$100 Million For Anti-Terrorist Training Of Foreign Troops... WHY?

$100 Million in Anti-Terror Military Aid Urged

The Pentagon and the State Department have recommended spending about $100 million this year to train and equip foreign militaries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America and Africa as part of a new strategy to help partner nations fight terrorism beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said yesterday.

Oaky... Let me see if I understand this proposal... We are going to train foreign military troops to work against terrorists while our own shores, infrastructure and resources remain inadequately developed and our own security forces remain under-trained or inappropriately trained... and our ports do not have the resources to protect us... What is that I smell?

At least eight proposals, expected to go to the White House for approval soon, include strengthening counterterrorism forces and capabilities in northern and Saharan Africa, along the 2,000-nautical mile Gulf of Guinea coast, and around the Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia maritime triangle, the officials said.

Of course, we have seen a lot of international terrorists coming from these particular countries, right? Last time I checked, most of the INTERNATIONAL terrorists came from Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan... and while there hav been terrorist activities in the Phillipines, Indonesia and Malaysia, that activity has been focused on local or regional issues and groups... But was there ever a terrorist cell coming from the Gulf of Guinea?

Why do we still not have a proposal to improve the layers of our own national security resources against terrorists? Why are the TSA airport security personnel still under-trained or inappropriately trained? Why are our ports still a high risk area? Why don't we have secure borders and places of entry into our nation?

Give me $100 Million and let me see what I can do with it to make just one of those above-named security holes more secure... PLEASE!

The proposals also cover stepped-up military training and equipment for Pakistan and other "critical allies in the war on terror that are fighting terrorist groups on their own soil," said one administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan awaits President Bush's approval. Once approved, the military assistance is expected to begin quickly because all the funds must be committed this fiscal year.

Okay... Pakistan does need the help... But why is it only the US that is shelling out the bucks... and, given the level of corruption in the Pakistani government, how will we know that the money was actually spent on its intended purposes? Here's an idea... Let us train our own forces, then send them over to train their forces... It's a whole lot cheaper, productive and has some built-in accountability.

The counterterrorism initiatives fall under a unique new congressional authorization, passed in December, that allows the Pentagon to move far more quickly to aid foreign militaries in combating terrorist threats. The goal is to save U.S. lives and resources by leveraging relatively small numbers of U.S. troops -- such as Special Forces teams -- to train indigenous militaries to eliminate terrorist havens, control their borders and patrol their waterways, the officials said.

Ah, yes... I remember that silly law... I wrote about it when it was first revealed... I seem to remember that I called it asinine then... My view has not changed.

"Many global-war-on-terrorism tasks are best accomplished by and with partner nations who know the local geography, language and culture," said Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, in outlining the program before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday. "This war will not be won without the help of partner nations."

No argument from me on the methodology... just the idea that my tax dollars are paying for other countries to do what they should already be doing.... Let us, instead, isolate those countries that do not implement a certain level of anti-terrorist measures and preclude them from interacting in the international community, including UN funding activities, IMF loans, WTO dispute resolution processes, and tapping other funding resources. Let's embargo and blockade all but food and humanitarian trade with these nations... until they find the funds and the political will to tackle their own terrorist problems... AND THEN help them out.

The new authority is controversial because it breaks with the traditional practice of channeling military assistance through the State Department. But it requires the Pentagon to work closely with State and gives the secretary of state what officials described yesterday as a "veto" over the proposals. In fact, a number of proposals for the military aid have been eliminated in interagency discussions in recent weeks because of "political sensitivities" or "foreign policy implications," a State Department official said.

It's also controversial because while the GOP is busy preaching at us about wasteful spending, cutting taxes, and slicing programs in education and service to our own needs, they are funneling millions of our tax dollars... via interest accruing loans that drive up our deficits... to other countries.

A girl I once had an eye for in high school has a phrase that seems appropriate for this idea... It sounded like "HIT" but with an "S" in front of it.

The authority, included in Section 1206 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, has been a top priority for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The only high priority for either of these two entrenched ultra-conservative is fulfillment of their idiot boss' ideology and doctrine of conquering the world through fear-mongering and illegal pre-emptive strikes.

U.S. regional military commanders also seek more flexible authority to help foreign militaries combat terrorism -- having been frustrated by the slow bureaucratic process in Washington of cobbling together funds for military assistance, officials say.

Not the smart ones... Honestly, the smart commanders are thinking about how to shore up our own resources, recuperate troop strengths, and keep our forces from being over-stretched... Only the right-winged politicians wearing silver and gold are seeking to push the Bush plans forward.

"I have all the responsibility I need, but I have very little authority over resources," said Gen. James L. Jones, head of the U.S. European Command, which also oversees North Africa. "As I look back at the maze of the programs that we have and the interlocking bands of discussions . . . I worry that over time we are becoming very hard to work with." As a result, some countries are turning to Russia and China for military assistance, he said.

We are becoming difficult to work with because we are not maintaining a foreign policy and international approach to law that is consistent with our core first principles. We are trying to pick and choose between pseudo-friendly nations and garner the favor of moronic leaders from different regions so that we can support leaders like the Shah of Iran, Noriega (Panama), Batista (Cuba), Hussein (Iraq), the Taliban Mujahaddin (Afghanistan during Russian occupation), the Palestinian Authority, etc.

Meanwhile, we are neglected African nations in real need of our interventions for humanitarian aid, and our own neighbors in South America.

For example, it took seven months for the Pentagon to start training Georgian forces to combat terrorist havens along the country's borders after Bush announced the support in 2001. "It's either too little or too late . . . to avert or mitigate brewing crises," said one official.

This is a matter of policy logistics and material logistics... not authority or resources.

The Pentagon and State Department are lobbying Congress to increase the spending authority from $200 million to $750 million a year and lift the current two-year limit to make it permanent. They also seek changes to allow the Pentagon to draw the money from a wider range of operating funds, and to allow the defense secretary to approve the proposals with the concurrence of the secretary of state -- ending the requirement for time-consuming presidential certification.

How about spending that on education... healthcare... highway and waterway infrastructure... or anti-terrorist measures at home?

Moreover, they seek to expand the training to include not only military forces but also a wide variety of security forces such as gendarmerie and border guards -- a prospect that worries some on Capitol Hill.

It worries some of us that are not on Capitol (or is that Capital?) Hill.

Members of the House committee voiced concerns yesterday that increasing the funding would draw key resources away from the U.S. military as it fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new authority could also lead to Pentagon encroachment into a State Department mission with "unintended consequences" for U.S. foreign policy, they said.

It's just a bad approach and a bad policy.