Perspectives

Should Obama Get a Medal of Honor for Watching the OBL Raid?

This weekend, the "brave & bold" politicians of the Administration are giving their interviews of the fear they felt watching the Seals destroy the most wanted man in the world.  They have rolled out a video of Bill Clinton suggesting Mitt Romney would not have had the balls to let the Seals do what Seals do.  Leon Panetta took reporters on a magic plane ride where he told them of his daring do and how he had to ask what happens next on the mission he purportedly planned and ran, in the middle of it.  Obama, Hillary, Panetta, & Biden have expressed their heroism and fears while watching Seals do what they personally never did, could, or would.

"Boldly risking his own political hide and rushing to the video screen to watch others risk their lives on the other side of the world, the ruler of the Western World, Obama, suffered neck strain, and observed the gasps of his political colleagues while overcome with the smell of Biden and Hillary, for nearly an hour, before declaring himself, the only man on Earth bold enough to control the remote.  As the mission was initiated, he made jokes to reporters, belying his fears that the mission wouldn't fall on an historic date.  As the enemy sold the classified equipment left behind, he confidently walked to the podium, certain watching that screen would get him re-elected."  Proposed citation for the Adminstrators of the Republic.

Why do these politicians believe that they acted heroically by watching a video screen of someone else put their lives on the line on the other side of the world?  Because it was "politically risky."  Bill Clinton didn't have the balls to do it when he had the chance in the 1990's.  The driving force of their fears was not, getting shot at, but getting voted out of power.  Their concern was not for the men on the ground, but for their own power being lost.  There was real concern that their paychecks were tied to the lives they had risked and the life they hoped they could take.  This Ain't Hell addresses the political campaign of this, as well.

The State of the War & World

It is understandable that not everyone understands the reason we cover the news we do, or how drug violence in  Mexico, nationalization of grocery stores in Venezuela, "bank robberies" in Baghdad, and protests in Syria or Cairo can possibly related.  Others believe there is a nefarious, secret council that is not only plotting, but implementing a plan to take over the world.  How does the average citizen come to conclusions of what is real, what is connected, and what is overreaching the bounds of reasonable conclusion, i.e. nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Let's be frank, but not paranoid, there are individuals which conspire to advance their power.  They're often called political parties, and while they will avoid the term conspire, their means are to increase their group and personal power through conspiring together with a common theme and goal.  But to think that political opponents are nothing more than puppets to a small group of secret power mongers would ignore the fact that other groups also vie for that same power.

The world is in fact at a key point in history.  After decades, centuries even, of oppression, the people of the Middle East are rising up and demanding change.  But not every participant in the protests has the same ideals of what government should be.  Not every protest is led by people of the same ideals, and not every person holding a sign understands who they are following.  It is puzzling how the Administration in Washington is choosing whom to back and who to attempt to ignore.

Obama on Osama & Other Such Things

So, Obama is now hailed as the new Alexander by many?  Or is it Cesar?  By proclaiming the "I" in "ordered" to kill a terrorist that's been killing Americans for 2 decades, he's now decisive?  His "poker face" has been tauted as he mucked it up with reporters, knowing that Navy Seals were about to enter a sovereign nation, and face a deadly enemy?  Sorry, it should be an easy decision to send in the best to take out the worst.

I watched his victory speech and it felt a little narcissistic to me, that a man 10,000 miles away from the bullets put so much emphasis on how important, he was, in the events of the night.  He didn't pull a trigger, nor did he face the enemy that did.  His life was not on the line, and he's not the hero.  But that's not all that's bothered me about this.

How Things Went Wrong in Afghanistan

There has been great anticipation of the NATO Lisbon meeting and today, the expectations of calls for a Four Year Retreat from Afghanistan were confirmed.  No doubt, there were other important decisions and alliance strategies made at Lisbon, but this one confirmed rumors and speculation about what the POTUS has long planned.  It is not as bad as was his flawed and failed broken campaign promise of a 16 month hasty retreat from Iraq, but neither is it wise or "responsible" either.  Let's face it, when the UN and NATO warn you're being too hasty to call for retreat, it's a bad sign.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cautioned that the drawdown has to be guided by “realities not schedules.”
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the move would depend on the security situation in Afghanistan.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the move was “irreversible.”

There is no doubt that our European Allies are war weary.  Despite campaign promises otherwise, our allies have long questioned the President's commitment and resolve, while pulling out of Afghanistan.  There have been other allies that have stepped up their Troop numbers, but some that have pulled out completely.

KYE: Shady Allies & Strangely Allied Enemies in MidEast

 

Sometimes, we have a tendency to oversimplify the enemies and threats we face.  “Terrorists” are the enemy but is it Sunni terrorists or Shi’a terrorists?  Which are the good guys and which are the bad guys?  And are the Ba’athists Sunni or Shi’a?  Aren’t we against monarchies?  Aren’t our anti-Iranian policies really an anti-islamic policy?

 

 

 

Well, most of my articles have focused on only a few of our enemies: The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Iran.  I’ve made a few mentions of Ba’athists and I’ve defended the monarchy of Saudi Arabia.  But what is it that ties these enemies together and what is it that allies us with a monarch?  I’ve struggled to identify why we should support who in the world myself.  The sad fact is that many times, we must simply support the lesser of many evils.

 

 

As much as it would be preferable to lump all of our enemies together and call them all terrorists, islamists, facists, or communists, such an oversimplification would lead to failure to overcome the threat.