Archive for November 2009
Greetings everyone! I do apologize for not blogging as prolifically. For those that believe in the power of prayer, do pray for me if it crosses your mind. I’m going through some tough times right now and it’s been affecting everything that I do. But I do want everyone to know that I’m still out there, even if Magnus the Dog has been hiding in his doghouse lately.
Today, I do something new here on The Rabid Conservative. I reach into my mailbag and answer a letter from a reader. Today’s letter comes from Gary who writes…
President Obama is playing a deadly game with our troops deployed to the war zone of Afghanistan. He is playing a deadly game of chess with Karzai. First, Obama withheld his decision on troop force levels in country to force Karzai’s hand on a recount of the recent presidential elections in Afghanistan. Karzai was fortunate that his opponent conceded the race and the president showed some progress in his glacial decision timetable.
Now, we read that the president is very concerned about the credibility of Karzai’s government which now prevents Obama from moving forward on his Afghan troop decision.
What next? Once Karzai cleans house to Obama’s satisfaction will he hold up his troop decision because Karzai’s government is not diverse enough? Not enough women in his cabinet?
This is a deadly game because the longer Obama waits the stronger the Taliban becomes, more troops die and our position as an international power erodes.
Is the president consciously weakening us as a country to fall into line with his European model for us?
In the coming months the administration will decide to not send more troops because of the administration’s eroded confidence in the Karzai government. President Obama will say he’s not be able to add any more troops to the Afghanistan conflict in good conscience and in fairness to our brave men and women of the armed services. Remember that Obama said he will not commit troops to any conflict unless it is absolutely necessary. I think he’s posturing for a pull out of troops from Afghanistan and will use Karzai as the scapegoat using whatever trumped up excuse they can come up with.
Thanks for the very insightful note, Gary.
Afghanistan has been something of a mystery to me with respect to this President. I seem to remember during the campaign, Obama kept pushing the case that the real threat, the real problem, was not in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In other words, Obama kept pushing that Afghanistan was the war we were supposed to be fighting and Iraq was the war from which we were supposed to disengage.
But just today, we hear that Karl Eikenberry, US ambassador to Afghanistan, disagreeing with the position of sending more troops in country. After three months of waiting for someone within ObamAd, Inc. to say something about a troop increase in Afghanistan, here comes Eikenberry who says that the country is too politically unstable to put more troops in.
John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN gave his own assessment of Obama’s foreign policy and I think he is right on. (Read the Imprimis article). Essentially, Bolton believe and I concur, that Obama has very little care for American sovereignty, but rather considers it relatively insignificant when compared to the exceptionalism of any other country in the world.
On the subject of Afghanistan, it would seem that the American mission has changed. During the Bush years, it was about going in and hunting the Taliban and Al Qaeda wherever they were hiding. In fact, Afghanistan was the first place the US engaged on the War on Terror and this is the reason we initially pushed for Harmid Karzai to lead the country – because he believed in these ideals too. But now, it seems like we’re less interested in eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and more interested in trying to negotiating with these groups for the absurd belief that they will disengage hostilities if we become less sovereign in the world.
Remember that these groups cite America’s “arrogance” and “interference” as reasons why they have engaged in hostilities. Because Obama does not believe in the unique exceptionalism of America, the “shining city on the hill”, his actions do fall in line with what the Europeans have desired for America for the last two hundred years.
America’s exceptionalism comes from the fact that America, when founded, demonstrated its disagreement with how the rest of the world operated. For example, when the Colonies were subservient to the British Crown, it was illegal for a man to own property – all property was the ownership of the King. This was the general European standard for hundreds of years previous – that the majority would be ruled by a chosen oligarchy, a ruling elite class whose will was sovereign. This is a contrast to the American system that fundamentally places sovereignty on the will of the people, not the will of a group of people, or one man or even President. George Mason first enumerated the fundamental rights of humanity as a right to life, liberty, and property – real property, that could not be taken away from a man just because the King decided it to be so. This was accentuated by the passing of the 14th Amendment.
When this translates to foreign policy, an enterprise that George Washington cautioned that we should limit ourselves, it naturally has a very sluggish effect – getting the people to agree on what we should be doing in Afghanistan prevents hasty mistakes. If we go to war, we do so cautiously and deliberately, which means we don’t capriciously change our approach, just because a new president takes office. This also means that when we go, we go to achieve the mission, not play political games.
But we’ve seen with the contrasts of policy between Bush and Obama that the will of the people is summarily ignored, in favor of the ruling elite. Bush takes us to war, Obama tries to pull us out – both of which, I believe, are contrary to the intent of the Founders, not because of whether a war is right or wrong, but because we’re changing foreign policy faster than the seasons change.
Europe likes this capriciousness because in it, they have the opportunity to override the will of the American people through their negotiation and encouragement. So when they get someone like Barack Obama, who doesn’t believe in the will of the people (much of which today, illustrated by poll after poll) but rather, in pushing his agenda, and that agenda being one of being more agreeable with the whims of the rest of the world (noted by Obama’s need to be liked and praised), it plays right into the hands of the power brokers of the EU.
And it plays into the hands of the terrorists as well, who are just looking for that chink in the armor in order to further their war with “the Great Satan”.
The most dangerous thing about Obama’s developing approach to Afghanistan was pointed out very succinctly by Bolton. If the Taliban and Al Qaeda are allowed to solidify in Afghanistan, they will take their war to Pakistan, take over their government, and secure the Pakistani nuclear arms. And if that happens, it’s not really a slippery slope in thinking what they will do with them.
The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens.
There has been a lot of analysis (ad nauseum, actually) regarding the 2009 election, about whether it was a Democrat victory – the beginning of a GOP revolution, a referendum on President Obama’s first year, etc etc.
But the thing that I found most amusing was Nancy Pelosi’s remark about how it was a Democrat win because [they] "picked up votes". And to that end, she’s right, the Dems added two to their number in the House majority – a majority that is whipping the rest of the House Dems into supporting the Nationalist Health Care Malform Bill. And while I won’t go into the particulars of that 1900 pages of bureaucratic rubbish today, I must say that, yes, with Pelosi having a chance that the bill could be defeated in the House, she needs every vote she can muster. So, when the delta is at about ten votes, two votes are important.
But aside from that, there’s one other angle that I’ve not heard the pundits discuss – and one that the Democrats in Washington seem to give very little care – the autonomy of the State and how this past election affects that dynamic.
Consider the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens. The Dems want a stronger central government to control what the states and the people can do, rather than leaving them to govern themselves, as the Founders intended.
There are scores of violations of these two amendments that have allowed for inappropriate growth of government. Using the federal court system to override the decision of people, such as Prop 8 in California (which was decided properly) and or 1972′s Roe v. Wade decision (improperly overriding Texas law) are clear if we apply the Ninth Amendment properly. Implementing exorbitant government programs and regulating behavior through these programs violates the Tenth. And all of these things are issues that should be left to the Several States or the People.
So when Nancy Pelosi gets the word that the Virginia and New Jersey will have GOP governors, she could care less. Pelosi and her liberal bunch don’t care about the rights of the Several States (unless they are in alignment with the liberal agenda). Liberals seek to subvert the power of the States in favor of their agenda – using the power of federal government to override the will of the people.
It’s quite interesting to see that when decisions are left to the people, such as recently demonstrated by Maine’s voters over Question One, exercising a People’s Veto (something that I like, BTW), the rights are preserved in the hands of where they should be – with the people, first.
Pelosi doesn’t believe this.
BTW – Had Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races gone Democrat, we would have heard from Pelosi and her ilk that this was a clear referendum that the liberal policies are what the people wanted. But they certainly don’t believe it to be true with GOP wins. The spin on this one is pretty high for sure.