Reflections From a Murky Pond

There is often both truth and wisdom to be found in humor. Both are found in full measure in Glenn McCoy’s cartoon about the reasons that President Obama and his lackey, Attorney General Eric Holder want to enact the dangerous travesty of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his subhuman, Islamist ilk in civilian courts.

…So We Can Finally Bring George Bush To Justice

But hey! What can else can one expect from President Obama and his coterie? The boy got himself elected as the POTUS by running a successful Presidential campaign against the “lame duck” incumbent, President George Bush, Jr. – and he has blamed every one of his many failures and pathetic inadequacies upon the man since then. This is just Obama’s next logical step.

Back in October, 2002, when Barack Obama was a neophyte Senator from Illinois and attacking then President Bush’s attack upon the brutal and despotic regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Obama said that  he wasn’t against all wars; he was just opposed to dumb wars.

Now, truth be told, Obama’s outburst had more to do with scoring political points by attacking President Bush then with any firmly held convictions Obama might have possessed, but his point about “dumb wars” had a certain validity.

War is a dirty, bloody, horrific enterprise that should be undertaken, when possible, only after careful planning and with a clear goal and a exit strategy kept firmly in mind.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

– Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-IL)
October 2, 2002

It’s easy to argue that going into Iraq the second time was unneeded at that time, but harder to describe it as “dumb.” The operation was well-planned and we had clear objectives – though our exit strategy and the preconditions for such involved a time-frame that is largely unpalatable to the modern, “half-hour sitcom” format populace. It is also largely immaterial at this time; we’re pulling out of Iraq close to on schedule and the Administration that launched the war are no longer in power.

What About Afghanistan?

There’s a “dumb” war, if ever I saw one, and one that is growing more and more reminiscent of our protracted and ultimately failed engagement in Vietnam. What started out as a reasonably clear-cut punitive expedition by the US and NATO has become a quagmire.

General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of US & Allied Forces in Afghanistan, has pleaded for 40,000 more troops in order to prosecute the war there. President Obama and his administration seem very reluctant to provide those troops. The resulting schism between the US Military and the White House has become fodder for the media and various pundits.

For myself, I find this argument between the troops on the ground and the politicians in Washington D.C. to be ridiculous and a lethally stupid case of “putting the cart before the horse.” How can any decisions be made about the disposition of personnel and materiel before we have decided what the objective is?

What War Are We Fighting?

It’s rally a simple question and one that should have a relatively simple, if not necessarily easy, answer. I haven’t heard anyone – President Obama or Congress – provide that answer though.

• What are our strategic goals?
• What is the scope of our military’s mission?
• What constitutes the victory conditions?
• What is our exit strategy?

President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, is required to answer those questions; that is his job. So far he hasn’t done so and every day our soldiers, allied Afghan militiamen, and even those who we’re currently fighting against are dying for no defined purpose whatsoever.

On one lone point I agree with what Obama said before he was elected President; I’m opposed to dumb war as well.

Very recently President Obama approved sending approximately 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, his first significant move to change the course of the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda – a war that his closest military advisers have warned him that the United States is not winning with the current tactics and force levels. About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops. This represents a 50% increase in our force levels in Afghanistan, which was 34,000 troops.

A surge by any other name is still a surge. Strange, that President Obama no longer has a problem with such things when he’s not running for office against a Republican.

The Liberal Media (MSM) has been largely conciliatory in their reporting of Obama’s war in Asia Minor – when they haven’t been utterly silent on the topic. There’s little signs of outrage on their part over this escalation of violence by Obama, unlike their near constant ranting about the same topic under the Bush administration.

Why are we not being inundated by anti-war coverage from the MSM outlets? Why aren’t we seeing one contrived interview after another with protesters demanding that President Obama “bring the troops home?” Is the media – in love with- and well-controlled by Obama – effectively silencing dissent, or is there no actual significant dissent for them to silence? Are the Liberals finally tacitly admitting that they have no real objection to America’s efforts against terrorism and that their only issue was with President Bush?

Perhaps Obama has certain advantages. Perhaps a Black President can kill Brown people with greater social impunity than a White President can.

No matter what the reasons are for this disparate coverage and level of outrage over Bush’s and Obama’s prosecution of the War on Terror it’s still disgusting. It starkly points out the prejudice, ethical failings, and utter lack of patriotism of the Left in America. If – and that’s a very big “if” – this was wrong when President Bush did it, then it’s wrong when President Obama does it. If it is right when President Obama does it, then it was right when Presient Bush did it.

A surge by any other name is still a surge.