Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Obama and the “birthers”

December 6, 2013

Hearing Obama speak today about Nelson Mandela, I was wondering what Obama’s legacy would be.

I am not convinced that the US requirement that only those born in the US can become President makes any sense in today’s world. It may have had a purpose once upon a time but it seems to me to be particularly inappropriate to “The American Dream”.

In any event the requirement is on the books and if it could have been shown that Barack Obama had not been born in the US before he was elected President, he could have been ineligible and his candidature would have ended. The convolutions of the “birthers“ who have tried to make their case with strange and exotic conspiracy stories about his birth in Kenya or of not having been born in Hawaii or of being an Indonesian citizen or of being a dual citizen, have been very entertaining but have not developed much traction. Their strident and often racist tone has not helped them much.

In two years Barack Obama will complete his two terms and go down in the record as the 44th President of the US. Probably he will be remembered most for having promised much but for not having been able to deliver. He will be remembered more for his risk aversion and not so much for Osama Bin Laden having been killed on his watch. I have a feeling that he may not wish to be remembered for how Obamacare finally turns out. He will not be remembered as we remember Nelson Mandela today.

Where he was actually born – one would think – is a little irrelevant now.

But a little story in the Washington Post makes me think that he has not been completely transparent about his early life.

After denial, White House now says Obama lived with uncle

The White House acknowledged Thursday that President Obama lived with his uncle for a brief period in the 1980s while he was a student at Harvard Law School — despite previously saying there was no record of the two having met.

“The president did stay with him for a brief period of time until his apartment was ready,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement. “After that, they saw each other once every few months, but after law school they fell out of touch. The president has not seen him in 20 years, has not spoken with him in 10. “

Onyango “Omar” Obama faced a deportation hearing earlier this week following a drunk-driving arrest. During the hearing, he said that the president had lived with him while he was a student at Harvard. 

The Boston Globe reported in 2012, after Omar Obama’s arrest, that the White House said he had “never met his famous nephew.” The White House now says it only told the Globe that there was no record of the two having met — not definitively that they hadn’t met.

In its report Thursday, the Globe confirmed that the White House initially said that there was no record that they had met. It said the White House never asked for a correction. ….

Omar Obama comes from his father’s side of the family and is a Kenyan national. Obama was not close to his father, who left the family when the president was very young.

Obama’s relationship with his uncle is also news to scholars of the president, who also found no evidence that the two had met, according to a 2011 Washington Post report.

Omar Obama, 69, was allowed to stay in the United States following his hearing. The White House emphasized that it did nothing to assist him in his deportation case. He had said following his arrest that the president would help him out.

It all strikes me as a little odd. Why would Obama/the White House deny knowing or meeting his uncle? Was he so scared of being accused of interfering in his Uncle’s case that he was prepared to lie? Or was he/is he afraid that the Omar connection could lead elsewhere? And the current explanation that nobody had asked Barack Obama before making the previous denial does not seem very credible. If that denial, about such a personal event, had been issued without Obama’s knowledge, then somebody at the White House was pretty incompetent.

But it makes me wonder as to what would happen if, after Obama has completed his two terms, it comes to light that he was – in fact – ineligible to have been elected President under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution? After all Pope Joan is now legend!

Would the record of his Presidency be expunged? Would all legislation signed by him fall? Would the next President then become the 44th President? Would he lose his pension? Could he be prosecuted? for what?

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 3 Comments »

Obama’s leadership style is one of “Don’t ask, don’t be told”!

October 29, 2013

When one is President (or a CEO or a General), there are some “unacceptable” activities and behaviours that your organisation indulges in that it is better not to know.  This is a delicate skill that is not easily learned. To know, but not to be seen to know. To be informed but to avoid being told what you don’t wish to know. So that ignorance always remains as a defence if the “unacceptable” action or behaviour is ever revealed.

“Don’t ask, don’t be told”.

I don’t usually expect the Washington Post to be overly critical of a sitting Democratic President. But Obama’s apparent ignorance of what is done by his administration is getting embarrassing. A couple of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Millbank and Jennifer Rubin take Obama to task.

Jennifer Rubin: The list is growing every week: The IRS scandal, the deteriorating security situation in Libya, spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, spying on journalists and the Obamacare mess. Those are just a few of the things we have been told at one time or another that President Obama he didn’t know about before learning about them in the media. Note to media: You have a critical job in briefing the president, so err on side of over-inclusion.

Then there are the things he had wrong or knew better but said anyway: There is a fatwa in Iran against nuclear weapons, “You will get to keep your health-care plan,” the Benghazi attack was related to an anti- Muslim video, and no predecessor had been compelled to negotiate a budget deal in the context of a potential government shutdown.

This prompts several questions: Who is running the government? Why is the president content not to know so many things? At this point one has to conclude he is intentionally ignorant.  …….

….. The list goes on. You would think the president at some point would be embarrassed to be the least-informed man in Washington, D.C.

Dana Millbank: For a smart man, President Obama professes to know very little about a great number of things going on in his administration.

On Sunday night, the Wall Street Journal reported that he didn’t learn until this summer that the National Security Agency had been bugging the phones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other world leaders for nearly five years. 

That followed by a few days a claim by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that Obama didn’t know about problems with the HealthCare.gov Web site before the rest of the world learned of them after the Oct. 1 launch.

It stretches credulity to think that the United States was spying on world leaders without the president’s knowledge, or that he was blissfully unaware of huge technical problems that threatened to undermine his main legislative achievement. But on issues including the IRS targeting flap and the Justice Department’s use of subpoenas against reporters, White House officials have frequently given a variation on this theme.

Question: What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Answer: Not much, and about a minute ago…….

Some might argue that this is not a “leadership” style but an abdication of leadership.

 

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Obama’s leadership style is one of “Don’t ask, don’t be told”!

David Cameron snubbed by Obama and left off the NSA spy list

October 24, 2013

Information is now filtering into the public space that the Heads of friendly nations including Brazil and Mexico and France and India and now – horror of horrors – Germany have had their communications bugged and mobile phones tapped by the US intelligence Agencies (mainly the NSA).

BBC: 

Germany has summoned the US ambassador to Berlin over claims that the US monitored German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone. Foreign minister Guido Westerwelle will personally meet US envoy John Emerson later on Thursday.

Mrs Merkel has demanded a “complete explanation” of the claims, which are threatening to overshadow an EU summit on Thursday and Friday.

She discussed the issue with US President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

President Obama told Mrs Merkel the US was not monitoring her calls and would not in future, the White House said. However, it left open the question of whether calls had been listened to in the past.

The list of governments, companies and people who have been spied on by the US is now getting very long. But what is also very clear is that anybody – who is anybody – is or was on the spy list.

But poor David Cameron was not / is not quite important enough to make the NSA spy list as The Telegraph reports:

The White House has explicitly said US spies never monitored David Cameron’s communications but refused to say whether it had ever tapped Angela Merkel’s phone in the past.

A spokesman for President Barack Obama told The Telegraph that the US never targeted the prime minister but the White House would not offer the same assurances about the German chancellor.

But what would really be almost impossible for Cameron to bear would be if Ed Miliband has made the list and that adds to his consequence.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics | Comments Off on David Cameron snubbed by Obama and left off the NSA spy list

In a democracy, oppositions must oppose, governments must govern

October 9, 2013

I was listening yesterday to President Obama’s press conference where he accused the Republicans of “extortion”.

“But I also told him that having such a conversation, talks, negotiations shouldn’t require hanging the threats of a government shutdown or economic chaos over the heads of the American people. …. 

….. members of Congress, and the House Republicans in particular, don’t get to demand ransom in exchange for doing their jobs. And two of their very basic jobs are passing a budget and making sure that America’s paying its bills. They don’t also get to say, you know, unless you give me what the voters rejected in the last election, I’m going to cause a recession.

…. So let me explain this. If Congress refuses to raise what’s called the debt ceiling, America would not be able to meet all of our financial obligations for the first time in 225 years.”

He sounded petulant. It sounded like “Give me back my ball” to me.

But the fundamental foundation of any democracy is that ruling parties govern, to the extent that they have the ability and as they may be constrained by the opposition. It is a fundamental of preventing excesses by a majority against a minority that oppositions oppose to the best of their ability. Oppositions must oppose as best they can. Governments must govern given such opposition. It is the task of government to make the compromises necessary to be able to govern. And the bottom line is that the Republicans in the House are opposing and that Obama and his Democrats are failing to govern.

I certainly don’t know enough about the issues involved to have any decided opinions. But I do think that the US debt is an indicator of many years of profligacy. Obamacare itself may be a wonderful thing but the opposition in the House don’t think so. Passing any budget (and it is actually approving an increase of a debt limit) cannot just be a formality where the ruling party merely gets its way and the opposition knuckles under. One could argue that passing a “balanced budget” is some kind of a fiduciary responsibility of the representatives but this is not such a question. It is for the passing of a grossly “unbalanced budget” and to, thereby, increase the national debt.

So when an opposition does what it is supposed to and succeeds in opposing any measure proposed by a ruling party, it is actually evidence of a failure to govern. There can be no failure of the responsibility of the opposition to oppose.

What Obama seems to be complaining about is that he has not the ability to find the compromises to be able to overcome the opposition!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on In a democracy, oppositions must oppose, governments must govern

An oblique view of the looming US government shutdown points to incompetence in governing

October 1, 2013

It is 6am in Europe and midnight, Monday 30th September in Washington. A US government shutdown is looming because of disagreement between the President and the Senate on the one hand with the House on the other. The Senate has a Democratic majority while the House has a Republican majority. The two sides cannot agree on budget measures to keep paying for government.

There is much – but very predictable – pointing of fingers.

My view is from another aspect. It is not the role of an opposition to lie down in front of the ruling party. It’s job is to oppose. That is the fundamental of the “check and balance” of a two party system. It is the job of the ruling party to do as little as is necessary in compromising with the opposition to be able to govern – not to blame the opposition. A failure to govern is in itself evidence of an inability to govern. It is evidence of incompetence.

It is the job of the Republican opposition to oppose. It is for the President and the Democxratic majority in the Senate to give in as little as is necessary and as much as is sufficient to be able to govern.

I cannot help but conclude that the President and his Democratic majority have lost sight of the fact that it is their responsibility to make the compromises sufficient and necessary. It is not the role of the Republicans to lie down and be rolled-over. In the hierarchy of things it is for the House to “propose” and the Senate and the president to “dispose”. When whatever comes up from the House is unacceptable and has to be rejected by the Senate or the President it indicates that the President and the Senate are not doing what is sufficient and necessary to get proposals from the House that can be approved.

There is a large element of risk aversion and a fear of “screwing his courage to the sticking place” about President Obama. The Senate Democratic majority is guilty of simple incompetence.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on An oblique view of the looming US government shutdown points to incompetence in governing

Keeping score in the great Syria chess game

September 24, 2013

It is not possible to say who won or who lost. The Great “Game” will take a long time to reach a conclusion. All that can be done is to see who’s winning and who’s losing.

David Cameron is losing and may have lost. He took a slap in the face from the House of Commons. If he had managed the vote in his favour, the US strike on Syria would have taken place almost immediately. Whether the strike would have achieved much will never be known but Obama would have “walked” his “talk”. Milliband seemed to be winning since he had defeated Cameron but it is becoming clear that he had played his trump far too soon and allowed Putin to make his play. And Milliband can be credited for letting down the US and the special relationship. Tony Blair lost. He showed up as a “rabid dog” revelling in going to war (to try and justify his bad judgements during the Iraq war). And nobody took him very seriously.

Barack Obama is losing. He has confirmed his reputation as a ditherer and that he is risk-averse to the point of being  seen as being ruled by his fears. He has effectively shifted the balance of power in going to war from the Presidency towards Congress. This power given up will be difficult to regain. Without the backing of the UK he was forced to look for ways to extricate himself from his “red line” box.

John Kerry was point-man for Obama and was – for a time – the potential scape-goat. But he has repositioned himself and may even take away some credit for the Russian play. His throw-away line about “no strike if Syria gave up their chemical weapons” is now being spun as an intentional statement.

Francois Hollande is losing. His support for Obama was not enough to allow the US to carry out a strike on Syria. The value of French support – compared to the UK support which was not forthcoming – was diminished. And then to make matters worse his Parliamentarians made it quite clear that they did not support his position even though they were not required to vote. Having supported a strike he was not quite adroit enough to claim any credit for the alternate diplomatic path that resulted. Getting Freedom Fries reverting to be French Fries was his only consolation.

Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov are winning. The diplomatic path is now their creation. Suddenly Russia is the peace-maker in the face of US war-mongering! Not only was the US strike on their ally delayed indefinitely, it is now Assad’s Syria – and not the various opposition groups – which is required to engage with the international community. Any opposition forces who seem to be coming in the way of inspecting or securing control of the chemical weapons can now be attacked by Assad with the full support of the international community. Russia can continue supplying Syria with conventional weapons.

The Syrian Opposition groups (including Al Qaida) are losing the civil war. Assad can now get more weapons replacements than they can. Al Qaida need a weakened Assad to create a winning position and they need a prolonged civil war to achieve dominance among the opposition groups. Both objectives would have been assisted by a US strike.

Bashar al-Assad is winning. He does not really need chemical weapons which cannot effectively be used anyway. Any US strike on his forces is postponed indefinitely. With no prospect of any no-fly zone being declared his air-force could be decisive in the civil war. The supply of conventional weapons from Russia is assured. His claim that rebels and terrorists were responsible for the use of Sarin is backed up by Russia and the UN weapons inspectors have no option but to investigate this (and they are on their way back to Syria).

Iran is winning. President Hassan Rohani is on a roll. First Hizbollah – at Iran’s bidding – helped to keep the Syrian opposition groups at bay when they seemed to be gaining ground. Then he supported the Russian diplomatic initiative. That was followed by an interview  on NBC  and an op-ed in the Washington Post to assure the US and the world that Iran had no intention of developing WMD of any kind including nuclear weapons. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, sent Rosh Hashanah greetings to Jews worldwide via Twitter and caught the Israelis off-guard. Now Rohani is on his way to address the UN General Assembly. Willy-nilly they are now a part of the diplomatic path for Syria and cannot just be ignored. That engagement allows the Iranian charm offensive to proceed as well on other fronts.

Israel is both winning and losing. It was Israeli intelligence intercepts – not US  – which led to Obama’s threatened strike. A strike by the US was definitely preferred by the Israelis though their objective was to maximise turbulence for as long as possible in Syria.  To be able to get the US to threaten a strike as they wished based on selective intelligence was a coup. Not to have the strike consummated was a setback. If the Iran/Russia influence grows and Assad is more secure than before, then these are also setbacks.

Turkey is losing. The Islamic government was perhaps the strongest supporter of a strike on Assad. Their dislike of Assad is so strong that they would even have supported a strike by Israel. But Turkey’s subservience to and support for all groups Islamic ( Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) is now becoming an embarrassment for Europe. Their application to join the EU is – I think – already lost.

The Great Game has a long way to run. It has been running for a thousand years and there are many more twists and turns to come. Many pieces will be lost and won by all the parties and there may never be a check-mate and a clear winner in this game. Having a clear winner always requires having a clear loser. Having a clear loser in the Middle East is not always a good thing.

And so a stalemate is probably the closest there is to a win-win.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Middle East, Politics, Syria | Comments Off on Keeping score in the great Syria chess game

Putin’s Nobel among other things

September 10, 2013

Vladimir Putin is arranging to be nominated for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize by a “neutral” 3rd party. The nomination will be on the grounds that since he is demonstrably more “peaceful” than a previous laureate (Obama) then his “case” stands proven beyond all reasonable doubt. 

(It has also been suggested that since Global Warming is now over, Al Gore could be asked to return his prize – voluntarily).

Senator John Kerry has been nominated to the Vatican as a “miracle worker” and for consideration for Sainthood. His miracle being that his offhand remark was seized upon by Divine Forces and Vladimir Putin to create the Syrian miracle. A Devil’s Advocate is being sought by the Vatican even though his canonisation can only be carried out posthumously. 

(It has been noted by Kerry’s team that Nobel Prizes are only awarded to the living while Catholic canonisation only applies to the departed and therefore Kerry could be eligible for both).

Bashar-al-Assad is now considering how under the pretext of protecting UN weapons inspectors and “verifiers”, the US could be inveigled into carrying out drone attacks on Al Qaida (and other rebel groups).

Barrack Obama is putting out the story that it was all his very devious idea and that it was he who had first suggested the solution to Putin during their frosty 20 minutes alone at the G20 meeting in Saint Petersburg.

David Cameron is competing with Francois Hollande to see who can produce the toughest draft resolution for the United Nations.

Cameron also claims that it was he who suggested the diplomatic route to Barrack Obama when he lost the vote in the UK House of Commons.

Al Qaida and The Arab League have gone into mourning.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics | Comments Off on Putin’s Nobel among other things

Obama hits pause button and Senate delays Syria vote

September 10, 2013

As I speculated yesterday, putting Syrian chemical weapons under International control has taken off as a potential “negotiated” solution which could avoid a US strike.

The speed with which the suggestion of international control has been taken on by so many of the parties including Syria (but excluding Al Qaida and the various opposition groups) is – I think – encouraging. But the message from the Obama administration is now incredibly mixed. Instead of giving the impression of an iron fist in a velvet glove the prevailing impression is of Obama having gone too far and now scrambling to avoid implementing a strike.

Even the Senate majority leader felt it necessary to delay any vote in the Senate. Members of Congress were also highly irritated by Kerry’s statement yesterday that the strike would be “unbelievably small”. This must have stung their egos — since of course nothing the Congress votes for can be for anything “unbelievably small”!

Support for President Obama’s call for military airstrikes in Syria is sliding on Capitol HIll.

President Obama’s push for congressional approval for military airstrikes in Syria ran aground Monday, forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to delay a procedural vote as opposition builds among senators in both parties.

Six senators, including five Republicans and one Democrat, announced Monday they would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force — a strong indication that the administration’s efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective.

The Senate was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a procedural motion to begin formal debate on the resolution, but Reid announced late Monday the vote would be delayed in order to buy the president more time to make his case to senators and the public.

“What we need to do is make sure the president has the opportunity to speak to all 100 senators and all 300 million American people before we do this,” Reid said.

The delay also came amid reports that Russia was seeking a deal with Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons program. Obama said in television interviews Monday such a deal could circumvent the need for U.S. military intervention, but senators had not been briefed on the development and expressed skepticism.

“I have no idea what’s going on. It’d be great if the Russians could convince Assad to turn over his chemical weapons to the international community. That’d be a terrific outcome. I just am very dubious and skeptical,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Comments made Monday in London by Secretary of State John Kerry describing the military effort as “unbelievably small” also rankled lawmakers. Graham said Kerry “undercut everything the president has been doing for the last couple of days” to build support.

That there was strong opposition to Obama’s war in the House was known but this has now spread to the Senate.

The rapid clip of senators announcing their opposition on Monday raised serious doubts that the president would be able to muster the necessary support in either the House or Senate. The GOP-led House is not likely to take up a resolution unless the Senate can pass it first. A final Senate vote was expected this weekend, but Reid’s decision to delay the formal debate puts the schedule in flux.

Five GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming all announced opposition Monday, as did Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Briefings by top administration officials and a weekend conversation with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel were not enough to sway Alexander. “I see too much risk that the strike will do more harm than good by setting off a chain of consequences that could involve American fighting men and women in another long-term Middle East conflict,” he said.

If a US strike does not take place the losers will be Obama (for being so strident so quickly) and Al Qaida.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Syria, US | Comments Off on Obama hits pause button and Senate delays Syria vote

Are Obama / Kerry preparing a face-saving exit?

September 9, 2013

UPDATE!

Looks like my speculations  this morning may not be so far off the mark:

Washington Post: 

Syria ‘welcomes’ Russia proposal on chemical arms

========================================================================

It might just be wishful thinking on my part or it could be that Obama and Kerry are preparing a face-saving path to abandoning their strike on Syria rather than suffer a humiliating rejection in the the US House of Representatives.

For the first time that I have noticed, Kerry is now “offering” Assad a way to avoid a strike – by giving up all his chemical weapons. I could be mistaken but I perceive the beginnings of a change in Kerry’s strident tone. The rhetoric for a strike from Kerry and Obama is not letting up – but it’s the first time that a possibility of a strike not happening has been mentioned. Of course if Congress and the Senate back Obama then there will be no need to back down and the exit path will become unnecessary. I also noted some US voices suggesting that Obama could postpone any vote in Congress until after some – so far – undefined moves in the UN as being advocated by the EU and other countries (including Russia). Putin for his part has also indicated that if the UN were shown the evidence and concurred then he would also support some – as yet unspecified – UN action against Syria.

Of course Assad would not/could not just give up his chemical weapons and certainly not to the US. But it is not unthinkable that he may be willing to put them under the control of his Russian allies. So if a suitable “formula” is evolved where the Russians perhaps “take charge” of Assad’s chemical weapons or in some other way secure their “safe-keeping” then Kerry and Obama could claim that their objective of preventing any further such attacks has been achieved. And if in addition the Russians are acting – or seen to be acting – on behalf of the UN in arranging such a scenario it would not only give Assad a way of saving face but also give the US the possibility to claim that Assad has conceded the supremacy of the UN. More importantly if such a scenario were being arranged it would give Obama and Kerry a “reason” for waiting with the vote in the House and for waiting with the strike.

If , in spite of the “red line having been crossed”, a US strike can be avoided by Assad ceding control of his chemical weapons then it seems to me to be something within the realm of negotiation. Especially when the benefits to the US of a very limited strike are not very evident. The benefits of such a strike  may mainly accrue to Al Qaida.

The key remains the US Congress. All “face saving” only becomes necessary and only comes into play if Obama expects to lose a vote in the House even after (and if) he has won a vote in the Senate. The next few days will tell if Obama’s rhetoric is holding sway in the House or whether he will need to use his exit strategy.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Russia, Syria, US | 1 Comment »

What do Obama, Blair and Al Qaida have in common?

September 6, 2013

They all want a  US strike on Syria – each for his own reasons.

Al Qaida has the most to gain by a weakening – rather than an elimination – of Assad’s regime. That would give them time to consolidate their dominance among the opposition groups while ensuring the eventual demise of Assad.

Tony Blair is desperate to show that all attacks by Western interests which help regime-change in the area are justified in themselves. His duplicity about WMD and Iraq will always dominate his place in History and that rankles. He is still looking for the argument which can support his fantasy that the intervention in Iraq – even without any WMD – was a good thing. He has just been interviewed by the BBC and this is to be aired on Monday. The excerpts released so far clearly reveal how utterly self-centred and self-serving he is.

What exactly Obama hopes to accomplish is quite unclear. It could be for intellectual satisfaction for having – recklessly – made his red-line box for himself. It could be to demonstrate his “moral superiority” and by extension that of the US. He (through Kerry) says 1429 people were killed by sarin gas. The French put the number at 281. The British said it was about 350. How will Obama measure success? By the number of fresh bodies on the ground? Score 1 for every Assad soldier killed! An “eye for an eye” or will he need to multply by ten to ensure that his actions are a deterrent? It is the gassing of children that must be addressed he says.  Is it only the manner of their deaths he wants to react to? How many children have died in US drone attacks so far?

Israel will be very satisfied if Syria remains in internal turbulence for as long as possible. Turkey’s Islamists will be very happy to see Assad go. Will Obama be satisfied for having strengthened Al Qaida and other Islamist groups?

Perhaps Obama with his drones and his “limited and targeted strike on Syria” is just one of the “wannabe soldier(s who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare”.

I think war is deplorable but unfortunately necessary. Human behaviour has not yet evolved to be able to avoid it. But war without any objective and primarily to demonstrate “moral superiority”?

Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College and writes in the Washington Post:

A war the Pentagon doesn’t want

…. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. 

 The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.

They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.

Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. …. 

…. Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.

Read the whole article.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Syria, US | Comments Off on What do Obama, Blair and Al Qaida have in common?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »