NATIONAL SECURITY: “Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely,” by Evan Perez, Wall Street Journal, 14 May 2009; “Obama Moves to Bar Release of Detainee Abuse Photos,” by Jeff Zeleny and Thom Shanker, New York Times, 14 May 2009; and “President Should Not Cut Corners on National Security,” by Peter Hoekstra, Washington Times, 14 may 2009
As I read these three articles I asked myself: How is this any different than the Bush administration policies? I think President Obama is realizing that campaign promises, especially those related to national security that are made without the benefit of key information, are difficult to keep.
Here are a couple quotes I found telling from the first two articles:
"The proposal being floated with members of Congress [regarding what to do with Guantanamo detainees] is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized."
"...but Mr. Obama changed his mind after seeing the photographs and getting warnings from top Pentagon officials that the images, taken from the early years of the wars, would “further inflame anti-American opinion” and endanger troops in two war zones."
"Several left-leaning groups, which had been fierce critics of the Bush administration, said they were stunned by the decision [not to release the abuse photos]. Human Rights Watch called it a blow to transparency and accountability. And Mr. Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U., suggested that the Obama administration was “covering up not only for the Bush White House, but for itself.”"
Telling adoring voters on the campaign trail that when you're president you'll reverse all the "evil" things the incumbent administration has done in the name of protecting America, is a far cry from actually making it happen once the reality of the dangers that exist to the U.S. sets in. Decisions related to Guantanamo detainees and abuse photos can't be made in a vacuum. There are significant second and third order affects associated with these decisions.
I think Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) does a nice job of summing up the problems that Obama is having with his national security decision making process.
"President Obama...is fast realizing the consequences of ignoring sound leadership principles."
"We are watching a president trying to govern from his heart and not his head on national security. He is ignoring proven leadership principles."
"...Mr. Obama has made a series of impulsive decisions, which I believe could seriously undermine U.S. national security."
National security decisions are difficult enough without the added complexity of political manuevering. The National Security Council and interagency exist to provide the president with the best options possible for keeping America safe. The process may not be perfect, but it's what we have.
Also see:
4 comments:
I've been attempting to keep my powder dry re: BHO. But for Christ's sake...how is this guy getting such a free pass from tMSM??? Given his campaign rhetoric about change, change, change...what exactly is he doing different regarding the clash of civilizations/war on terror front? Talk about inexperience and platitude spouting running head on with ... Read Moregeopolitical reality. What a joke. As best I see,the only major difference between BHO and GWB's foreign policy is that BHO has no problem hugging and fist-bumping with Hugo Chavez, bowing to the eigth century Saudi monarch and remaining silent when yet another Latin American potentate bashes the United States for an hour...in his very presence. WTF???
The Hoekstra article did a great job of summing things up. If you did not read it, I would check it out. Hope you are well.
I love you guys, but you're missing one key point of all this. The Republicans primary 2010 campaign strategy hinges on Barack Obama failing - they don't really have any major new or innovative ideas right now. The *ONE* thing they have right now is national security. They Reps have a leadership vacuum right now and Rush, Cheney, and others are out speaking their minds and trying to pull the reigns. The only thing that has really stuck in Cheney's gloom and doom about America's safety and about Barack's reversal of Bush's policies. So, not only do I think that there are no good alternative solutions for Guantanomo (other than the fact that we should have never opened that f!@#$% to begin with - the same with Iraq - but those are completely other subjects), but the last thing Barack wants to chance right now is to change course in one of these really sticky subjects and then have it backfire on him. It would cost the Democrats significantly in 2010 and him in 2012. And, given the realities on the ground and the fact that there are just no good alternative solutions, why in the hell would he risk it. F!@# it, just keep the f!@#$% in place. And, if he takes some heat from the left constituency, whatever. As long as he governs from the center, he and the Democrats will be fine moving forward. At the end of the day, most Americans are not going to mess with any major policy that could impact American's safety. So, sure, it's easy to criticize him about this, but I think it's just practical policy. BUT LET'S NOT FORGET, THOSE F!@#$% UP BUSH POLICIES SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PUT IN PLACE FROM THE BEGINNING AND WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE INTO IRAQ - YES, SADAAM WAS A F!@#$% UP DICTATOR, BUT HE KEPT IRAN IN CHECK AND KEPT THE REGION STABILIZED. SO, DON'T START THINKING THAT BUSH'S POLICIES WERE SOUND - THEY WEREN'T! THAT'S THE WALL STREET JOURNAL AND OTHER RIGHT WING HACKS TALKING - AND PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO MP - I WELCOME HIS THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS - plus, I woudn't mind connecting with him; it's been a long time. If you get this MP - was gibt's neues?
peace
w
W,
Doesn't every campaign strategy hinge on the other party failing, or at least being perceived to have failed...?
I don't care who is doing what to whom politically. My concern is that they keep politics out of the national security decision making process. Politicians, and the American people, need to learn that it's silly to make campaign promises on national security issues if you don't have ALL available information. Just ONCE, I would like to hear a politician respond by saying, "I don't really know the answer to that national security related issue, because I don't have access to the information, yet."
Post a Comment