Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Barack Obama's War On Terrorism And Other Abstract Legalisms

Barack Obama. You listen to him long enough it is not easy to apply his populist strategy against him - if you are so inclined to be bound by abstract legalism as he is. For me personally - I realize that a "President Obama" is going to have to vacate another line of rationalization IF he ever gets to sit in the seat of power. His positions are as unsustainable in many areas as his rants said during the Democratic Primary in order to addict leftist oriented voters. His goal is to WIN the election, not to be practical and pragmatic.

Thus we have the current debate between Obama and McCain over Iraq and Afghanistan. According to McCain - our recent success in Iraq via the surge has allowed the US forces, having stabilized most of the provinces, to shift focus upon Afghanistan. If it was not for the "Surge", which Obama said would fail - Mr Obama would not have been able to do his "photo op" inside of the country.

In the view of Barack Obama, however, Iraq was a "diversion" and a "tactical mistake" from the "actual front on the WAR ON TERRORISM". Oh I'm sorry, Barack didn't call it "The War On Terrorism". This term has been trade marked by the "Bush Administration" according to Obama's friends at the New York Times. Barack called it the "Battle against Terrorists". Obama said "the 9/11 attacks were PLANNED IN AFGHANISTAN, NOT IRAQ".

I now have "Obama's card" on this line of reasoning, just as I do on so many other tactics that he uses. Thus HE needs to be held up to his own standards rather than being allowed to exclusively apply them to others. Since Iraq was a "diversion" to the actual key front on TERRORISM which is in Afghanistan......we must apply the very same reasoning to Obama's policies.

First some constraints that Obama and his supporters use against the Iraq policy and the FAILURE in Afghanistan because "we took our eye off of the prize":

1) Al Queda was not in Iraq prior to Bush's tactical mistake to invade
2) We should be fighting those who attacked us, not creating new enemies because of our militarism and aggression
3) The battle against Terrorism is a better handled by the legal system than by military aggression and imperialism
4) Our actions have been disturbing to other nations

OK - let us apply this same reasoning to Barack Obama's Afghanistan plans.

1) 19 men who are now dead, Osama Bin Laden and a few other specific operatives plotted 9/11. How is it that we can justify an invasion of Afghanistan and the mass killing of those who had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 rather than fighting those who SPECIFICALLY had something to do with the plotting? We are attacking an entire nation rather than the guilty party. Obama is using "Adrian Fenty of DC tactics used upon the Trinidad section of DC" against an entire nation of people. Obama should limit his attacks upon our actual enemies, not everyone.

2) Are we sure that those who are fighting us in Afghanistan are not DEFENDING THEIR NATION AGAINST A HOSTILE INVADER with murderous intentions rather than being "terrorists"? WE ARE CREATING NEW "TERRORISTS" WITH OUR ACTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN.

3) We are torturing people in Afghanistan in that MURDER of these people who had nothing to do with attacking the United States is the worst form of TORTURE

4) Obama would have invaded Pakistan in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. The United Nations - the "International Law" did not authorize this action. Thus Obama believes that he is above the law - "Might makes right".

In summary - Barack Obama is no different than George Bush regarding the END RESULTS - US Military Aggression against people who did not attack America, leaving a row od dead bodies in the wake. He is only benefiting from the SILENCE of the usual suspects who are not holding him to the same technical and theoretical standards. These people are "Against Bush" more than they are interested in fighting against our enemies.

Adding 2 more brigades to Iraq, as Obama wants, in order to stabilize Afghanistan is NOT a fight in the "War On Terrorism". It is only a smooth, abstracted spin on reality.

No comments: