Russia amasses troops on the border with Ukraine. What's Nato's response?

Much is being reported in the news about Russia amassing 20,000 troops on its border with Ukraine and Nato is speculating that Russia is preparing for an invasion of Ukraine.  Who knows the truth? I surely don't. But wouldn't it be great if Nato telegraphed what it was prepared to do to help Ukraine so that Russia and Putin would think twice about whether it was worth an invasion. I think so!

I support President Obama's decision regarding Afghanistan. Do you?

I listened to President Obama last night giving his rationale for adding more troops in Iraq. While I wish we weren't there I do support the President and his strategy. He gave this process a good chance to evaluate all options and I am convinced he chose the least worst decision. We must allow this to play out as the General's have put together their best thinking. We took over Afghanistan in a very short period, so I am hopeful we can do it again, thanks to our brave and committed soldiers and their families. I hope both NATO and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai lives up to our expectations here or this won't work.

Senator Joe Biden's flawed reasoning for continued funding of the war.

God bless Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) presidential candidate and the most trusted Senator when it comes to Foreign Relations. This morning on Meet The Press, he articulated his position as to why he won't cut off the funds for the war even though he believes there is no hope of the current strategy in Iraq working. His rationale is this, as long as there is a single soldier left in Iraq, he won't cut off the funds because the funding is paying for special armored vehicles that can stand the I.E.D. explosions which have killed or injured thousand of our troops. These vehicles cost Billions of dollars and he wants to make sure they are made.

Here's what's flawed in the Senator's position. Let's look at recent data. Since August 1st, there were 100 deaths of our soldiers. 50% of the deaths were caused by I.E.D.'s. The next single cause of the deaths was because of Hostile fire at 24% and helicopter crashes accounted for about 20%.

So the best we could do using Senator Biden's reasoning would be to save 50% of the deaths. This is very good indeed if we could pull it off in the next 6-9 months. But the vehicles are still being built and may not be in theater far beyond a year from now. But what about the other 50% your reasoning can't save? Theses new vehicles will not save lives for soldiers walking around on missions in Iraq from such things as hostile fire, small arms fire and snipers. So the best we can do is not good enough, Senator Biden.

By voting to cut off the funding, you are assuring that eventually the troops will start to come home, safe with their families and recovering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.), which by the way doesn't physically deform or injure the body, but instead ravages the mind, not only of the soldier, but of their families as well because they must live with their loved ones mental damage for years to come. Those vehicles can’t do a thing for P.T.S.D. You see Senator, the only thing that can be done to honor the troops and their sacrifice, is to admit the truth of the situation and bring them home. Anything else, is truly cowardice and I respect you but think your reasoning can't stand the rigor of a logical analysis without crumbling. Senator, changing your view here could help change the course of this war. Many listen to you and could follow your recommendations. If you believe these vehicles are necessary anyway, just fund the vehicles but strip away everything else and vote to bring the troops home.

How Democrats and Republicans can win the Iraq war funding battle

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how the Democrats and Republicans can actually win this battle with President Bush's veto threat all the time. The problem is they don't think like Karl Rove. But if they did here's how they would make it a "slam dunk".

They stand accused by the President of not supporting the troops. Their claims, that they are supporting the troops, seems not to be getting the necessary traction. Many Republicans are worried still supporting the President and so they side with the President and ensure a veto will be sustained. However here's a strategy that is a guaranteed success. First, the Democrats need to craft a Bill, which includes the following:

1) Funding of the troops with a timetable for withdrawal and
2) Includes the language and money necessary to reinstitute the DRAFT.

One could make a very good argument that what the troops need now are
re-enforcements and use the President’s own “surge” strategy as proof. They could use the General’s own comments in support of the need for more troops and the fact that the military is either broken or close to it.

If the President vetoes the Bill, he is denying needed re-enforcements AND the money to support the troops. If he signs it, he and the Republicans will get some heat from their constituents, but by signing the Bill, he has also agreed to a timetabe for withdrawal. He can blame the Democrats for instituting a Draft but he can no longer say they aren’t supporting the troops. Republicans win because they too want to increase the size of the military and that supports the troops. Besides we need to consider the fact that Congress has already approved increases in the Army and Marines but they are not finding volunteers to fill the ranks. If we have a Draft with a lottery system, many will vote to end the war and not be so quick to go to war again.

This strategic choice would quiet all voices that the Democrats are wimps and won’t protect the nation. There is no downside here.