-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 15 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
A Further Perspective
Obama’s Tomahawk Chop
The futile gestures of a reckless and leaderless foreign policy.
Q: What sort of world do we live in where America’s enemies live in more fear of the French than of us?
A: The world that Barack Obama has long dreamed of.
It’s been said by quite a few pundits but it bears repeating: Barack Obama is a clueless internationalist academic whose statements on Libya are incoherent in the literal sense of the word (as George Will noted) and who is sowing a dangerous confusion.
At every opportunity, President Obama is repeating two underpinnings of his Libyan strategy: that the U.S. will give up control of the military operation to a coalition commander at the earliest possible time and that we are not targeting Gaddafi or even aiming for regime change since the UN resolution didn’t call for regime change.
First, regarding control: We’re spending the most money (130 Tomahawk missiles at over $600K each so far, plus the costs of moving ships and subs and flying jets) and we have the most to lose if this goes badly — and I don’t just mean monetarily. Let me be very clear on this point: Had we not gotten involved, we would have had much less than the Europeans, or even Libya’s neighbors such as Egypt and Tunisia, to lose. Now that Obama has committed the U.S. name, the prestige of the U.S. military, in a part of the world whose tendency toward bad behavior is reined in primarily by fear of the power and competency of the U.S. military — and the will of the U.S. to use it — a loss would have very bad long-term consequences for us. And a stalemate, which Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wouldn’t rule out as a possibility on Sunday, is a loss just as the stalemate in Vietnam was. With so much to lose, it’s unconscionable that Obama would hand control of the mission over to a non-U.S. commander.
Furthermore, from a technical level, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have each pointed out repeatedly that the U.S. has “unique capabilities” to bring to bear in Libya. This is certainly true. We have technology, especially relating to intelligence gathering and signal jamming, that nobody else has. How could it possibly make sense to give command over a technology to a foreign general or admiral who can’t have adequate knowledge of those systems’ capabilities and limitations since he’s never had to learn about them in depth, never having anticipated being put in charge of something his country doesn’t have?
Obama is going out of his way to make sure the U.S. doesn’t appear to be a bully and doesn’t appear to be, or be acting as, superior to other nations. To put it plainly, that’s a horrible strategic and tactical error, though not a surprising one from a man who has never had a real job, never lived in the real world in an experiential sense (at least not in America), and repeatedly disdained America’s leading position in the world. This is simply the latest step in Obama’s endless march to turn us into part of the EU under the thumb of a world government.
Regarding targeting Gaddafi and regime change, It CAN’T be that the goal is not regime change, and it shouldn’t be that we say explicitly that we’re not targeting Gaddafi… even if we’re not. Without regime change, the “coalition,” which is to say the U.S., will be stuck in an endless quagmire of no-fly zones and soon-to-be-needed peacekeeping forces. In other words, if the UN resolution is aimed at protecting civilians, and if Gaddafi remains in power, then the mission will never be completed. Thus, arguing that the mission is to save Libyan civilians is inconsistent with not aiming directly for regime change, if not aiming directly for Gaddafi’s head with a .50-caliber Browning sniper rifle.
If Obama wants to send a message about targeting, he should say “We are not targeting Gaddafi today. However, our coalition partners are allowed to set their own target priorities.” Even if Obama doesn’t have the courage to kill the mass-murderer, the only chance — albeit a slim one — of Gaddafi’s voluntarily giving up power is if he believes that he and his family suffer serious risk of a high-speed lead injection. Telling him that he’s not at such risk poses an analogous tactical risk as telling the Taliban that we’re pulling out of Afghanistan in July. The latter lets the enemy just wait us out; the former lets him operate with an impunity that a man who should be rotting in hell should most certainly not be feeling.
I would also suggest that Obama’s main points about control and targeting are politically stupid on his part. He’s not going to get any serious challenge for the 2012 presidential nomination, though some far-left loon like Dennis Kucinich might nominally give it a shot. This means that he should be doing everything in his power to recapture the independent vote who so stunningly abandoned him and his party in November.
By putting himself in a position where any and every Republican hopeful will castigate him for the control and regime change issues, President Obama is letting his future political opposition pick at an already festering scab and his biggest existing weakness: the perception that he is not a leader, that he cannot make a decision, and that Michelle Obama expressed the family’s true deep-seated feeling of never having been proud of the United States of America other than for its brief fawning over The One.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (79) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/23/obamas-tomahawk-chop
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
btims| 3.23.11 @ 6:13AM
What we are seeing is Obama's true philosophy - the worldview of Rev. Farakhan and Rev. Wright. The view that the US is too powerful and needs to be reduced in stature. That the US has been a force for ill in world history. Thus we have a war to "prove" the UN is the world authority. World government, if you will.
Likewise, treaty with the Russians that effecively put Russia in charge of what weapons we develop and deploy. Barry the Chimp is "uncomfortable" with a strong USA. Poor Barry. All you fools that voted for this man, this "type" of man. All one had to do was spend a little time researching his history. He hasn't changed a bit, like most people. People don't change much from their core beliefs. His whole like was surrounded by Marxists, socialists, anarchists and militant Muslims. I hope you at least have regrets.
Alan Brooks| 3.23.11 @ 7:13AM
And so your solution is to run Pawlenty, Romney, [fill in the blank], etc, next year?
gsr| 3.23.11 @ 7:39AM
Did I propose a solution or do you just like to make irrelevant, snarky comments to show how hip you are? Duh.
Alan Brooks| 3.23.11 @ 7:50AM
are you saying you are not hip?
Matt Morehouse | 3.23.11 @ 10:27AM
Not "Hip" and proud of it.
Alan Brooks| 3.23.11 @ 8:05PM
Well smarty pants, I have a code pink sweater and scarf so I'm actually doing something about the problem.
Alan Brooks| 3.23.11 @ 11:49PM
C'mon, whomever wrote the above comment, be a MAN about it and write your name. Your IPO is available for AS to see- unless you use an anonymous PC, but why would you go to that sort of trouble in doing ID theft?
Alan Brooks| 3.24.11 @ 2:08AM
I get so angry when someone posts drivel, mindless drivel on the AS board is my domain, as a liberal I'm entitled to it.
vladdy| 3.26.11 @ 1:34PM
What?
Anita| 3.23.11 @ 11:43AM
Everything that Obama has done and will do is calculated to the extreme. His determination to destroy our military, space program, financial institutions, health, prosperity is going right-on-target.
Surely you have children that you want a better future for?
It will not be with Obama.
Kishego| 3.23.11 @ 3:34PM
Any one of them are head and shoulders above this clown.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.23.11 @ 6:54AM
Middle East strife seems to involve one set of theocracy based goons killing another set of theocracy based goons, both of which hate the USA. Now if you believe either faction in these conflicts has democracy on their mind, you brother, are smoking the ganja; no one yet has ever been able to explain to me how they actually chose sides.
Typically, after they are done killing each other the survivors build a Mosque and set about martyring themselves to defeat the “Great Satan” (us). In order to accomplish “jihad” they strap bombs to their children to blow up our allies children or fly planes into our buildings. If we show indignation at this monstrous display of devotion to their deity and we send our military to dispatch the perpetrators, they, what else, cower and hide behind their children.
These people have issues, they have issues with each other, they have issues with their God (seems they have factions also), and they always have issues with bordering states; it makes absolutely no difference what religion, political system, language or race those states display.
My conclusion is this; these enemies only grasp one concept. Their epiphany will be the future President of the United States stating, “When my hand comes off the Inauguration Bible it will be reaching for the Red Button.” Reagan Leadership #101, the hostages will be released, the oil will flow, and the cash they need to gold plate all those minarets will also flow since our economy runs on oil.
The instant we dither, the battle is lost. The first time we negotiate, the negotiations end. If we take one step back, to them it is turning and running. This is black and white, we must be completely in or out completely, we must engage to the fullest or totally disengage.
Ask the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs about no-fly zones, and then ask yourself if "surge" is a viable technique, or simply a small degree of what it takes to actually win. Provide them weapons, you bet, ceremonial surrender swords (which they do not get to keep).
chuck| 3.23.11 @ 7:00AM
Without a doubt the worst occupant of the oval office ever. Makes Carter look like a brilliant leader. The Democrat party should hang its head in shame for nominating this fool, the media, with its love affair for this idiot should never again be listened to, and the American people hopefully has learned one helluva lesson, that is, never ever elect a person that is this obviously unqualified!
NedB| 3.23.11 @ 8:17AM
There is one big difference between Obama and Carter. Obama is incapable of making a decision. When a tough decision comes up that is outside of his world view, he will always vote "Present!"
Carter could at least make a decision. It was always the wrong decision, but he could make them.
Nancy in NC| 3.23.11 @ 12:08PM
Spot on!
Obeyme's timing is awful. He misses every window of opportunity...dithering is an understatement. But that's the outcome when you have no principles.
Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:11PM
He is not the worst occupant of the Oval Office ever. Neither was Carter. That dubious distinction belongs to James Buchanan, hands down. 15th President of the US (Lincoln was 16)---look him up. His stupidity got 600,000 Americans killed. We did not have 600,000 fatalities in WWII, from a much larger army.
However, he's fighting hard with Carter to be the second worst (yes, below Harding).
Rick Z| 3.23.11 @ 7:05PM
The Civil War casualty figure is for BOTH sides .... the total number of Americans who lost their lives.
Appleby| 3.23.11 @ 7:16AM
Obama is trying to ride two horses, and that trick cannot work; you cannot serve both God and Mammon.
Alternatively, the eternal college sophomore is still trying to find the answers in the back of the book. He cannot admit he is looking in the wrong book.
The Bishop| 3.23.11 @ 8:25AM
"Eternal college sophomore." That's a great description of this perpetual adolescent.
Anthony| 3.23.11 @ 9:02AM
Actually, Obozo is riding two horses rather sucessfully. One can indeed serve Allah and Marxism at the same time, he's doing it as we speak.
joedoc| 3.23.11 @ 7:29AM
Obama and his staff are children playing in a grown up world. They have been clueless about everything since the word go. I truly don't think they know that actions have cconsequences. Two more years of this could be the death of the country.
Nancy in NC| 3.23.11 @ 12:09PM
Could be? I think it's a sure thing...or a bloody revolt. People in this country are ticked off, and many are looking for any excuse to go postal...on both sides.
martin j smith| 3.23.11 @ 7:29AM
This is our "phoney war" as in WWII ( the term was used as well ) but we may be dragged into a major world war once we find out who is in control in the middle east region and what they have in store. It will take time for the dust to settle but once it does --
Obama is way over his head at our expense.
Richard Baker| 3.23.11 @ 7:46AM
Are we sure that our efforts in Libya aren't just helping the Moslem Brotherhood to achieve their Caliphate in the region? I'm sure that the Kenyan and his stellar team have thought this through, sure.
Prester john| 3.23.11 @ 7:48AM
And where were Sec of Def Gates and Adm Mullens during the decision making process for all of this?
You would think one or both of them would've resigned.
Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 8:59AM
The military is full of career bureaucrats who will go along to get along to preserve there hides.
Ted| 3.23.11 @ 11:40AM
You hit that gnat in the eye on the first try....
Pelligrino| 3.23.11 @ 2:07PM
Mike D., correct. I have posted it here before and will until I see some huge seismic shift in our armed forces leadership.
Typically lieutenant colonels and above (matters not what service/branch) have shown incredible adeptness at having no principles other than self preservation and self-promotion.
They game the system. They just engage in self-service instead of selfless service.
Once more, how many senior officers have turned in letters of resignation in open protest to the repeal of DADT? Silence?
That issue alone will cripple a force. Junior leaders are not there to be social work specialists. They will now contend with hanky-panky round-the-clock every day of the week.
I use that only as an example of how spineless and without mores our military brass is.
As for Mullen and Gates? They'd a been toast at the outset of an Obama regime if they'd have not given their (muted? gutless?) thumbs up to gays.
In less than 10 years you will be totally embarrassed for what we used to call the military. All part of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Clinton-Kennedy-Kerry-Dukakis-Biden pedal-to-the-metal destruction of one last pillar of American society.
(they put pansies at the top for a reason now)
Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 3:37PM
Totally agree. Its me first, country second. Thats why we are where we are. There is very little leadership that truly loves this country and is willing to make the stand. Thats sad. There is such an opportunity for great leaders that could be historic leaders and nobody wants to step up.
If the military leadership rolls over, then all is lost.
Frisbee| 3.23.11 @ 10:14PM
Thanks for your insights Pellegrino and Mike.
Nancy in NC| 3.23.11 @ 12:14PM
I know the rank and file military are sick of this mess. They are tired of deploying back and forth to Afghanistan every few months, and they hate the rules of engagement. Plus there is no end in sight, and we head off to another sand lot. To add insult to injury, the military is being cut. How would you like to fight with one arm tied behind your back with an old rifle? We are selling our patriots down the river while the elite in DC play with their and our future. It's disgusting.
David T| 3.23.11 @ 8:06PM
Nancy in NC--You are right on the mark. I work for DOD and everyday I see the deleterious effects of bad policies and increased operational tempo.
vladdy| 3.26.11 @ 1:43PM
David T: I can't begin to imagine. And I thought seeing the ugliness inside public education was bad...At least nobody gets killed.
Let me correct that. Since the students graduating end up so dumb, they elect Obama. And people DO get killed.
gsr| 3.23.11 @ 7:50AM
Only two things can get the USA back on track:
1) Develop all forms of domestic energy resources.
2) Reduce all forms of immigration.
But Dem & Repub elites don't want to do either.
They both seek to "spread the wealth", "equalize outcomes", fight for so called "social justice" around the world. Mass immigration in integral to this philosophy. Mass immigration whittles away at nation-hood, at national sovereignty.
The result: Global governance. Trans-nationalism. World government.
Buh-bye USA......
Grzmlyk| 3.23.11 @ 4:04PM
I disagree with developing ALL forms of domestic energy resources.
The truth is, when you look at producing energy at the macro level - man hours it takes in various ways to get it out of the environment and put it to work - many resources are net negatives.
Ethanol is an excellent example, but wind and solar are as well. These solutions will NEVER produce the bang for the buck that will make them viable.
Them's the facts of physics, both economic and natural. Don't forget, we've been dicking around with these "alternative" sources for half a century or longer.
We would do much better to focus on reality. Drilling for oil/natural gas/oil shale whever it lies and beefing up our supply of nuclear reactors. But of course the Japanese tragedy may have killed nukes in this country forever.
Until we can figure out a way to produce cold fusion or some other miracle, it is unwise to throw sops to people whose hope overreaches their grasp.
davelnaf| 3.23.11 @ 7:57AM
One cannot say enough in the way of criticism about how literally clueless Obama is about the real job of president and not the one he decided to invent for himself, throwing away two centuries plus of trial and error in the process. But the job he invented is really a hyper version of LBJ, complete, as it seems now, with a useless little war.
jppc| 3.23.11 @ 8:16AM
Calling the Vietnam War "useless", today in 2011, is non-serious.
It may seem useless or foolish today but in the early 1960s, when much, in fact, most of the world was either Marxist or leaning toward Marxism, the Vietnam War (or more accurately, the US portion of the several wars that went on between North & South Vietnam), can be seen as understandable. A push-back against world communism.
Mike W| 3.23.11 @ 9:45AM
I think davelnaf had it pegged - Vietnam was useless or worse. It gave life to the absolutely toxic leftist mentality we have in the media and in academia today. At a smaller scale, the pointless Iraq war gave us the current occupant in the White House and it gave us Democrat control in 2006 - 20010.
Ned| 3.23.11 @ 11:44AM
The Vietnam war was merely the excuse for the "toxic leftist mentality we have... today."
The real reason we became plagued by the ignorant, narcissistic, hard-left ideology of the 20% minority of my generation was their own overwhelming personal cowardice. The substantiation of that can be clearly seen in the fact that the anti-war protests stopped cold when the draft was ended, even though the war continued.
Once *they* wouldn't have to go most of the protestors, shriekers and screamers couldn't be bothered with Vietnam any longer. The few that did continue their treasonous activities (such as John Kerry) did so for personal, and political advancement.
Grzmlyk| 3.23.11 @ 4:19PM
I'm with you, jppc: Hindsight is 20/20. Back in the day, the domino theory prevailed among the "best and the brightest." And there was a great deal of truth to it.
To apply 2011 sensibilities to a time and place in the past, whose outcome we now know, is puerile. And there are a million "coulda, shoulda, wouldas" that might have changed the prosecution and/or outcome of that conflict.
And for folks to say that Vietnam was the impetus to unleash the leftist mentality - well, I may agree that it was a coming out party, so to speak, for the mainstream media, and that's when they began to dominate. But it wasn't until Watergate that the rout was on in terms of pop culture taking a hard left turn.
But of course the leftist mentality's origins reach much further into the past than VietNam; the history of progressivism and elitists in the press and among the literati goes back to the mid-19th century - and even further back to the Enlightenment - and even further back still.
Man's penchant for building utopias (a book written, by the way, in 1516) is an evil that has been with us since the dawn of civilization.
I deeply lament that, just as entropy always claims its place in the physical world, the chaos of liberalism will always prevail over the order it seeks to destroy.
vladdy| 3.26.11 @ 1:47PM
And the hubris BO displays is stunning. Who would think they were qualified to be president of the U.S. when they didn't even grow up here (regardless of birth), came from a foreign (enemy) culture, and got by all his life by knowing people and by skin color?
"This year's different. You've got me." "I have a gift, Harry." "We are the people we've been waiting for." "I won."
A profile in character and courage.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 12:00PM
Spambot
Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 12:01PM
Spambot v2.0
Mike D.| 3.23.11 @ 9:05AM
More than 40 percent of the voters in this country will vote for this clown again NO MATTER WHAT. Don't EVER doubt that.
Nobody should ever underestimate the ignorance level that a sizeable portion of the population of this country has decended to.
Pelligrino| 3.23.11 @ 2:15PM
Mike D. correct once more. And to ensure more liberal tendencies & results at the ballot box, bring in lots of immigrants, so much so that the system is overwhelmed. We don't know where they are, who they are, where or if they work.
But...somehow citizenship is obtained and then voila! a voter at the ballot box for primaries and in Novembers who hasn't a clue.
(A person who is inclined to vote for entitlement programs and social welfare because those overly benevolent goodies are how he or she got by -- oh, still gets by?)
Tim the Enchanter| 3.23.11 @ 12:01PM
Spambot v3.0
Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 8:36AM
Lat me pre thank Big E and Simon T for all the valuable contributions they'll make once they get out of bed.
I know they will be full of it, knowledge, like who's on first.
I'm breathless with anticipation.
Mimi| 3.23.11 @ 8:44AM
I am so nauseated at writing about the folly , foolishness, destructive " OBAMA" , sometimes I think I'll stop... He makes me downright SICK !!
Is there NO-ONE in this country who can STOP this ongoing, tragic, excuse for a LEADER ? Where are you? .....ANYBODY ???
Has anyone else....HAD IT !!!!
vladdy| 3.26.11 @ 1:50PM
Mimi: I know the feeling. And I'm sure millions of others are screaming the same thing in their heads. Something has to break....it's like we're on the edge of a cliff, and begin to teeter-totter.
Bill| 3.23.11 @ 9:25AM
If we had left the Libyan effort to the U.N. and NATO to run on their dimes and with their troops and technology, we'd have had lots of wiggle room and no chance of backing Muslim terrorist insurrectionists with our arms.
As it is, we will look like total buffoons if the Libyan revolt wins and turns out to be anti-Western. And what if Khaddafi wins, which he might? We'll look like the paper tigers we've been accused of being ever since Vietnam.
Gunnutmegger | 3.23.11 @ 9:41AM
Uh, American Spectator web guru?
The picture accompanying this article is a Harpoon missile, not a Tomahawk.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.23.11 @ 1:27PM
The power you weld is amazing. They have changed the graphic.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.23.11 @ 9:59AM
Gunnutmegger,
In light of the new “non-war” instituted by our “Subservient in Chief” I would not worry too much about nomenclature. They are going to rename them “Glitter Stick” and “Sparkle Rod.” They will be easily distinguishable as one will be painted pink and the other lavender.
Yosemeti Sam| 3.23.11 @ 12:09PM
Roman candles, anyone?
LOL.
martin j smith| 3.23.11 @ 10:09AM
The main benefit for Obama on this adventure is to: Change the subject from the domestic economy. Except there is one little problem here. The word is Oil and the region the middle east and its tie to oil.
I do not for one minuit believe these rebels in any region are "freedom fighters" not the ones best organized at least. Its a question of which group get hold first and their might be in fighting among the Jihadists which is ok by me except that will probably lead to civilian casualties. Will or does Obama care ? No. As I and others have said Obama's main concern is about Obama and nothing else. The call for domestic drilling may well reverberate larger than before but, whether by accident or design we may get dragged into a major World War . Lets not forget a few things: Iran and Russia and our dear friend China. They will use our preoccupation with threats to harm us to be sure.
Finally there is not one thing Obama says I believe is the truth except if he said : I would like to be your President for life. Well not president really but I would like to play one like on TV.
And then there is this: I don't know about you folks but I get a great fun out of writing posts to the extent that it is really letting out how I see things and seeing how others do as well. However, I think it is necessary to get beyond that phase and really prepare for the 2012 elections in a number of areas: Get out the vote, fight voter fraud and until then block Obama as much as possible in his agenda. In that regard the real test will come after this last three week CR is over.
jppc| 3.23.11 @ 10:15AM
Good thoughts but as long as the huge influx of poor and lowly educated Latinos flood into the country, who by a ratio of about three out of four support big government liberal policies and the huge number of Americans who work for the federal, state and local governments and consequently almost always vote for more social programs/spending........we as conservative/Constitutional advocates are screwed.
Our country just may be kaput.
Pelligrino| 3.23.11 @ 2:40PM
Particularly as so many immigrants (even those here for 15-20 years) are still not fluent and truly conversant in American English. They are certainly NOT literate.
So they are unaware of what a more informed segment of the society is saying, discussing, debating.
Note: There are certain societies in the world that are more literate. Just land at any airport in the world and look at the bookshops (if they exist) before departing the building or comlex at the taxi stands or bus stops.
More importantly, try to find bookstores or newstands in that foreign city. This tells all.
Here is the key: Why do we seem to prefer immigrants from less literate societies?
vladdy| 3.26.11 @ 1:55PM
And the foreign and uneducated not only vote for spending...they also bring along their "it's normal" attitude about corruption, bribes, and frauds.
Yeh, some want to be Americans. But many more see America as their goodie bag, a place to come and take from...and then send "home," where their true allegiance lies.
As for assimilation...What's that?
marilyn| 3.23.11 @ 11:58AM
Hello! This is not news. Peruse Obama's Audacity of Hope; he describes his thinking. Who does he take direction from? Hmmm? Obama's not stupid; read his body language. He does everything with a motive. Instead of critizing him, connect the dots and it becomes clear how he believes he's right on course.
Richard Baker| 3.23.11 @ 12:23PM
jppc:
Agree with your ideas on Vietnam. In the early '60s the worldview regarding Communism was very different. A temptation in history is to judge an earlier day by the present. Bad idea. What is known later is not known earlier. As an example, I give you the Venona files.
Thom| 3.23.11 @ 5:48PM
Richard,
I try hard to avoid the 20/20 hindsight analysis also but what was known with crystal clear knowledge was “Korea” and how that came out. Vietnam was Korea on steroids meaning we set about fighting a grossly inefficient defensive war with very limited objectives and no effort to destroy the enemy military forces (NVA) and their capacity to wage war (and support an insurgency in South Vietnam). When you look at the force levels on both sides (US, ARVN, Allies and the NVA engaged plus the VC you can’t come away with anything but wonder at how we “lost”. We had overwhelming force at our disposal but never used it in its proper context and for offensive means. We never took the war to the enemy in other words. We’ve done the same thing in Afghanistan for the most part with the same results as Vietnam thus far (and a whole lot smaller force level).
The Art of War hasn’t really changed the much in 5000 years but an understanding of what that means certainly has. Hence we have the Three Stooges blundering into another military adventure without the slightest concept of what can be accomplished and no idea of what it will look like when they get through playing “army” with some of the worlds’ most expensive chess pieces……
vladdy| 3.26.11 @ 2:08PM
By this time after Iraq started, wasn't the old media all screaming "quagmire" and weren't the streets full of protesters with "Warmonger" and "No War for Oil" signs?
Guess they don't know that France, who began this, gets most of their oil from Libya, while we get little. It's not even war for U.S. oil; it's war for French oil.
Pelligrino| 3.23.11 @ 2:31PM
This scenario in Libya and throughout the Med Sea/Arabia is made to order for the Obama team and its cohorts in the US Congress (US Supreme Court as well?)
1. We are now involved; easy to start, hard to stop, desist.
2. This breaks more military hardware. Forces us to spend more on it. Ratchets up the billions in expenses ultra fast.
3. Thus the spending deficits will climb. Hard to get GOP hawks & conservatives to say no to a military request or need.
4. Digs the US hole deeper, faster.
5. Gives the military one more very public 24/7 opportunity to fail in some kind of glaring way. Liberals hate the "We support the troops!" overall US sentiment. They need to knock more dents into this.
6. Gets us off jobs creation (What Obama-Biden will never wish to focus on until 40 days prior to November 2012).
7. Silences budget cuts/FY 2012 budget plans.
8. Helps the expansion of the evil islam onward march once even a despicable tyrant like M. Kadafi is toast. (The muslim brotherhood is on the move)
9. Gives every reason to push oil prices higher, thus creating more inflation, food prices way up, less money in the middle class, more grave uncertainties, less business start-ups, less hiring.
This is ideal for Obama in more ways than just the above. It will come out somewhat okay in the end because M. Kadafi will be gone and this is something that Reagan, and two Bushes could not do.
But the real goals are very nefarious. If present POTUS has to look a little inept in the short-run process, who cares? (from his perspective)
They always bank on a very short-term memory in about 40% of the electorate.
Al Adab| 3.23.11 @ 6:12PM
Au contrere. As we and our allies expend the supply of cruise missles, the factories will have to manufacture replacement- jobs. We will sell them to our allies - balance of trade. Heck, even the bad guys might want to buy some. That way they could get their WMD into the US from any old fishing boat.
J.Timpson| 3.23.11 @ 3:22PM
Ahem,In '86 Regan,the grand poo-bah of conservatism put 60 tons of bombs on Gadaffi in 12 minutes and a multi million dollar F-111 was destroyed by a SAM,It's USAF crew KIA.Maybe in 20 years a disgruntled,revisionist electorate will hold a future president in the same lens of history at decision time to satisfy a need for argument ad hominem.The body electorate and by proxy the political system need a lesson in ethics from the founding fathers.
ABNCP| 3.23.11 @ 6:14PM
This President and his Administration have taken lying to a unique level. There is almost nothing that comes out of Obama's mouth that is not deception, misinformation, half truths or dammed lies. I sincerly hope that the GOP puts together a montage of everything this clown has said from the runup to the 2008 election through the 2012 primarys. If that does not kill any chance of a second term for this fool, than the American people deserve what we will get. Of course that implies the GOP has the balls to do something like that. From what I have seen since last November most of the old boys can be identified as dumb and dumber. There is one person who certainly has that ability, but she may not run.
Rick Z| 3.23.11 @ 7:01PM
Would that be Barrett .50 cal Sniper Rifle ? Such as model M-82.
The Browning M2 is the standard .50 caliber machine gun of the US armed forces, and dozens of other nations. There is no Browning sniper rifle.
Richard Baker| 3.23.11 @ 7:20PM
Rick Z:
I think he mixed the ideas regarding the .50 caliber rifle. Regardless, whether a Barrett or McMillan, they do use the Browning designed round and that's probably how it all got mixed up.
Richard Baker| 3.23.11 @ 7:33PM
Thom:
Read your post. The problem after WWII was that the junior officers, Lieutenant Colonel and below, tried to refight the Big War afterwards when they became Generals in Korea and Vietnam because the institutional memory was about Big Unit Combat and not guerrilla, human wave attacks, or any other kind of war. For evidence, I suggest you read David Hackworth's "About Face." Unfortunately, unless there's a push from above to change, Generals tend to fight the war they've learned in Service Schools. That and the interference by the Civil Authority. FDR left the fighting and tactics, if not great influence on the strategy, to Admiral King and General Marshall. That hasn't been done since 1945, ergo, our confusion regarding the use of Military Force in the present day.
Emma| 3.24.11 @ 12:54AM
And apparently all of this dangerous nonsense is ok with Congress, since none of them are rising up to object or take action to stop him. A few of them are hitting the talk shows and apparently need to be reminded that the talk shows are not part of the appointed powers of our Constitutional Republic. Congress has been given specific powers. Are they going to exercise them? Or are they just going to silently go along to get along? Have they been bought off? Are they scared of this pretender? What is going on with Congress?
Tenn Slim| 3.26.11 @ 9:35AM
Well Said, author.
Our current Oval office sitter simply is residing there for one purpose, the Demise of the USA.
USA 0 Obama 1 and growing.
end
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:31PM
is good