A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.
Daniel Webster
The UBL Operation and Obama's "Courageous" Decision
I think many of my fellow conservatives take issue with my leanings towards non-interventionist foreign policy. The fact is, I've never been a supporter of activist government. I want a smaller government footprint across the board; I view the proper role of government like a good waiter: it's there when needed without being asked, it doesn't interrupt the flow of the occasion, it resolves any differences I may have with the chef over the dinner transaction, and it keeps away bothersome diners whom would intrude on my dining experience. In exchange for those services, I'm willing to pay a reasonable fee.
The Founding Fathers had struggled with the concept of a standing military: on the one hand, they understood that raising a military only after attack might provide a tempting target for aggressors eyeing our natural resources, a captive market for their exports, a foothold for imperial expansion, etc. After all, pulling together a poorly trained and led, inexperienced military after the fact of invasion by experienced warriors knowledgeable in the art of war would be too little, too late. On the other hand, a standing military might be used for more than purely defensive purposes, expanding its global reach in a more proactive manner to establish more remote firewalls and to protect vital economic and other interests.
There's a wisdom in knowing one's limitations or locus of control, the boundaries of your freedom and interests versus another's. I have certain values; I don't smoke, gamble, use drugs or drink to excess; I don't approve of sexually indulgent lifestyles, the ways some parents raise their kids or certain husbands treat their wives, or the activities of certain groups (e.g., Westboro Baptists). Would I ever intervene? It depends on the context: my resources and physical limitations, the nature and extent of the other party's behavior, and the probability of success and unintended consequences (among other things). My general orientation is not to interfere in the internal matters of others. Generally I won't complain about other people smoking unless I'm directly affected by secondary smoke. I might give my opinion on smoking to an indulgent friend or family member whom smokes but not to the point it becomes counterproductive to the relationship.
Similar considerations go into international matters. I realize that our Bill of Rights (or related Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is not recognized globally, and many, if not most, countries do not have as robust a judicial system. But in the end, where there is injustice in other lands, we can, at best, serve only as a catalyst for change: the people must ultimately assert their own authority and their governance by consent.
For years, I've noticed one puzzling American intervention after another, particularly in the Western Hemisphere (e.g., Grenada and Panama); if we could reconcile decades ago with Communist China, why not Cuba? I would like to see an Americas' free trade zone.
It was difficult for me to see what compelling self-defense rationale there was for intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq. (I will say, though, that Hussein's subsequent attempt to assassinate former President George HW Bush did constitute, in my judgment, an act of war.) This is not to say that I approved of the target countries' de facto government or policies; the question had more to do with our serving as a proxy for relevant global or regional efforts which I saw more in terms of moral hazard
Afghanistan? The fact of the matter was that Al Qaeda had declared war on the US in the mid-1990's, rationalizing it based on US bases on Saudi Arabian soil. On this issue, I have a difference with Ron Paul: I might question the necessity or prudence of any such bases, but I don't recognize the legitimacy of a dissident group on diplomatic matters. The fact is that the Iraq government under Hussein did threaten military action against Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. Al Qaeda acted on multiple military actions against the US (e.g.,. the military barracks attack, the USS Cole, and the 9/11 atrocities), and the Taliban regime was tied to Al Qaeda leadership. I think that the US had the right to intervene insofar as Al Qaeda remained a credible threat inside Afghanistan; I never saw our role as nation building inside Afghanistan.
On the other hand, I never bought into the Democrats' favorite talking point, in trying to rationalize their opposition to the second operation against Iraq, i.e., despite the fact that we have one of the largest armed forces in the world, despite the victory of the US and her allies in WWII on two fronts (Europe and Asia), the Democrats incoherently argued that manpower for Afghanistan and the pursuit of Al Qaeda was in a zero-sum relationship with our Iraq occupation activities: we were fighting the "wrong" war. (In fact, I recall reading one account by an alleged UBL escort that one American GI walked past a cave where they were hiding.)
Whereas UBL was clearly enemy #1 in the eyes of almost all Americans, I always thought that the Democrats' spin was hopelessly naive and, in fact, dangerous. The Bush Administration clearly stymied Al Qaeda's intent for a second attack on the American homeland, and UBL was in hiding. The fact of the matter is that it is not easy to catch a fugitive; it took some time to capture Saddam Hussein after the liberation of Iraq. Putting more cooks in the kitchen does not make the water boil faster. Most of the information used to eventually capture UBL was gathered during the Bush Administration. The idea that any Republican leader, whether George W. Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney, wouldn't have made the decision to take UBL dead or alive given the opportunity, is absolutely preposterous.
Why dangerous and naive? Because UBL was just one person, admittedly a very symbolic leader, of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda still exists and remains dangerous. I was concerned about autonomous reprisal attacks by independent cells after the UBL operation. Now Obama implicitly acknowledges it by the expansion of his drone missions over Pakistan, Yemen, and (yes) Iran (which wasn't too smart given the fact that any downed drone provides an opportunity to reverse engineer our drone technology).
I think Romney and others can speak for themselves. Even though I have differences with Romney's stances on the military and foreign policy, he is unambiguous in his support for a strong US defense. If anyone should be questioned over credibility on UBL, how could we rely on an unabashed President going around the world his first year in office apologizing for the actions of his predecessors, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize: could we expect him to intervene militarily without knowledge or consent of our ally, Pakistan, about an operation within a few miles of the Pakistan capital?
The Obama campaign is trying to smear Romney by arguing he would not have had the testicular fortitude to make a decision to go after UBL based on this 2007 statement:
The campaign suggests Romney would not have ordered the raid by pointing to a 2007 interview with The Associated Press in which Romney said: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."The fact that a spendthrift President, who has gone $5T in debt in order to achieve one of the weakest jobless recoveries in American history, doesn't understand the difference between the "big picture" of dealing with anti-American terrorists, which go over and beyond UBL, and a largely neutralized solitary figure living on the run is not surprising.
Yes, it was cathartic to know this international criminal was brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. And in fact, as The Hill notes, Romney responded with class towards the Navy SEAL operation (for which, I believe, President Obama takes far too much credit):
At the time of the raid, Romney congratulated Obama, the military and the intelligence community for "an extraordinary accomplishment.” He called it an "American" accomplishment as well, as opposed to a political victory.How desperate, pathetic, indecent, and hypocritical is the Obama campaign? Let us remember the 2008 campaign, when the Clinton campaign went after Obama on the 3AM call:
On the eve of the 2008 Pennsylvania primary, Clinton’s campaign released a television commercial featuring an image of bin Laden and invoking President Harry S. Truman’s quote: “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” “Who do you think has what it takes?” the ad’s narrator says as an image of Clinton flashes on the screen. (The ad showed a brief clip of bin Laden as well as images of Pearl Harbor, the 1920′s stock market crash, Fidel Castro, the fall of the Berlin Wall). “You need to be ready for anything, especially now.”So four years later, after bitterly complaining against the Clinton campaign use of UBL, the Obama campaign comes with this statement:
"The commander-in-chief gets one chance to make the right decision," reads the text in the video. It goes on to ask: "What path would Mitt Romney have taken?"The campaign tries to rationalize Obama's allegedly adroit decision making as Commander in Chief, with Bill Clinton arguing that the operation could have failed: why, our allies, the Pakistanis, could have fired on American troops! (To a certain extent, I can understand how Democrats feel that way given the pattern of behavior when hapless Democratic Presidents have botched military operations, e.g., JFK and the Bay of Pigs, LBJ's micromanagement of the Vietnam War, Jimmy Carter and Operation Eagle Claw, and Bill Clinton's perfunctory pursuit of UBL...) It's bad enough that Barack Obama engages in constant banal rhetoric; we need the political genius of Bill Clinton to point out there are risks to military operations.
First of all, Bill Clinton--shut your mouth! Who was it whom did squat after the Khobar Towers bombing and the USS Cole, whom let UBL slip through his fingers on multiple occasions? Have you no shame, no sense of responsibility that maybe if UBL had been taken out under your watch, things might have turned out differently?
Second, don't lecture to us about the decision-making prowess of the Ditherer-in-Chief: we have seen his "leadership" on things like earmarks he supposedly opposed in the stimulus and/or budget, the budget itself, the corrupt health care bill (complete with Gator-Aid, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Cornhusker Kickback) that he cheered from behind (because he didn't have the testicular fortitude to put forth his own plan which would have been shot down in flames), not to mention Dodd N. Frankenstein reform.
Third, the issue would not have been Obama's decision to go after public enemy #1, once we finally knew where he was; the issue would be what the American public's reaction would have been to know that Obama had solid intelligence on UBL and didn't do anything about it when he had the chance. What if the Procrastinator-in-Chief, by waiting as long as he did, had let UBL go through his fingers from some tip off while Obama had him in that mansion? I bet dollars to doughnuts (and I'm a big boy so I like my doughnuts, even though I don't regularly eat them because of the carbs) that Romney would have pulled the trigger far sooner than Obama did...
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Rolling Stones, "Lady Jane". The Stones showed that they could write classic rock ballads with the best of them. My personal favorite is "She's Like a Rainbow"; other classics include the immortal "Angie", "Out of Tears", and "Fool to Cry".
