*Agony Lies Ahead as Obama Abdicates as Commander-in-Chief*****

*By CONRAD BLACK <http://www.nysun.com/authors/Conrad+Black>, Special to
the Sun | September 3, 2013*****

*
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/agony-lies-ahead-as-obama-abdicates-as-comander/88397/
*****

As the United States contemplates military action against Syria, it must
realize that it can no longer enter into and conduct wars in the way it has
done since Korea. Vietnam was not really properly authorized or explained.**
**

It was also mismanaged, in that — as General Eisenhower and General
MacArthur both warned President Kennedy and President Johnson — it
shouldn’t be attempted, but if it were, the supply flow from the North (the
Ho Chi Minh Trail) had to be cut. It wasn’t. And MacArthur’s assertion that
draftees cannot be asked to risk and give their lives in a cause less than
a defined goal clearly in the national interest was demonstrated to be
true, both morally and practically.****

In Vietnam, the goal was never made clear; nor was the U.S. national
interest clear, other than to avoid defeat once the country was engaged.
That did not prevent the Democrats who plunged into the war from assuring
defeat after President Nixon had disengaged the U.S. and preserved a
non-Communist government in Saigon.****

There should not have been two invasions of Iraq, though both were
justified, militarily successful, and constitutionally impeccable; they
were just politically mismanaged afterwards. With Bosnia, President Clinton
invented the notion of a war worth killing for but not worth dying for;
NATO aircraft flew at 30,000 feet to ensure risk-free bombing to the
allies. (This was about the time that Mrs. Clinton fantasized that while
little girls were curtsying and giving her flowers at Sarajevo Airport, she
was actually under threat of her life from crackling sniper fire.)****

George W. Bush had every justification to invade Afghanistan and led a
great coalition in doing so, but then, leaving his allies undermanned and
with an impossible mission, with, to say the least, insufficient thought
and explanation, he decamped to Iraq with a much smaller coalition and
leaped head-first into the bottomless morass of nation-building in both
countries.****

President Obama staved off what was shaping up as a complete disaster in
Afghanistan, but now the U.S. is reduced to pleading with Pakistan to be
less supportive of the anti-Western forces in Afghanistan and pursuing
those elements for the privilege of discussing peace with them as we follow
a pre-published and tight timetable for withdrawal from the country. It
would be better just to leave without the window-dressing of fruitless
negotiations where any agreements that are made will be ignored anyway. We
went around that track in Vietnam, and in Iraq after the Gulf War.****

With the latest twist in Syria, every previous criterion of
national-security-policy formulation has been debunked. The entire process,
built up over 75 years of generally successful policy planning under twelve
previous presidents, six of each party, that led the West to victory in
World War II and the Cold War, has just been jettisoned with the
narcissistic breeziness this administration has brought to almost
everything except disposing of bin Laden.****

Even I could scarcely believe I was not watching “Saturday Night Live” or
“The Gong Show” as the president, with Vice President Biden beside him —
trying by his studiously grim countenance to contain the self-inflating
hot-air balloon he seems to have as a brain — announced that he was sending
his plan of a punitive but not really damaging cruise-missile strike on the
Assad faction in Syria to the Congress, before having an afternoon of golf.*
***

The national interest has to be defined. It has not been, in this case.
What should have been done many years ago was that governments that
committed outrages — especially terrorist outrages — against the West
should have been marked down for overthrow when that could be done at
moderate cost by assisting local dissidents. There should never have been
the shilly-shallying in Libya that there was, that became an effective
policy only thanks to the French. (And even the redemption of Libya was
largely squandered by the administration’s shameful complicity in the
murder of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, compounded by the macabre canard
of Secretary Clinton’s Islamophilic television address to the Muslim world.)
****

The Assads have long been in this category, and in the early period of the
uprisings, before 100,000 people were killed and 10 percent of the
population fled in pitiful conditions, the U.S. and its allies, when it
still had some, should have lifted the small finger necessary to dispose of
Assad.****

President Obama said Assad should go, just as he had said this about
Qaddafi in Libya, but he did nothing to make this happen. He was the
feckless Narcissus pulling the petals off the daisy: Assad should go, Assad
can stay . . . As Bret Stephens aptly wrote in the *Wall Street Journal* on
August 19, over the parallel debacle in Egypt, this administration seems
unable to distinguish between a policy and an attitude.****

It is no concern of the West whether the replacement government is better
or worse for the Libyans and Syrians; that is their concern. We should
never touch unsupported busybody nation-building again. Iraq and
Afghanistan weren’t post-war Germany and Japan (sophisticated countries
temporarily laid low) or even South Korea (a war-ravaged country eager to
bootstrap itself up economically, with political institutions to follow).***
*

What we have a right and duty to do is to dis-incentivize foreign countries
from extreme provocations of the West. Just as Hamas stopped suicide
attacks on buses and cafés in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv when Israeli premier
Ariel Sharon killed the Hamas leader after each such outrage, there would
be no more suicide attacks on the West if the ultimate instigators and
facilitators paid with their lives, or at least their jobs, each time,
despite their alleged yearning for the hereafter, as the cowardly, almost
cave-dwelling, after-life of bin Laden illustrated.****

International conventions should be attempted to define failed states and
genocidal acts and to provide for international intervention to prevent
failed states from becoming terrorist hotbeds, and to stop atrocities like
the Cambodian Killing Fields and the massacres of Rwanda and Darfur.****

Alliances are useful. The U.S. had allies when it led, and was perceived to
be a reliable ally. NATO was the most successful alliance in history
because it was an exclusively defensive alliance based on flexible
response, and on the principle that an attack upon one was an attack upon
all. The only time that clause was invoked was after the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001.****

Every one of the then 18 other member countries declared itself to have
been attacked when the U.S. was — and George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld
squandered that support. The closest allies of the U.S. historically,
Canada and the United Kingdom, are not as predisposed to cooperate as they
once were. The George W. Bush administration at least showed the gratitude
of an ally to the British; the Obama administration has very unwisely shown
not the slightest interest in maintaining any of these relationships.****

The reset on Russia has been a complete failure, and the downgrading of
European missile defense to ensure that Russia retained its first-strike
capability on America’s Western European allies was a very serious mistake.
George W. Bush’s aerated promotion of democracy assisted the Hamas and
Hezbollah terrorist organizations and undermined the Mubarak government in
Egypt, which is already regarded with general nostalgia.****

Jimmy Carter wrote the playbook on what not to do with his shameful
meddling in Iran and the world; the Iranians in particular are still paying
for it. No interested American should fail to understand the significance
of the British Parliament’s rejection of Prime Minister David Cameron’s
request for authority to join the U.S. in action in Syria. The British
often change leaders who have not handled military action well:****

They did so in the Seven Years’, American Revolutionary, Napoleonic,
Crimean, and both World Wars, and after the Suez expedition in 1956, but
that country has never denied authority to take military action to a prime
minister who asked for it. Cameron is probably finished, but so, for now,
is the British alliance with the U.S. The Grand Alliance of Roosevelt and
Churchill and the Special Relationship of a sequence of leaders of both
countries, especially Reagan and Thatcher, has come to this: political,
moral, and strategic bankruptcy. And this president is chiefly responsible
for it.****

President Obama and his claque have unlearned the fact that you can’t
declare red lines and then back away from them. It has happened in Iran,
and now in Syria, and only creates a vacuum that will be filled by the most
odious elements around.****

More serious than all of this is the abdication: Each president swears to
execute the office faithfully and to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution. Shuffling the role of commander-in-chief onto the Congress
(in which no one, American or foreign, has the least confidence, and with
good reason) is both cowardly and offensive to the Constitution, and
aggravates the War Powers Act (which is itself unconstitutional and should
be challenged).****

Harry Truman famously said that the buck stops with the president. If Mr.
Obama is not prepared to do the job he should not have run for it. The next
three years will be an agony; it can only get worse, challenge to the
imagination though that is.****


__._,_.___






__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to