Obama's National Security Team

As Liberals shreeek at the media-labelled "centrist" cabinet, it is time for them ask, what is Obama's Management style? Don't know? Not sure? Confused...?

Let me help you out. Obama is either a top-down or bottom-up leader. In top-down fashion, he will dictate policy and his cabinet secretaries will execute on message. In bottom-up fashion, they will collaboratively form policy, his will be the voice, and they will execute. Bush was a bottom-up guy, he relied on the best and brightest to brainstorm ideas and then in a corporate style reviewed the options and he made a decision. I get the feeling Obama will be doing the same except with more group decision oriented approach. Having no business experience, it will not be a surprise for him to take a legislative approach. He and his team will gather and whoever is most persuasive will probably define more policy.

An interesting diversion from the past is that we may have a stronger voice in SECSTATE than SECDEF. Not to say that Gates is a pushover, he definitely doesn't seem that way. But when next to Hillary, Obama and his political team will be susceptible to the Clinton aura. There has long been an intra-cabinet fight for power between SECDEF and SECSTATE. Not since Kissinger has there been a stronger persona to reclaim SECSTATE status which has been waining the past few decades. Always an important position in the cabinet, SECDEF has a dominating budget and AOR (area of responsibility).

Jim Jones and Janet Napolitano round out this interesting cast of characters on Obama's National Security Team. Jim Jones is an interesting pick for ANSA, as he is not confirmed by Congress. He is likely a counter-punch to Hillary, known as a strong negotiator with a non-confrontational style. Seen as a rising star in the Democratic party, Janet's credentials for Homeland Security seem weak and more appropriate for Attorney General. Known to be a good Manager, she will likely have a little voice amongst the booms of Gates and Clinton.

It is smart to keep Gates on. He can successfully execute the closer or Iraq and give Obama the cover he needs to see it through the end of the negotiated SOFA (2011). He has a partnership with Petraeus and respect across party lines that Barack will need in order to win the long war in Afghanistan. Plus, he has the personality needed to make the drastic defense cuts Barack will need in order to deliver on his campaign promises. Gates will be there for 12-18 months and then replaced.

It is said that an Administrations policies are as successful as the cabinet personalities. The question is whether Obama can herd these cats towards his goals. Meanwhile, his appointments have the Liberal Sharks in a tizzy!!

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Geopolitical Implications After India's Terror Attacks

First accounts are still trickling in, and many times first impressions of an event are the least reliable, but we know a few things for certain. India is under a massive terrorist attack, and Muslim fanatics are claiming responsibility. The Global War on Terror is not over, and the enemy is seeing weakness.

The world needs to realize that we, the civilized and free society of planet Earth, are in this struggle together. Other nations cannot pay lip service to fighting terrorism, while letting the United States handle the brunt of the fighting (and the criticism). It is my sincere hope that we stand in solidarity with India, a democratic nation and an ally, with more than just words condemning attacks. It is time to step up and kill the enemy.

On the surface this looks like another pre-coordinated Al-Qaeda-style attack. Multiple symbolic targets were chosen, simultaneous attacks were carried out, and many innocent people were killed. What we have to realize is that India has begun to show its solidarity with the free world and become more aggressive against terrorists. It was the Indian Navy that opened fire on Somali Pirates in Africa, and the rest of the world should follow that example. Pay their ransom, free the hostages, then send the pirates to hell courtesy of a tomahawk cruise missile.

Indian Army officials are now claiming that these terrorists have come from Pakistan.

Bad news.

The long-standing struggle over the Kashmir region, and the discord between Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan is clearly demonstrated in history. The minute British forces left the region, all hell broke loose. Pakistan and India have fought in 3 major wars (1947, 1965, and 1971). All three ended with UN mediation, but all three felt strong interference from the Chinese, who saw a power vacuum that they wanted to fill. The United States and Great Britain were able to neutralize Chinese intervention then, but today brings a much different reality.

Since 9/11, the United States has greatly increased its influence over the region, but this is a tricky venture. With almost 300 million Muslims in the area (in both Pakistan and India), a disputed region of Kashmir, and un-governed regions in Waziristan run by warlords, the Indian Ocean is sitting under a powder keg. Here's the other MAJOR problem for the region. In the 1947, 1965, and 1971 wars, neither nation was a nuclear power; today both are.

Now is a "time for choosing," to borrow a quote from Ronald Reagan's great speech. It is time for Americans to choose to surge against the terrorists worldwide, just as we surged successfully in Iraq. It is time for India to choose to be a staunch ally, complete with military forces, of the United States in the Global War on Terror. It is time for Muslims in the region to choose freedom over tyranny, and end the implicit endorsement the extremists among them with their silence. This is not a war between Muslims and Hindus, Christians, or Jews. This is a war between oppressive tyranny and a free society.

It is a time for the rest of the world to choose a side. You can no longer sit idle and netural, declaring yourself beyond the conflict. This not WWI redux, and we have no colonial interests in any of these regions of the world. The United States wants to be free, spread freedom, and be left alone. It seems that the rest of the world suffers from superpower-envy, and fails to do what is necessary for fear that it will put them in line with the United States!

Nap time is over. Wake up and smell the threats before it's too late.

The tendency has been to weigh security v. freedom, as if it's some sort of pendulum, with mutually exclusive principles at work. This is not the case. Free societies do not need to mirror tyranny to remain free during the threat of terrorism. Governments need to relinquish their power over their own people, and focus on the bad guys. You cannot prevent terrorist attacks; you can only mitigate them.

Look at Israel. Their citizens are armed to the teeth, and whenever Palestinian terrorists attempt to carry out mass shootings in markets, they are met with 20 or more armed Israeli civilians and sent to their final destination with expediency. I bet you'd get a similar result in Texas. An armed populace can do more to defend itself from the inevitable than border guards spaced out every 100 miles, and spot checks on cargo ships.

You cannot prevent a terrorist attack, but you can prevent terrorists from breathing. The United States has successfully defended not only itself, but the free world against terrorist threats, but we cannot do it alone. By capturing and killing countless terrorists, the world is better off, but it is never completely safe. London and Madrid are 21st century examples the reach of worldwide terrorists, but the general theme is the same. Muslim extremists killing people of all faiths that do not share their wild views.

Now is a time for choosing, but let us choose wisely. Equivocating for the sake of international diplomacy is a fool's choice. We must stand by our convictions, with courage, and in defense of freedom.

**Update**
2 Americans are hurt in the India Terror attacks. Sphere: Related Content