THE WEIRS TIMES, Thursday, April 22, 2010

7

TACTICAL PAUSE

Fifth in a se-

ries of reports from Afghani- stan

ZABUL PROV-

by Oliver North

Syndicated Columnist

INCE, AFGHANISTAN

-- Some com- manders call it

a “tactical pause” to give time for additional U.S. and allied troops to surge into the country. Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the operational commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, calls it “repositioning.” Others say the reduced “optempo” is just part of a “realignment” necessary to prepare for a major offensive in Kandahar this June. The troops use a different term of art. “This is b---s---,” said one junior

officer. He continued, “It’s not the (rules of engagement). None of us has a problem with reducing the incidence of civilian casual- ties. But we need to stay on the offensive here if we’re going to win.” One soldier, after being told to “stand down” just before heading out on a night ambush, said, “We’re being held hostage inside the wire.” So it’s apparent that -- whatever they’re called -- offensive operations have been scaled back. That means Taliban insurgents are getting a breather they don’t deserve. In interviews with senior of- ficers, I was reminded that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s “popula- tion-centric” counterinsurgency strategy mandates the primary mission of U.S. and allied troops be to protect the civilian popula- tion. The soldiers, sailors, airmen

MALKIN from 6

but in direct view of the Progress Now cameraperson. That cameraperson just hap- pened to be a former CNN pro- ducer, whose blog post on the photo just happened to be im- mediately disseminated by the local press and to the hit men at the radical-left Media Matters website. The narrative was set: A conservative supporter of the na- scent Tea Party movement posed for a photo with a man holding up a swastika at a protest against out-of-control spending! Ergo, the anti-stimulus protesters and the entire Tea Party membership

and Marines with whom I have been embedded -- both conven- tional and special operations troops -- don’t object to that goal. But they are complaining they are being restricted from conducting offensive operations against an enemy who will take advantage of the reduced optempo. South of here in Helmand and

Kandahar provinces, the period from mid-April to mid-June is opium-harvesting season. Since 2002, when the Taliban turned to heroin to support their insurgen- cy, it has been a time when “mi- grant workers” cross the border from Pakistan to work the poppy fields. It is also an opportunity for Taliban leaders to collect their cut of the “opium tax.” Despite Taliban claims to Is-

lamic purity, they collect a tax of 300-400 grams of opium per Jer- eeb of cultivated poppy-growing land. One Jereeb is 2,000 square meters -- about half the size of a U.S. football field. The tax rate is based on the “ushr,” a traditional Islamic tax of one-tenth of the produce of agricultural land that in normal times is collected by the neighborhood mosque and redistributed as social welfare to the local needy. It’s an Islamic version of wealth redistribution. The timing of the tax collection is dependent on the local harvest season. Last summer, plans were drawn

up to interdict cross-border “rat- lines” as a means of defunding the Taliban. But the Obama administration’s five-month de- lay in “surging” additional U.S. troops and trainers to Afghani- stan has resulted in too few

are all racist, fascist menaces to society! Fast-forward to April 2010.

Alinsky’s avenging angels have declared open warfare on April 15. Will they be enabled again by “mainstream journalists” who have turned their Tea Party re- porting assignments into search- and-destroy missions? The signs point to yes.

Michelle Malkin is the author of

“Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@ gmail.com.

“boots on the ground” to shut down the frontier. As a conse- quence, the effort to reduce this spring’s opium harvest is being limited to a “test case” in the re- cently secured Marjah district of central Helmand. Though the Marjah operation

-- and parallel efforts by the In- ternational Security Assistance Force in Nad Ali, Now Zad and

Garmsir -- resulted in reduced opium production, the Karzai government in Kabul has been slow to capitalize on the gains elsewhere in the country. Only 27 of Afghanistan’s 34 prov- inces currently have full-time provincial reconstruction teams in operation. Some Afghan na- tional security forces, such as the

See NORTH on 10

GOOD RIDDANCE!

When Su-

by Thomas Sowell

Syndicated Columnist

preme Court Justices retire, there is usu- ally some pious talk about their “service,” espe- cially when it has been a long “service.” But the careers of all too many of

these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enor- mous disservice to this country. Justice Stevens was on the High

Court for 35 years-- more’s the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Ste- vens voted to sustain racial quo- tas, created “rights” out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens’ rights to their own homes in the infamous “Kelo” decision of 2005. The Constitution of the United

States says that the government must pay “just compensation” for seizing a citizen’s private property for “public use.” In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value. What has happened over the

years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government’s pow- er-- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical ex- treme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local govern- ment officials seizing homes and businesses-- not for “public use” as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build

more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote

the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution’s au- thorization of seizing private property for “public use” to seizing private property for a “public pur- pose.” And who would define what a “public purpose” is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the gov- ernment authorities’ assessment of a proper “public purpose” was entitled to “great respect” by the courts. Let’s go back to square one.

Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Con- stitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very gov- ernment officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred? John Paul Stevens is a classic

example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans’ ap- pointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate with- out a fight. Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their politi- cal agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals. Republicans too often appoint

judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican

See SOWELL on 10 Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32