Well, the words were a little better. First time he’s accepted any responsibility for running his administration. First time he’s admitted we are at war with someone. I liked some of what he had to say about coming over to the side of liberty in the fight for Islamic hearts and minds. However, he misidentified the enemy. Al Qaeda is merely the highest profile offshoot of the real enemy – which is the world-wide political/religious cult known as radical Islamic jihad. It looks like his “review the reviews” directive places too much emphasis on defensive measures, no emphasis on offensive measures. And, most importantly, what do his words mean to anyone at this point anyway?
Let’s hope the analysts and the operatives in the Intel community respond to a sense of patriotism going forward. It’s still not clear they are getting leadership from the White House. Leadership is a perception thing. It’s looking the enemy square in the eye, speaking his name plainly, letting him know you mean to do him harm if he continues, and letting the patriots who know how to do him real harm know they have your full support. We haven’t quite seen that yet. (I just hate the word “disrupt.” Can we start saying it is right and good to “defeat” the enemy, please?) I’d like to give credit to Bryan Nehman, 1/3 of the Grandy & Andy Morning Show (yes, it adds up folks), for neatly summing up my feelings in his blog: “ I’d feel a lot better with a DHS purge, and a CIA/NSA surge.” Tack on Special Forces to the surge part, Bryan, and we’re completely on the same page. [http://www.wmal.com/article.asp?id=1650528&SPID=26685]
An Update, Upon Some Reflection
I performed a little thought experiment today, while shuttling the kids around to appointments.
What if we just take Mr. Obama at his word that we are at war?
Well, then, (with apologies to Ricky Ricardo) - he has some splainin’ to do. Consistency of vision is an important leadership function, and there are a few inconsistencies hanging out there. For rhetorical purposes, I won’t even quibble over the definition of who we are at war with. For the sake of this thought experiment I grant him his narrow definition of Al Qaeda.
If we are at war, he needs to explain why non-citizen enemy combatants are afforded constitutional rights. The explanation needs to provide the administration’s rationale for granting these rights to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
He needs to explain why any Al Qaeda affiliate should ever be released after being captured. It is traditional to hold enemy POWs indefinitely until war hostilities officially cease.
He needs to explain how proceeding with the courts martial for the three Navy SEALs, on dubious and trivial grounds, contributes positively to the prosecution of the war.
He needs to explain the justification for targeting with military attacks the American-born citizens Adam Gadahn and Anwar al-Awlaki. This one should be easier. The administration is already acting in a manner consistent with a war footing. They just need to assemble the words explaining why they are doing it. I’ll even give them the first draft right now. Gadahn and al-Awlaki are traitors. Gadahn has in fact been convicted of the crime of treason already. The only problem I have is it took the Bush administration about two years to achieve this result. In the al-Awlaki case Obama needs to explain what steps have been taken to expedite a treason conviction against al-Awlaki. I’ll even grant him one shot at the Bush administration for not doing so earlier in al-Awlaki’s radical career. Plus I’ll grant him one additional shot at his predecessor - if he makes a serious effort at implementing reforms that will create an orderly but swift process for treason convictions based on classified intelligence. This sure would have been handy in the Maj. Hasan case, don’t you think?
A written statement will suffice; the sound of his voice has grown annoying.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
