Obama’s kind of war
Anyone who, like the neocons, thinks that Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize lecture shows that the alien in chief is somehow pro the United States and pro the use of force to protect the U.S. and its interests, should consider the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, which Obama’s talk was aimed at justifying. The real nature of that war is revealed every day by Diana West at her blog. Today she points to the effect on U.S. forces of Gen. McChrystal’s restrictive rules of engagement which are designed to avoid civilian casualties. What it comes down to is that when U.S. forces come under attack, they’re not allowed to defend themselves. Thus in an incident in September, a U.S. combined forces unit was ambushed, they repeatedly requested air and military support, the request was turned down because of the rules of engagement, and four American military personnel were killed. This is Obama’s kind of war. This is what he was defending in Norway. This is what the neocons are cooing about.
Obama thinks he is the master of persuasion and spin but that’s wearing thin. People are getting sick of hearing his voice and seeing him on TV. It is sinking in that he merely a persistent salesman.LA replies:
I agree with your main point, but, in this context, I disagree on “empty black suit.” An empty suit is simply a nothing, someone who shows up at work but doesn’t do anything. A person who carries off a successful scam to fulfil his own malign purposes is not an empty suit. These are two different and mutually exclusive criticisms; they can’t both be true with regard to the same person and the same matter at the same time.A. Zarkov writes:
There’s a notable exception to the conservative cheering chorus for Obama’s Nobel speech: John Bolton. Appearing on Fox News yesterday, Bolton called the speech “shallow and sophomoric.” Watch him here. Bolton said the speech “contained fundamental errors that pose a grave dangers for the U.S.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2009 10:27 AM | Send