This is just an April fool's day joke:

Friday-April 1, 2011 This is just an April fool’s day joke: Today’s FORUM is not as long and not as political as most of my FORUMS are – honest. No April Fool’s Day joke! The history of April Fools day dates back to around 1582. In France, where the reform of the calendar under Charles IX The Gregorian Calendar was introduced, and New Year’s Day was moved from March 25 – April 1 (new year’s week) to January 1. In those days, communication traveled slowly and some people were only informed of the change several years later. Still others, who were more rebellious refused to acknowledge the change and continued to celebrate on the last day of the former celebration, April 1. These people were labeled "fools" by the general populace, were subject to ridicule and sent on "fool errands," sent invitations to nonexistent parties and had other practical jokes played upon them. The butts of these pranks became known as a "poisson d'avril" or "April fish", because a young naive fish is easily caught. In addition, one common practice was to hook a paper fish on the back of someone as a joke. This harassment evolved over time and a custom of prank-playing continue on the first day of April. This tradition eventually spread elsewhere like to Britain and Scotland in the 18th century and was introduced to the American colonies by the English and the French. Because of this spread to other countries, April Fools Day has taken on an international flavor with each country celebrating the holiday in its own way. I could go on with a few April Fools jokes: For instance did you here the one about President Obama having an epiphany after seeing the ghost of April Fools Day past – he turned conservative – April Fools. Did you here that al-Qaeda surrendered to the coalition forces after claiming a province in Yemen as an Islamic Emiratis – April Fools. Did you here that Harry Reid doubled what the Republicans wanted to cut in the budget – April Fools. I know you get the picture - April Fools is just that. To new readers I like to end each week with a quote - today’s quote on April Fools day is by Abraham Lincoln, he said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A Footnote: Lincoln also said “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

What if?

Thursday-March 31, 2011 What if? As I write today’s FORUM, I am getting closer to perfecting what I have been working on for almost two years. There have been a few glitches on the site and we have now figured them out. Many names have been collected from around the country. These people have expressed an interest in getting their neighborhoods organized. These are patriots. They are not radicals, nor are they extremists. These are people that want to make a difference and they want to ensure that our prosperity is retained for our posterity and all the freedoms that come with it. So I was thinking, as I had my taxes done yesterday, what if things were different and what if this country and every citizen would come together and really work toward making a better America. I often think this and I often ask myself how this would work? What would we need to do? How long would it take and would people really want to make the changes that are necessary to do that? I started to ask myself what if and I came up with a list of what ifs. What if we didn’t have Senators like Chuck Schumer (D) New York, who was caught on tape saying that the Republicans have to be characterized as extreme and the tea party is pulling them to the right? He said, "The main thrust is basically that we want to negotiate and we want to come up with a compromise, but the Tea Party is pulling Boehner too far over to the right. I always use the word extreme, that's what the caucus instructed me to do the other week." What if we didn’t reelect Senators like Schumer and every other politician that has served for more than 20 years? What if we elected leaders that could truly lead with statesmanship, instead of judging our leaders by their picks of basketball brackets and how effective they are at demonizing the other side? What if guys like George Soros were not allowed to dabble in U.S. politics and the economy? He is not a citizen, but he controls Media Matters and Move On.org., too mention two. These organizations are extreme far left and are dedicated to socialize America and the world. Soros is a billionaire and has been characterized as the man who brought down the English pound through currency manipulation. This is fact and not fabrication. What if America were energy rich; meaning that we stopped buying our oil from the mid-east, Hugo Chaves and the rest of those countries who want to bring America down by holding us hostage? What if we drilled here at home and used our coal and incorporated smart technology to conserve and expand energy resources? Maybe we could build a few more nuclear power plants, modernize the power grid and have Americans conserve by turning off that light bulb that is lighting a room when no one is using it? What if we deported every illegal citizen and shut our borders down, along with changing the Constitution to re-define or define the 14th amendment? What if we stopped handing out the billions in aide to countries that work against our interest? What if we moved out of every sea port that we have our military vessels docked, as a sign of protection to our allies? What if we told the United Nations to take a leap, get out of the country and end our relationship? What if we told the Mid East allies, like the Saudis, they should not depend on our defense any longer? What if we built a Star Wars defense shield to protect our country from any air born missile, like Reagan wanted to invest in? What if we constitutionally demanded proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate, for any one who becomes president? What if we took every foreign product built abroad and shipped here for consumption, like cars, toasters, electronics etc. and just closed our trade down? What if we took these products and built them right here, creating jobs and commerce for us to prosper from? What if we could pay our income tax, just by filling out the back of a post card? What if we told every terrorist and every backward country that wants to do us harm to just try it? What if we got our financial house in order to the extent that other countries would have to borrow from us? What if we educated our children in math, science, our true history and not aim our education specifically to the minorities and other groups who say our history is one of murder and oppression? Speaking of murder and oppression, what if we didn’t go to the defense of countries like Kuwait, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and all the other countries who in the end wind up complaining about American involvement in world affairs? What if America just shut down and dismantled the Statue of Liberty and shipped it back to France C.O.D.? What if we explored the universe and claim every planet and moon that we land on as sovereign American territory, instead of taking a giant leap for mankind? What if America didn’t export its medical technology and its medical aid in times of disaster? What if we got back to our principles and stopped redefining what our principles are, and rely on the ones that are clearly defined in the founding documents? What if the United States just shut its doors? What if all this did happen? We would be fine, but the rest of the world would go into a thousand years of darkness. However, what if we could do just a few things on this list? I’ll let you determine what they are! Maybe just maybe we could collectively decide on what they are and move on. Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: What if you had the power to do just a few things on this list. What if someone said you do have that power!

What's in play?

Wednesday-March 30, 2011 What’s in play? As I listen to our government leaders, the term they are using is “many things are still in play” seemed to stick out in my mind. The Vice President was asked what is the end game in Libya is? He said the end game starts here! The Secretary of State seems to be playing the role of Commander in Chief yesterday, while the President was in New York at a fundraiser. A number of Arab league members are running away from their commitment in Libya. These were the countries that urged America and the U.N. to go into Libya. The President said that the Secretary of State was on her way to London to discuss the outcome of the Libyan situation. Only 8 of the 22 Arab League members bothered to show up for the much touted meeting that the president said was the turning point in handing over our lead in Libya to NATO. So why are they not participating in the biggest meeting of the coalition to date? These Arab Muslim nations see the infidel, the non Muslim nations, bombing another nation in the region. They are now running off even though they asked for help. Why is this? A number of these Arab nations are now concerned of a nuclear Iran taking over the region. Libya is in for some very dark days, whether Qadaffi in is or out. The action in the region is not popular in the Arab Muslim world. Some are now afraid and some are now concerned about Al Qaeda taking hold in their own countries out of retaliation for asking for the help. The mixed messages are what we need to pay attention to. When you have a vacuum of leadership at the top, because the president is clearly uncomfortable with the mantle of leadership, then you have uncertainty here at home and abroad. It is ridiculous to think that this is a humanitarian mission, as the United States is now on record as saying. The bombs tell another story. When the president stresses that the United Sates has followed the lead of the U.N., backing away from the operation is clearly more difficult. Why not just say that our role is to take out Qadaffi. This is what is in play. When we target his command and control these Arab nations can clearly say that the humanitarian statement is just another lie by the infidel. I don’t know if the trap has been set or if the trap has been sprung. What I do know is something is in play and that something is what we are not being told. The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “we cannot and must not impose our will on Libya.” The confusion that is now in play is that the United States through the coalition partners are saying that this is a time for great change and it is up to the Libyan people to chart their own destiny all we are doing is following the U.N. resolutions. Khaled Kaim the Libyan deputy foreign minister is calling upon the “President and all the other western leaders within and outside the E.U. not to be war mongers but to be peace makers and not to push Libyans towards Civil War. This is what is in play and this is what is going on. WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces. In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show. And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive. Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts: ___ OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role." THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption. NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars. The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American. ___ OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives." THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, it reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear. Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday. The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters. Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms. ___ OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America." THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait. "The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch." Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest." ___ OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance." THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials. Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened." Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said. At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that." ___ OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated. More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara. The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S. Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself. In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands." He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?" Now, such questions are coming at him. Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report. Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. You see that many things are in play, even the truth! Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: When the left says George Bush lied they didn’t stop their assault, when the right says that the president is not being truthful they say there are many things in play!

He spoke!

Tuesday-March 29, 2011 He spoke! He did not lead, he was too late and he showed little passion – otherwise, the president’s speech was a good. It was designed for our consumption and he succeeded. The president tried to convince a listening audience that it was in America’s best interest to fight this fight. He tried to convince us that the action was in accordance to our goals and objectives. He tried to lay out a new policy of using America’s strength as the world’s police, when it becomes necessary. He tried to say that we worked with coalition leaders and that he made the decision to go to the U.N. All of what the president said is fine and good. I honestly can’t disagree with what he said, but I don’t trust that what he said is what he necessarily believes. The President used the back drop of the National Defense University for the speech, not the Oval Office. The president’s speech was not in prime time and the major networks did not carry it. What the public consumption will be is the diluted sound bites and the favorable reporting of the biased press. The President used the comparison of humanitarian aid and not the military or Washington going it alone. The President could not pass up the chance to compare his quick war to that of George Bush’s lingering war. He also intimated that he was the president who was bringing the troops home and winning the war on terror, without using the word terror. If the operation in Libya is turned over to NATO as the president said our troops would then be under NATO control. Every country in NATO would then see how our military platforms work on the ground. I am not talking just about weapons I am talking about as the president put it “unique capabilities” not only in strategy but in how our troops are commanded in combination. We would be making our playbook public. The president did not answer the one remaining question and that is when will this be over? What happens if Qadaffi is able to cling onto power? The president said that he averted a blood bath, but if Qadaffi clings to power what will be the blood bath that will ensue? The president did not address the knowledge gap that now exists. In other words, who are the opposition forces that we are defending? There are new reports that the opposition forces are the jihadists that we were fighting in Iraq. Any thing is possible in this part of the world. The president did not talk about the Pentagon concerns that “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” The broader question that is not yet answered is what happens if some the freedom fighters decide to kill other freedom fighters in order to gain a political position? In many cases the history of the region brings in a greater threat when events of this kind take place. Qadaffi has been the longest surviving dictator in that part of the world. You don’t just disappear overnight when the bombs start dropping. We are, as our protocol dictates, targeting Qadaffi, but we are asking that he step down. The main question remains what happens if he, Qadaffi, doesn’t go? What the speech didn’t do was illustrate the real truth. The Europeans get 90% of their oil from Libya. The Lockerbie bomber was released early on humanitarian means a year ago, so that Britain could continue getting their oil. Qadaffi held another country hostage with his oil. What happens if unfriendly forces that say they are our friends turn out to be our enemy and cut off the supply of oil to Europe? This could be a likely scenario that would require many countries to invade Libya to secure the oil. You see: “the enemy of enemy is not my friend.” We were told that the proximity of Libya, between Tunisia and Egypt, was the main concern in the region. We were told over the weekend that any unrest could overflow into a fragile Egypt and a fragile Tunisia. This is not about liberation and not about humanitarian aid; it is about the oil and who would be best to manage the reserves. This is the quintessential American $64,000 question. What we are witnessing is a hundred year event. This is the biggest shake up in Mid East politics in generations. We all hope that the turmoil today will lead to democracy tomorrow. I have been saying that democracy in the Middle East doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand. Today, we are getting reports that the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining significant ground in the new Egyptian political system. We heard Qadaffi say that he would turn Libya into another Somalia, if he is forced to step down. You see: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” However, the bigger story today is what the New Black Panthers said yesterday. They said that the First Lady Michelle Obama “should leave her husband, because he is nothing but an Uncle Tom.” When words of this type are used it only disgraces a nation that has tried to elevate itself beyond these terms. As we are fighting another conflict, now in an African nation, other groups that see a weakness will target that weakness. It never fails, it is always groups like this that cause dissention. You see: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: The catch phrase: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend” is something that the president will realize – unfortunately, it will be at our expense and now possibly the worlds!

He speaks!

Monday – March 28, 2011 He speaks! Tonight the president speaks about Libya. Many of the pundits on the Sunday talk shows have given their view and hopefully have given an accurate account of what the President will say tonight! Most of history is unpredictable. Most of the events that occur in the world are unpredictable. Most presidents have been unpredictable. Who could have predicted a year ago that Egypt would fall? Who could have predicted a year ago that Libya, Syria and Yemen would have civil unrest? This is why pundits speak and this is why pundits get paid. This is also why our leaders get paid. I have a sneaking suspicion that some in the government knew a year ago that the civil unrest that we are talking about today would happen. I would feel more confident, if I knew for sure. But we don’t, so punditry continues. I cannot predict what the president will say tonight, but I do know that what ever he says we will hear differing opinions of what was right and what was wrong with what the president says. The one thing I do know is that we do have the freedom of speech, so that we can be pundits and so that some of us can write what we want, when we want. In the countries that have civil unrest today, many cannot write what they want, when they want. Many cannot even read or write. But many do know that democracy can bring the freedom that some desire. When rulers like Qadaffi and Bashar al-Assad of Syria are allowed to rule as tyrants, we cannot view the word democracy in the prism of the mid east. I hope that part of the president’s message carries that thought. I hope that another part of the president’s message will explain why the action in Libya is a related to our national interest here at home and abroad. I hope the president’s message will be bold and will outline, in no uncertain terms, that the U.S. is committed to the support of democracy. What I do know is that the president’s message to night will be designed for public consumption. I would hope that it wouldn’t be. However, when a president takes this long to speak about military action you know that it will be. What makes this president different? Every president that has committed any military asset or personnel usually will address the nation within 24 hours of the decision to go to war or to make war. The president can do both, if it is in an effort to protect the country. This is the problem with Libya. No one can answer why Libya is a threat to our national security. Certainly this president hasn’t. In my opinion, just having Qadaffi around is a threat, but what do I know? I would h ope that the president sees it that way and if he does that’s enough for me to support the action or any action of the same. My judgment and my instinct tell me that part of the message will be just that. However, the other part tells me that confusion will still reign and that confusion will be the weakness that every adversary in the world senses and will continue to see. When can the president’s words be used against him? In a 2002, at an anti war rally a young politician by the name of Barack Obama said: “What I am opposed to is a dumb war, what I am opposed to is a rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion.” This was a statement that was designed to invoke a response of the electorate in 2002. This was statement to brand George Bush’s decision to go to war as dumb, rash and, not to mention, that Republican’s passion to invade Iraq, under the guise of fighting Islamic radicalism. We all want a reason to sustain our appetite of consumption, but we don’t want to be the victims of someone have misplaced passion. This is why a president’s judgment is critical and this why we need the reason behind the president’s decision to go to war. This is why we need to know why the events that have occurred happened in the way that we have been told. We must be told what the president’s final objective is. Just last week, the president said, “If he (Qadaffi) changes his conduct he can stay in power.” Then why did the president then take the back seat in leading the war? This is very complicated and it is very confusing. I am sure a lot of other people, who are far more important than me, want to know! The spread of American Democracy in the region of the mid east and now Africa is now at the tipping point. Islamic Hegemony in the region is moving quickly and this might be the threat that no one is talking about. We do not know exactly who the rebels that are fighting for freedom and democracy are. We do not know the motives of the freedom fighters. What we do know is Qadaffi gave up his quest for nuclear weapons. He gave up his quest for expanding his reign after Reagan attacked him. We do not know exactly how the uprising in Libya started. All we can do is make our opinions known and predict what will happen. The term Islamic hegemony is now being used. “The Hegemony "leadership" or "hegemon" for "leader") is the political, economic, ideological or cultural power exerted by a dominant group over other groups. It requires the consent of the majority to keep the dominant group in power. While initially referring to the political dominance of certain ancient Greek city-states over their neighbors, the term has come to be used in a variety of other contexts, in particular Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony. The term is often mistakenly used to suggest brute power or dominance, when it is better defined as emphasizing how control is achieved through consensus not force.” I have to wonder if we are exerting force to control the region or fighting a force to control the region. This is the unknown. I hope that the president will at least clarify this point, if he can! Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: Remember the TV ad – “When E.F. Hutton speaks everyone listens”? I wish we could say the same about our president.

When is war a war?

Friday – March 25, 2011

When is war a war?

The President joined a multilateral force, the U.N., to enforce a no fly zone over Libya. The President didn’t go to Congress, but made the decision himself. Now the administration is saying that the military is engaged in a “kinetic military action.”

Technically, what is meant by the term kinetic is movement. There is movement and there is gunfire being exchanged. While the administration is moving the U.S. military towards a humanitarian rescue force, the coalition is now being fractured. The Germans, under Merkel of Germany, have all but pulled out and Sarkozy of France is the only member of NATO that wants to move against Qadaffi militarily. Sarkozy is not concerned about labeling the action kinetic. He is concerned about the oil.

The strategy of warfare has changed. The Super Powers cannot use their military might in conventional ways. New labels have been placed upon military actions and the restrictions have made all partners equal.

Secretary of State Clinton has been the spokes person for the action that has precipitated. She said yesterday that command and control would be turned over to NATO in a few days. She said that NATO will enforce the no fly zone. This is all fine and good, because there are no aircraft in the Libyan air force that pose any danger to any one anymore. But we are led to believe that the mission is a success, because of the turn over.

If you study the history of warfare, you will become knowledgeable on what war is. If you study the history of warfare, you will become familiar with the great battles and the great commanders. If you study the history of warfare, you will become aware that the great battles and the great wars were won by military genius and clear military goals.

We cannot let our military be a humanitarian military force. Today, there are new protests in Syria. Are we going to implant our military there, because of a humanitarian need? What are we to do with North Korea and China? Are we to commit our military there, because of a humanitarian need? The military is there for two reasons. It protects our strategic interest and it provides security to the citizens of this nation.

There is a new debate over the president’s commitment of the U.S. military to create a no fly zone in Libya by committing our military assets. There is debate over his lack of notification to Congress of his decision. Every president has in some way or another violated this Constitutional requirement. Every president has found a way around this requirement. As citizens, we need to remind our leaders that the Constitution is there for a reason. I don’t care if it is Obama, or Bush or Clinton or even Reagan. A president cannot violate the Constitution in this way. There is a danger of a president committing troops in a military operation that has no structure, no organized goals and not calling it by its proper title. Vice President Biden warned President Bush about not notifying Congress when we entered into war against Iraq. He said in 2007, if the president commits troops with out notifying Congress he would move to impeach. Where is the Vice President now, since his president violated the Constitutional authority that he spoke of in 2007? Where is the impeachment of his president?

Part of a president’s duty is to set an example. A president must lead with Constitutional authority and not false authority. A president must be a president to every citizen and he cannot pick winners and losers. A president must be cautious, but bold, in committing the military. A president cannot make up the rules on the fly, something that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates alluded to earlier in the week.

A president cannot be a contradiction to his own policy and he cannot be contradicted by those who serve under him. A president must lead to win and his objectives must be planned with that in mind.

A president cannot use the country’s assets in a way that make it personal, nor can his decisions be personal. A president must be knowledgeable of the military that he is the commander in chief of.

Many of our presidents came from a military background. Many came into office with the traditions that were learned in service and in war. Washington was a general who won our Revolution, Lincoln a Captain, Eisenhower a General of the Army in WW II, Kennedy a lieutenant, Truman was a Colonel and knew the importance of saving lives by making a military decision. Ulysses S. Grant was the General of the Union Army whose decisions saved the Union and defeated the Confederacy. There are more presidents that served in our military than haven’t. More presidents have been Colonels and Generals who have led men into battle, than haven’t led men at all.

Since Eisenhower, two presidents have not served in the military. They are Clinton and Obama. Both loathed the military and both dithered about using the military. Both have committed troops based on a humanitarian need - Clinton in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Both suffered contradictions and both had very liberal beginnings.

Look back in history. Kennedy said: "A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living." Both Clinton an Obama never had real private sector jobs! Both never had to make a payroll and both never had to suffer from a layoff, let alone lead men into battle.

One the greatest Military minds and greatest generals of all time, not only in American War history, but in the war history of the world, was General George S. Patton. I have done some research on him and found that he believed in one thing - he charged to where the sound of gun fire was.

I believe what he would tell our young president today, if he were alive and saw what the president is making the military into would be this, “The objective of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." General George S. Patton

Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives

A footnote: Look at who your presidents were, look at the military challenges they had and find out for yourself who won the battle, but lost the war!

The contradiction:

Thursday-March 24, 2011

The contradiction:

We have heard many versions of what is happening in Libya, since the enforcement of the no fly zone that was initiated last weekend. Secretary of State Clinton said Colonel Qadaffi must go. The Secretary went on to say: however, there is no legal authority that permits us to do that in United Nation’s resolution to enforce a no fly zone.

Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, says that the policy of the transition of authority to enforce the no fly zone from the United States to that of NATO is being done “on the fly.”

The President was being lauded by the press for his multi tasking ability to eat dinner in Chile and be kept up to date on the actions in Libya. The President also says that the turn over of authority will be accomplished by weeks end. All of which has been contradicted not only by NATO, but by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.

I have been observing this situation and other interesting situations created by this White House throughout the year. The conclusion I come up with is that when the President agrees to do something, he makes a decision and says I want it done tomorrow or I want it ended tomorrow. He then shifts gears to something else.

This way, he can shift the responsibility and shift the blame when things go south. He will also take the credit when things surprisingly go well. He creates a win - win situation for himself at the expense of others.

My fear is that the President made a decision that he didn’t want to make, with regards to Libya. The coalition that was assembled has members that have never been part of a NATO coalition and or any other coalition of that type. In the end, these new members will ultimately make the decisions that will affect the NATO troops, as this war ramps up. The president’s policy to commit the U.S. military early on has now been contradicted by his policy to pull out the U.S. military prematurely. He has also pledged American help in the future

There are three main elements to any successful military campaign - they are:
A clearly defined mission
A unambiguous chain of Command
A stated end goal or goals – that will give direction on what it is you are working towards
The mission in Libya today is a contradiction, the chain of command is a contradiction and the stated goals are yet a bigger contradiction.

My question is what happened to the common goal of any military conflict to eliminate or defeat your adversary? With all these contradictions, how can the coalition be successful? It can’t, because that goal is not part of the mission even though the president said Qadaffi must go. While some officials are saying this is a military operation, most are denying it.

If the shoe were on the other foot, what would Qadaffi do? First - I think he would go for the oil – second he would show no mercy – third he would go into the theater of operations with overwhelming force. Finally, he would be leading the coalition.

The price of oil hit $105.00 a barrel yesterday and we are not securing the oil in Libya for our consumption and the coalition’s consumption. This is the contradiction in leadership because no one is securing a valued piece of real estate there. Here, the price of oil has risen by $19.00 a barrel since February 16, the day the Libyan events started.

The price of gasoline is now up to $3.56 a gallon. The President has pledged 3.5 billion American dollars to help Brazil in development of their offshore shore oil reserves. The oil coming out of Libya has been halted. The president is giving Brazil credit, so they can exploit their offshore development while it is illegal for us to do it here in our country! It’s okay for them, but not for us!

This is the contradiction that the world has now seen and is now concerned about. When the supply of oil is halted from Libya, there is not another country that can fill the supply void quickly. When the supply of oil is halted from Libya, you cannot depend on another country filling the void in the short term.

Today, there is confusion and contradiction in the goals, the ultimate leadership and the duration of the military events in Libya. Today, there is confusion and contradiction in the goals, the ultimate leadership and the duration of policy initiatives coming out of the White House.

General Omar Nelson Bradley said: “We need to learn to set our course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship.”

Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives

A footnote: We expect action from our leaders. We do not and should not accept inaction, especially with contradiction!