings on the potential damage to our all-volunteer force.

If the law survives the new Congress must be proactive to avert Obama’s subversion. It must play defense by monitoring the Obama administration’s support of the law and take the offense through stronger policies and by leveraging the appropriations process. It must prepare for future challenges with comprehensive scientific studies and hearings that bolster the record.

Last week Congress received the Pentagon’s report assessing the impact of repealing the homosexual exclusion law, often referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).  Congress should trash the report due to its many problems and turn a deaf ear to President Obama’s repeal request.

President Obama called for repeal in his State of the Union Address. Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates established a Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) to assess the impact of repeal and then delivered the results to Congress.

The report has many problems which include these 10.

1.  Report creates an answer to a question it failed to ask: “Do you favor repeal?”   The report states “We did not poll the military or conduct a referendum on the overall question of whether to repeal the current [DADT] law.”  But Secretary Gates in Senate testimony claimed the troops support repeal stating “a strong majority … two-thirds, do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform.”

Gates’ “two-thirds” statistic comes from troop answers to a question (68a) from the Pentagon’s report.  That question asked whether a homosexual in one’s unit would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done.”  The report states 70% predicted a positive, mixed, or no effect outcome.

This is a disingenuous pro-repeal spin on the responses.  The same data can be restated to support a very different conclusion: “61.7% of service members predicted at least some negative effects from repeal, while only 18.4% predicted positive effects.”

2. Costs associated with repeal.  The report estimates repeal will cost $30-$40 million for the expansion of benefits eligibility, privacy accommodations, and sensitivity training.

The CRWG also expects “recruiting and retention expenses related to repeal to be negligible.”  But that view is misguided given the significant number (24%) in their survey who will leave or consider leaving early if DADT is repealed.

The CRWG naively dismisses higher medical costs.  The report admits repeal could increase the number of personnel who are “men who have sex with men” and that group has the highest risk of HIV infection.  But it contends the incidents of HIV will be minimal because of regular blood testing.

But the military already has more than 1,000 HIV infected personnel and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex.  They are non-deployable, soak up perhaps $80 million in HIV-related medical costs annually and must be replaced overseas by healthy troops.

3. CRWG silenced many who opposed repeal.  The CRWG conducted 95 face-to-face information exchange forums, 140 small focus group sessions and sponsored two web-based sites to gather confidential comments.  The report admits “the majority of views expressed [in these fora] were against repeal of the current policy.”   But that opposition was not quantified, according to the report, because it was too hard.

4. Who says homosexuals are any more perfect than anyone else? The report indicates many expressed discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to be homosexual.  In spite of these concerns the report does not endorse separate bathroom facilities or living quarters.

The report claims separate facilities “would be a logistical nightmare, expensive and impossible to administer.”  Besides, the report states, it “would stigmatize gay and lesbian service members.”

It attributes heterosexual privacy concerns to stereotype views such as “homosexuals will behave as predators.” The report dismisses these objections stating “common sense tells us that a situation in which people of different anatomy shower together is different from a situation in which people of the same anatomy but different sexual orientations shower together.”   It uses a statement from a homosexual to support this view: “[g]ay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in these situations.”

5. Report fails to highlight survey’s flaws.   The report’s service member survey was emailed to 400,000 active and reserve personnel but only 28% responded, or five percent of the 2.2 million military force.  The report does not explain how the Defense Manpower Data Center selected those respondents.  Was it a true random sample or were those deployed excluded?  

Further, the Air Force (39% responded) and Coast Guard (54% responded) enjoyed a disproportionate advantage to the much larger Army (19% responded).   The report fails to account for this dramatic difference.

6. CRWG’s questionable assessments.  The CRWG established a panel of 11 military and civilian personnel to review material and hear presentations and then assigned a numeric rating for risk of repeal as it related to readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness.

This is an unscientific process that relies on just one panel of non-scientists to filter through mounds of complex and unfamiliar material.  The CRWG should have hosted multiple panels considering the same material and then compared their results.  Also, the panel members likely deferred to the opinion of one deep technical experts like the lawyer who may have biased the assessment.

The panel’s assessments raised numerous concerns.  For example, the panel dismissed a Rand Corporation study that found repeal could affect enlisted recruitments by 7%.  The panel said the “military’s recruitment systems are resilient to overcome the shortfall” and the CRWG’s survey found 63% would still recommend service anyway.

7. Puts faith in education, training and leadership.  Secretary Gates testified “The key to success…is training, education … leadership…”  But the military’s training and education programs have a poor track record with complex social issues like sexual assault and suicide which were both at the highest level ever last year.  The report provides no evidence homosexual sensitivity training will work any better.

What Gates calls leadership is really policing.  Repealing the law just adds another requirement to our overloaded leaders, to which General George Casey, Army chief of staff, testified, “If we do this” then “other things are not going to get done, and I worry about the implications of that in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

8. Explains away combatants’ negative views.  CRWG’s survey found that up to 67% of Marine and Army combatants said repeal would negatively impact unit effectiveness.  But the report dismisses these negative scores to suggest combatants’ lack of service with homosexuals feeds the negativity.   The CRWG promises training and leadership will mitigate the negativity.  

9. Concerns about open homosexuality “exaggerated.”  The report admits to ignoring “moral and religious objections” before tackling concerns driven by “misperceptions and stereotypes” such as displays of effeminacy among men and homosexual promiscuity.  It concludes these concerns are “exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences of many service members.”  The report offers no evidence to support that conclusion.

10. Seeks Congress’ approval of homosexuality.  President Obama is using the CRWG report to force Congress to endorse homosexuality.  Repeal of the homosexual exclusion law would be a moral judgment that will influence all federal agencies and especially the courts establishing a precedent to challenge other laws like the Defense of Marriage Act.

Congress should trash the Pentagon’s report and dismiss Obama’s call for repeal.  Our military is at war and this political issue is an unnecessary, dangerous distraction.

President Obama extended by years America’s commitment to the Afghan war, which is hard to understand given his strategy’s lack of success and competing threats. Congress must demand that the President justify this extension.

Last weekend at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) annual conference in Lisbon, Portugal, Obama declared, “My goal is to make sure that by 2014 we have transitioned;
Afghans are in the lead, and it is a goal to make sure that we are not still engaged in combat operations of the sort we’re involved in now.”  Those are overly optimistic goals given our lack of success and the radical time adjustment to his strategy.

Last December Obama announced a three-part Afghan war strategy and a deadline to begin withdrawing our forces by July 2011.  His strategy includes a surge of 30,000 additional troops, which he promised would “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.”  He promised to “accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces” and said “our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership in Pakistan.”  

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates promised at the time, “If it appears that the strategy is not working and that we are not going to be able to transition in 2011, then we will take a hard look at the strategy itself.”  It is now time for the strategy’s annual review.

But General David Petraeus, the overall U.S. commander in Afghanistan, dismissed the “hard look” promise to say that he did “not want to overplay the significance of this [annual] review which … will only be three or four months since the full deployment of all of the surge forces.”  Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy echoed that view, noting that the review would simply “be a bit of a deeper dive” than the President’s regular assessments.

Obviously the administration isn’t going to take a “hard look” at its strategy.  But the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which constitutionally funds wars, must question the President’s strategy and how more investment will keep America safer than using those resources elsewhere.

The first part of Obama’s strategy was to surge our forces to 100,000—doctrinally not enough for that Texas-sized country with 33 million people—and then accelerate operations.  Our higher operational tempo and the bringing of more troops into combat contributed to the loss of 448 American lives so far, making 2010 the bloodiest year to date for the Afghan war.  It is noteworthy that just as America surged, key allies like the British and Canadians announced plans to shift their troops from a combat role.

The proof of concept for Obama’s strategy was “to reverse the Taliban’s momentum” in Marja, a community in the Helmand province, which began in February.  After initial successes, progress became a tortuous effort to prevent the insurgents from filtering back.  And just as troubling, the governance piece of the strategy for Marja—delivering services and leadership—lags because of the Afghan government’s incompetence.

Obama obviously underestimated the enemy’s resilience in Marja, Kabul’s competence, and apparently the same problems apply to Kandahar as well.  The battle for Kandahar, the ancestral home of the Taliban, began late this summer, rather than in the spring, as originally planned.  Kandahar was expected to be the turning point of the war, but now officials indicate that it will be next spring at the earliest before we know if that effort will bear fruit.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided a rather tepid endorsement of Obama’s Afghan strategy.  Last week, Mullen told a Harvard University audience the conflict is “at the stage where it’s fairly chaotic, but security is starting to turn—it’s very fragile and it’s very reversible, but it’s going to take us some time.”

Second, Obama’s strategy also promised to “accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces” beginning in 2011, but there is now recognition that much more time and resources are required before those forces will be ready to assume responsibility.

The Afghan security forces will total 250,000 members by year’s end, but many units, especially the police, remain poorly trained and unable to battle the insurgency.  It is also feared that the country would relapse into anarchy if we turned over security to the existing force too soon.
A large part of the Afghanis’ training problem has to do with our allies’ failure to meet commitments to provide trainers, retarding efforts to create capable forces.  The U.S. military, which does most of the fighting, lacks additional personnel to accelerate that training due to other global commitments.

It is noteworthy that Obama’s strategy hasn’t earned the Afghan government’s full support, which is a serious impediment.  In 2010 Afghanistan’s problems with corruption, contracting, and secret talks with the enemy have contributed to mistrust.  Additionally, President Hamid Karzai is openly critical of allied efforts, but as Secretary Gates said, “We will continue to work with him [Karzai] as a good partner.”

Finally, Obama linked his strategy to neighbor Pakistan, which he said “is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust.”   But our Pakistani partner, President Asif Ali Zardari, is a fragile leader whose government is near collapse.

In spite of that government’s fragility, we continue to pour billions of aid dollars into Pakistan,
expecting Islamabad to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda.  But all we get for our investment are ambushed supply convoys, complaints about our drone attacks on enemy leaders hiding in that country, and excuses why the Pakistani army can’t defeat our mutual enemies.

The obvious lack of success for Obama’s three-part war strategy begs the question: Where is the security return for our $100 billion annual investment and the loss of American lives?
In 2010 our terrorist problems came from Pakistan, Yemen, and now there is evidence that new threats will come from the Horn of Africa.  But Obama committed our military to what he calls the Afghan “war of necessity” for at least another three years without demonstrating the nexus of that conflict to these and other threats.  

Worse yet, Mark Sedwill, NATO’s senior civilian representative to Afghanistan, said that Obama is likely understating our commitment.  Sedwill told The Washington Post that 2014 is “not an end of mission.” He cautioned that the transition to Afghan control could go into “2015 and beyond.”

Obama extended our Afghan commitment without a thorough review of his yet-to-be-proven strategy.  That’s why Congress should exercise its constitutional oversight responsibility to demand that the President demonstrate the necessity to continue our Afghan effort, as opposed to targeting those limited defense dollars and troops to address other threats.

This year the liberal establishment junked objectivity in order to kill the military’s homosexual exclusion policy, and now it wants the Democrat-controlled lame duck Congress to drive the final nail into the policy’s coffin.  But as President Obama once told Republicans, “Elections have consequences.”

The mid-term elections should empower Congressional Republicans to reject Democrat attempts to jam repeal through the lame duck session, which begins this week and ends December 3.  Republicans should delay further consideration of the issue until the new Congress convenes.  Then the repeal issue can be abandoned, or if it is to be pushed forward, objective research must be undertaken and balanced hearings held to get to the truth of the impact that open homosexuality would have on the combat effectiveness of our troops.

Obama’s gay ban repeal campaign began in earnest with his 2010 State of the Union address.  “I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve,” Obama said.   That speech launched the administration’s full-court press with a ready team—the Pentagon, Democrat-controlled Congress, select federal judges, and compliant liberal media—to attack the law.

The Pentagon took the first shot for team Obama.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the Commander-in-Chief, and we are moving out accordingly.”

Gates created the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) to “consider how best to implement repeal” of 10 U.S.C. § 654, the homosexual exclusion law, which is often confused with the Pentagon’s implementing regulation known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The secretary directed the CRWG to “examine the issues associated with repeal” and to develop “an implementation plan that addresses the impacts” by December 1.  This effort was never intended to consider whether lifting the ban was right for the military, which was a fatal flaw in its conception.

The secretary directed the group to “systematically engage the force” and to do so “in a professional, thorough and dispassionate manner.”   But the CRWG’s narrow mission used engagement methodologies like surveys that ignored critical questions— “Should the 1993 law be retained or repealed?”—and that skewed other questions in such a way as to force favoring the repeal.  These flaws may help to explain why only one in four service members polled even bothered to respond, a low return that devalues the report considerably, rendering its findings, based on such a narrow sampling, highly suspect.

On September 28 Senator John McCain (R–Ariz.) wrote to Gates to express “my concerns about the manner in which the [CRWG] is proceeding.”  He warned that the group’s narrow focus “undermined the validity of the effort and the survey in particular.”  He requested that Gates “identify methods to ensure that the survey provides useful information.”

That was never to be.  As early as October came the release of one-sided, desperate leaks of the drafted Pentagon report, brought forward with the intent of shaping public perception on the issue.   Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell admitted, “Anonymous sources now risk undermining the integrity of this process.”

Gates called for an investigation, but the damage was done; the report’s integrity was shot.  The leakers and their complicit media outlets like NBC News and The Washington Post erroneously reported that majorities of soldiers don’t object to lifting the ban, a position not revealed from the low survey rate of response, as McCain had indicated in his letter to Gates.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives did its part to support team Obama’s anti-military agenda.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) hosted no hearings on the matter before amending the Defense Authorization Act to include a repeal provision.  Then she jammed the bill through on a party-line vote just before the Memorial Day recess.  

The Senate considered similar repeal language in September, but McCain led a filibuster that sidelined the bill.  Now Senate Democrats, who haven’t held hearings on the issue either, hope the importance of the Defense Authorization Act will persuade Republicans to support passage.  But McCain promises to lead another filibuster if the updated bill includes the repeal language.

Obama’s gay-rights supporters also found liberal federal judges to join their anti-military team.  In September, Judge Virginia Phillips of the Federal District Court for the Central District of California declared the homosexual exclusion law unconstitutional because it infringes upon “fundamental rights.” She then issued an injunction that bans enforcement of the law.

Judge Phillips, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, ignored six appellate court decisions that upheld the law to advance her liberal social agenda.  Even the Obama Justice Department reminded the judge that her injunction was “at odds with basic principles of judicial restraint.”  Judges generally defer to Congress in matters of military policy, but not Phillips, who prefers to play politics with our national defense.

The Obama Justice Department showed its true colors in the motion to stay Phillips’s injunction.  The Department wrote in its motion, “The President strongly supports repeal of the statute that the district court has found unconstitutional, a position shared by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

This comment figuratively winks at the court.  It also explains the Justice Department’s otherwise lackluster arguments in homosexual cases, a rather unprofessional performance by government attorneys.

Fortunately the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the law could remain in effect while it considers the administration’s appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld this procedural stance.  

In spite of Obama’s full-court press, there continues to be high-placed support for the ban.  The new Congress must hear from those who support the ban, especially our military leadership, as it considers the Pentagon’s promised report.

It is noteworthy that prior to the House’s vote on repeal, the service chiefs sent letters to Congress asking the chamber to stop repeal actions.  Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, warned, “This is not the time to perturb the force … without careful deliberation.”  Army Chief of Staff General George Casey wrote, “I’ve got serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force that’s fully involved in two wars.”

Obama’s newly appointed Marine commandant, General James Amos, wasted no time explaining his views.  Amos told reporters in San Diego, “There’s risk involved.  I’m trying to determine how to measure that risk.  This is not a social thing.  This is combat effectiveness.”  Amos explained how different military life is from civilian life and expressed his concerns about the possible effects of open homosexuality in the ranks.

Obama’s campaign to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy is a travesty.  The Pentagon’s promised report is dead on arrival in part because of the liberal media’s pre-emptive distortions.  Congress’s lopsided, no-hearings repeal effort is a legislative embarrassment as well; Obama’s Justice Department’s glib defense of our military is a sham.

The new Republican House majority and the stronger Republican Senate caucus must either let the current ban stand or seek objective truth by hosting hearings.  The litmus test must be combat effectiveness.  Those involved in any potential hearings must view the matter objectively, abandoning the liberal notion that our warriors should embrace Obama’s radical-homosexual agenda without considering heretofore unexamined possible consequences to our military.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Thirty-one years ago a crisis with Iran crushed then-President Jimmy Carter’s re-election chances. President Barack Obama faces the same prospect, but this time the potential consequences are far more serious.

On November 4, 1979, Iranian students seized 52 diplomats and the American embassy in Tehran. Months later Carter ordered a helicopter rescue of those captives that ended disastrously and that played a major role in his 1980 re-election defeat.

Carter’s pollster, Pat Caddell, told the President that he lost the election because he had failed to secure the release of the U.S. hostages. Like Carter, Obama’s political future and American security interests are at stake in a new duel with the radical Islamic Republic of Iran.

Obama’s challenge is to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring atomic weapons. So far, his efforts are failing, and time is running out.

Iran is enriching uranium that could be used for an atomic weapon. A September 2010 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iran has now enriched enough uranium for two nuclear weapons (if further enriched to 90%). Also, in April 2010, Iran unveiled a new generation of centrifuges that reportedly could allow it to enrich uranium at a rate five times faster than its existing 8,800 centrifuges.

Iran is hiding new enrichment facilities as well. Last year Obama revealed a secret uranium enrichment site on an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base near Qom. Obama said the “configuration” of the Qom facility is “not consistent with a peaceful nuclear program.” Recently both Israeli intelligence and the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, an exiled opposition group, asserted that Iran is building more undeclared nuclear sites.

Iran has the technology to build a bomb. The IAEA states, “Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device (an atomic bomb).” It also reported finding Iranian technical documents on the adaptation of missiles to carry nuclear warheads and on underground nuclear test silos.

Tehran has a credible nuclear-capable ballistic missile arsenal. It has the Shahab-3 and the North Korean-supplied nuclear-capable BM-25 missile, which puts large portions of the Middle East and Southeastern Europe within range. A 2005 Wall Street Journal report indicated that U.S. intelligence believes that Iran is working to adapt the Shahab-3 to deliver a nuclear warhead.

Iran is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability. Pentagon officials said that Tehran’s 2009 successful space launch of a low-earth satellite was “clearly a concern of ours” because “there are dual-use capabilities here which could be applied toward the development of long-range missiles.” Also, a 2009 report by the Pentagon’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center warns, “Iran could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”

The potential consequences of an Iranian atomic arsenal are serious. Iran has sufficient conventional weapons capable of striking U.S. forces throughout the Middle East, and atomic weapons in their hands would raise that threat to an unacceptable level.

An atomic-armed Iran would likely spark a nuclear arms race, destabilize the region, and create economic turbulence in global energy markets. There is already a mad rush among Persian Gulf countries to build up their arsenals, as seen in Saudi Arabia’s proposed $60 billion weapons-buying spree to counter the Iranian threat, so energy markets are understandably jittery.

Iran’s ideologically aggressive foreign policy backed by nuclear weapons must be taken seriously. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously declared that Israel should “be wiped from the map,” a threat soberly entertained in Jerusalem and reinforced last week.

On November 3, Reza Kahili, the pseudonym of a former CIA operative who infiltrated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, told Israel National News that Iran would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Israel. He also said that Iran would use atomic weapons against the Persian Gulf countries and Europe to bring about the “last hadith,” which calls for total chaos, necessary in order for Imam Mahdi, the Shia messiah, to appear.

The State Department’s 2010 report on international terrorism states that Iran “remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism” in 2009. That finding explains the widespread concern that Iran might share its nuclear weapons technology with extremist groups like Hezbollah and with rogue state leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez has a close relationship with Tehran and just returned from Russia, where he signed a deal for two 1,200-megawatt nuclear power reactors.

There is a growing international consensus to pressure Iran to fully disclose its nuclear activities. That effort started in 2003, but Iran has repeatedly failed to live up to its obligations.

In 2006 President George Bush offered to join talks with Iran if it would suspend uranium enrichment. That gesture led to the creation of the so-called “Permanent Five Plus 1” (U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany), which offered Iran a package of incentives for cooperation. But Iran failed to respond, which led to the first of four United Nations sanctions resolutions.

In 2009 Obama said he wanted to try a “different approach.” He sought direct engagement with Iran while downplaying military action and insisted that the U.S. did not seek to change Iran’s regime. Once again, Iran failed to respond, causing Obama to seek another round of UN sanctions.

UN Resolution 1929 imposed the toughest sanctions yet, and during the summer of 2010 the U.S. and its allies added to those sanctions, but nations like China continued a robust relationship with Iran, which eased the sanctions’ impact. Now Obama wants to negotiate with Iran to see whether sanctions are affecting the regime’s nuclear policy. That meeting should take place November 10.

Of course Ahmadinejad is willing to talk, but only until Iran has an atomic arsenal. Then Obama will have only two options: he can strike militarily and accept the consequences, or he can accept a nuclear-armed Iran.

An air campaign will set back the regime’s atomic program a few years and requires support for Iranian opposition groups with the clear goal of regime change. A ground war is virtually ruled out because of other operations.

It appears that Obama will choose a failing Carter-esque approach that accepts a nuclear-armed Iran and a doomed containment policy of mutual defense treaties. But with its national survival in the balance, Israel will have no choice but to take unilateral military action against Iran, which will create a region-wide firestorm.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

The outcome of the mid-term elections will put the brakes on President Obama’s radical domestic agenda, forcing him to redefine his presidency to remain viable for 2012. Expect him to remake his presidency using foreign affairs and national security powers. Keeping the President’s strategic tactics in mind, congressional Republicans had better identify their own priorities now and watch for abuse.

The new Congress should reverse what Obama and his Democratic congressional majority rammed through, including the historic health care overhaul and out-of-control spending programs. But they must not become so distracted as to miss the President’s new focus.

Obama is left with two alternatives to remake himself. He can move to the political middle to compromise with the Republicans—an unlikely maneuver—or he can redefine himself using his constitutional foreign affairs and national security powers.

We should hope that his presumed redefinition as a foreign affairs and national security leader will bring an improvement over his past performances in these areas. Consider some highlights from Obama’s poor record and then what the new Congress must do.

Obama didn’t get us into Iraq, but he took credit for staying on President Bush’s timeline to pull combat troops out this August. Now he deserves some credit for the current precarious situation that will likely result in an unstable government that is friendly with Iran.

Obama’s Iran policy is a disaster. He started with symbolic gestures, followed by empty threats and then sanctions. Tehran continues its atomic weapons program, interferes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and uses its Revolutionary Guards Corps and terrorist proxies like Hezbollah to keep the Middle East on edge.

The administration’s North Korea policy is tethered to the Six-Party process aimed at denuclearization of the rogue nation. But the policy hasn’t produced any helpful results. Last year, Pyongyang tested another atomic device, and there are reports of yet another in the works. The regime continues to send weapons of mass destruction to Iran, Syria, and Pakistan, and it persists in pursuing hostile actions, such as sinking a South Korean warship last March.

Candidate Obama promised to resolve the Israel-Palestine crisis by creating “two-states for two peoples” in his first term. He has made some fine speeches on the issue, but aside from preliminary talks, there has been no progress, nor is there any in sight.

Afghanistan is Obama’s “war of necessity,” and he will host an Afghan war strategy review this December. By most accounts the war is going badly, our Pakistani partner isn’t much help, our allies are leaving, and public opinion is plummeting. He is expected to finesse the beginning of our exit next summer by putting a happy face on turning that country back to the Taliban, our new negotiating partner and long-time enemy.

China is a major problem for Obama. Beijing is a rising superpower with the world’s second-largest economy, an expanding and sophisticated military, and an aggressive foreign policy. Obama’s China policy denies that we are in a long-term cold war with the Asian giant, even though military confrontations on the high seas and combative trade and currency problems persist.

Obama touts our “reset” relationship with Russia. He struck an arms-control deal with Moscow earlier this year, which on the surface is good news, but the fine print reveals that the U.S. must stop producing new missiles and warheads while Russia continues to produce them. Also, we must not forget Moscow’s 2008 Georgia war and Russia’s manipulation of natural gas deliveries to intimidate former satellite nations like the Ukraine and Western European customers. And because of Russians’ so-called cooperation, Obama abandoned our European-based missile defense system.

Islamist terrorism is on the rise, yet Obama naively expunged all references to Islam, Muslim, and jihad from our security strategies. Since he took office, that threat has morphed into new regions to threaten America, shown by examples such as the explosive packages sent from Yemen last week to Jewish religious sites in the U.S. and the Yemen-trained Nigerian underwear bomber last Christmas.

Last month Obama’s FBI director and Homeland Security Secretary warned Congress that homegrown Islamic terrorism is a growing problem, as evidenced by incidents at Fort Hood, Times Square, and more recently with the arrest of the Washington Metro bombing jihadist. Apparently Islamists don’t welcome Obama’s outreached hand of friendship or accept his apologies for alleged past American offenses delivered to Muslim audiences, such as his June 2009 speech at Cairo University.

Even Obama’s immigration policies are dangerous. His administration promises to protect “the integrity of our borders,” but he targets Arizona citizens and state law enforcement officers for defending themselves from heavily armed Mexican drug gangs and from anyone else who may be flooding across our southern border, unhindered and unintimidated.

We must not ignore Obama’s confusing Pentagon record. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is culling the defense budget for waste, which is appropriate, but he focuses Obama’s strategy on counterterrorism while rising conventional foes like China get short shrift. Then Obama uses his bully pulpit in his 2010 State of the Union address to make repealing the homosexual-exclusion policy a top Pentagon priority.

This is an ugly record and a difficult starting point from which to redefine his presidency. But, of course, we want our President to succeed when our security is at risk.

That’s why the new Republican congressional leaders need to identify their priorities and to be prepared to work with the President. But they must be ready to play hardball with a President who is redefining himself for political reasons rather than just seeking the good of the nation.