Obama, An Enigma No More

There have been a flurry of op-ed pieces during December on how to define President Obama. Liberals have been frustrated with him with his lack of focused attention on Health Care, helping Wall Street over Main Street, and his adoption on a number of Bush approaches on dealing with the war in Afghanistan, Guantanimo, etc. And then there was that Nobel "peace" prize acceptance speach where he spoke of the "just war" concept (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-a_n_386837.html). Is he "liberal" enough, or just pragmatic?

The fact is that Mr. Obama is a "counter-puncher" - he lets others commit, assesses the results, and then, at the last moment, commits himself when it is safe to do so. The evidence of this can be seen in his administration's actions on Health Care. He let his party's legislative leaders take all of the heat, so he could claim success when the Senate finally passed that atrosity of a bill.

Why did the Afghanistan stratgy take so long? Because he was placed in a situation where he had to lead, instead of waiting for someone else to try it. There wasn't a clear, safe answer - too much risk. He had Sec. Clinton, Sec. Gates and the military brass on one side, and VP Biden and the liberal wing of his party on the other. Just read carefully his speach on his Afghanistan
decision" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan-speech-text-excerpts_n_376088.html). Lukewarm at best IMHO.

This isn't a new pattern. Mr. Obama took the same approach in the Illinois Legislature and the US Senate (remember the "here" votes).

Thus, he is not a "leader" in a traditional sense but more of a risk-adverse, political opportunist.

The problem with being a counter puncher is in the hestancy to commit, and a skilled opponent can take advantage of the hesitancy by constantly putting situations in front of the counter puncher. Think of the recent attempted bombing of the jet on approach to Detroit. True, the bomber was inept (thank goodness), but there are scores of these idiots with their PETN and syringes just waiting to slip by TSA again.

Bush/Cheney may have been carelessly proactive, but Obama is overly cautious and reactive. Too much (of the wrong) vision vs. not enough vision.

One wonders what the world would be like if Mr. Obama with his counter-punching techniques were to have been president during the Cuban missile crisis (October 1962) instead of Pres. Kennedy.

Scary.

NY Times Letter, 12/1/2009: A Pathetic Afghan Strategy

Pres. Obama's war speech highlighted two truisms.

First, while it is unwise to fight a war from a political posture, America always does. The world, friends and foes alike, know that we plan our wars around the election cycle. Of course, we will begin a surge just prior to the mid-term election cycle to avoid appearing weak. Of course, we will promise to draw down in 2011 just before we get to the presidential elections. The Taliban have us pegged. All they will have to do is wait - they're not going anywhere - it's where they live.

Second, we always refight the last war. It took us a while to figure out how to win in Iraq, so our military thinks that the same thing will work here. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Iraqis consisted of three jealous groups, Sunni, Shia, and Kurds - each well defined, each anxious to keep the power they got when Saddam fell (Shia, Kurds) or to keep from being disenfranchised (Sunni). Once we figured that situation out, it was possible to leverage the group-interest.

Afghanistan is so different. They have towns with tribal leaders, war lords running a collection of towns, drug lords providing commerce with the outside world, the Taliban, al Qaida, and a weak central government. And with America running a war on an election cycle, there is no way that we will have the staying power to really find the solution. Once we leave, a vacuum will appear waiting for the next strongman (group, whatever) to fill it.

It would be easy to call the President stupid, but he is merely a creature of our political process. He seems intelligent, but peel away the façade and he is simply the face of a political party. Unfortunately, the rest of us aren't much smarter if we think that this plan is worth much.

NY Times Letter, 11/15/2009: Re: Giuliani Criticizes Terror Trials in New York

Despite the concerns of Giuliani about holding the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York, the real problem is that it will cast American jurisprudence in a negative light. The principle at the bedrock of our legal system is that the accused is presumed innocent and that the apprehension, interrogation, admissibility of evidence, discovery, and trial all follow a pattern in order to to be consistent with that principle. The fact KSM was kidnapped from his home in Pakistan, taken to various hidden jails throughout Europe, water-boarded, etc., does not follow the legal principles of our system, nor international law. To hold a criminal trial with that backdrop is absurd.

KSM is a prisoner of war (on terror), and our country's conduct was to be expected with what may occur during war time, excepting for not adhering to the Geneva convention (protecting our service personnel along with those we detain.) If there are war crimes, then a war crimes tribunal needs to be held, otherwise, KSM should be treated as a prisoner of war, with his treatment consistent with our international commitments.

We want someone's blood to pay for 9/11 - and he wants to be a martyr. Perhaps the greatest punishment would be to let him live as a prisoner until Al Qaeda is defeated - which may be a long, long time.

Our legal system would remain consistent with our principles. It is what makes us different from the rest.

Letters to the NY Times

One of my favorite pastimes is sending letters to the NY Times. Now, they don't usually post my letter (if they do, I'll be sure to reference the link), so I've decided to post a couple of recent letters at the suggestion of my daughter Adrienne.

Adrienne has grown up into a wonderful woman, although one has to wonder about a person who gets just as excited over a book on the Cold War as fine desserts.