In the light of an avalanche of recent unhappy events, the Obama administration is regularly being brought to task for a confused, unfathomable, dithering, and — my word — misopportunistic Middle East policy. What, the analysts ask and debate, are the goals, the foundational principles guiding the administration’s action or inaction in the region?
Or is the administration merely relying, ad seriatum, on its default response to any difficulty: say and do whatever appears most likely to mitigate short-term political damage while involving the least political effort and long-term political risk
As I see it, the latter explanation is generally true, but it is informed by two consistent, peculiarly passive-aggressive imperatives. Neither imperative is rooted in any greater vision of foreign policy; rather — and unsurprisingly — both arise from considerations about domestic politics.
The first imperative is the determined, clinging propagation and defense of the clearly false claim that Al Qaeda has been defeated. This claim, based on the killing of Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, sustains that deceit — to an easily hoodwinked electorate and to a mainstream media all too eager to collude in that hoodwinking — that the Democrat Party, and Hilary as likely bearer of the progressive torch, is uncharacteristically ‘strong on terror’ and that Obama’s America is still ‘the’ respected world power in the face of abounding, metastasizing evidence to the contrary.
The second imperative is the tantrumesque refusal to do anything positive in and for the Iraqi Republic — and soon for the Afghani state despite the fact that Obama claimed that this, as opposed to the Iraq conflict, was the ‘right’ war for the U.S. to pursue. [Never, never, never, never — feet stomping, arms waving, face grimacing — take any step to uphold, to build upon the efforts and achievements of the illegitimate, loathsome Bush administration!!!]. This adolescent exhortation reverberates to a cheering, wall-shaking swell with the university/media/government employee/grant-feeder base of the Democrat left.
So, take heart all you worried lefties. Once again, our great president’s right-wing, visible-only-on-Fox critics are demonstrably and transparently — to use an unhappy but somehow apt term — as wrong as, say, guns, or Christianity….or even butter.
A Tale of Two Sergeants
Do the media even remember the Army Sgt. Bo Bergdahl swap? The sudden urgency that necessitated yet another bypass of congress and the Constitution? The uniquely focused, efficacy of the project? The tin-eared, ditzy casting for the tone-deaf, desperately triumphalist press conference? The inexplicable exchange of multiple, committed, leadership-level Islamic-jihadists for one American deserter? The silence of the Obama White House and its now-characteristic, completed-but-not-to-be-released-until-after-the-elections’ ‘full investigation’ of Bergdahl’s involvement with the Taliban and of his oppositional ‘service’?
Juxtapose this with the case of another serviceman in foreign captivity. This one a decorated, two-tour, PTSD veteran of the same Afghan conflict. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi has now been festering in our ‘ally’, Mexico’s jails since March 31. Save for one begrudging, delayed form-letter response from John Kerry’s staff, Tahmooreesi’s case generated nary a smidgen of perceived urgency from President Obama and certainly neither stick nor carrot of effective intervention by him or his administration.
We are likely hear little of Sgt. Tahmooressi before the elections. In his unhappy case,as with the results of the Bergdahl investigation, disdainfully sealed White House lips and the ever-on-demand silent treatment by our committed media, who will do loyally whatever is needed to protect and shield their President, will yet again suffice to help Democrats keep Americans a bit more in the dark until after the elections
Peter di Lorenzi
Like this:
Leave a comment
Posted in Commentary on the News
Tagged Andrew Tahmooressi, Bo Bergdahl, Democrats, disdain, White House