Friday, February 13, 2015

Obama And His AUMF

By now everyone in the English-speaking world is aware that “our” Nobel Peace Prize winner of a president, having casually squandered the blood of thousands of Americans who gave their lives in the decade-long effort to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, wants Congress to authorize him to send American forces back into the Middle East. The questions of greatest immediate importance are:

  1. Why?
  2. Does he think everyone in Congress is blind, deaf, and crazy?

Okay, okay. Given Congress’s behavior in recent years, he might have a basis of sorts for an affirmative answer to question #2. But given Obama’s demonstrated unwillingness even to mouth a word Muslims might deem offensive to them, coupled to his open hostility to America’s military, how could a rational man expect that an Obama Administration military action waged against an Islamic enemy could work out well? He doesn’t fight wars to win; he hates our armed forces; and he flinches at the very thought of offending a Muslim.

So his request might just meet with sufficient resistance to derail it:

President Obama’s request that Congress authorize military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was met with skepticism from both parties on Wednesday, raising questions about Capitol Hill’s ability to pass a war measure.

The divide is largely centered on language prohibiting the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations” against ISIS.

Democrats say this does too little to limit the White House from committing ground troops to the fight, while Republicans say the restrictions could handcuff the military.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Senator Rand Paul was recently quoted as saying that sending American ground troops to battle ISIS is a mistake – that ISIS can only be defeated by troops supplied by the regional states. For that statement he was roundly criticized by several figures on the Right. His statement was variously mischaracterized as isolationism, as moral indifference to the horrors ISIS has inflicted on its victims, and as a slur on America’s fighting forces. Yet when viewed in the proper context, he was quite correct.

Ours is not the fully roused, invincibly resolute United States of America that defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Nor is ISIS the sort of terror that can raise Americans onto our hind legs. Worse yet, those we would go forth to rescue from ISIS are in fundamental agreement with ISIS’s premises and principles. Worst of all, we have been made all too aware that Obama simply won’t allow a war against an Islamic enemy to be fought effectively – that whatever gains American forces would achieve at the cost of further American blood and treasure would be fleeting at best, illusory at worst.

Obama might well have been pressured by his political advisors into requesting the AUMF. I could easily believe it – and that he opposed them to the extent of insisting that it be so sharply limited that it would be clear to all and sundry that he doesn’t really want to fight.

As submitted to Congress, the requested AUMF displeases both caucuses. The Democrats, ever the lily-livered, quail at the idea of further American casualties. More, they detest the thought of having to defend a new and foredoomed war against the criticisms of their hard-left base. The Republicans, a trifle more alert to the reasons the requested AUMF is shaped as it is, are unwilling to allow Obama another double-bind at their expense. For should the AUMF be approved as requested, Obama would not hesitate to blame the subsequent failures on the GOP. Should Congress modify the AUMF to provide an actual possibility of military victory, Obama and his allies would castigate the Republicans for letting more of our young men die in foreign lands.

Though our military men are inhibited against giving their opinions of such matters to the media, it would be difficult for me to believe that our commanders are at all enthusiastic about heading back to the Middle East while Obama is their Commander-In-Chief. They’ve worn his shackles long enough to know them – and him.

No, the war against ISIS, if it’s to be fought at all, must be fought by the locals. America must stay out of it, at least for now.

In straining to comprehend a geopolitical insanity such as contemporary Islamic militancy, it’s vital that we look beyond the superficial aspects to the foundations of the thing. Those foundations are on vivid display for anyone to see:

  1. Islam is a program of totalitarian conquest with a few theological decorations. Its founder, a sex-crazed, bloodthirsty warlord who commanded jihad against “unbelievers” until the whole world is under the boot of Islam, is venerated as The Perfect Man, to be emulated in all things.
  2. The program draws substantial support from the Muslims of the world: reliable estimates range from 10% to 25% accord with the militants’ aims and methods.
  3. The hypothetical majority of “moderate” Muslims is unable to resist the claims of their militant co-religionists, because:
    1. The militants have the Islamic scriptures firmly on their side; and:
    2. The militants are willing to slaughter “moderate” Muslims as heretics and apostates.
  4. The will of the West to resist the Islamic program is weaker than ever before in history. Indeed, our “leaders” aren’t even willing to call Islam-powered terrorism (or ISIS itself) Islamic.

If ever there were a time for Islam to strike the West, this is it. We are divided, weakened by secularism, multiculturalism, moral relativism and a pervasive reluctance to judge others of “different standards.” The states of Europe have emasculated themselves militarily, while America has squandered her own power in a number of pointless, even pathological efforts. If more were needed, a resurgence of imperialism from Russia and looming threats from China have divided our geopolitical attentions.

This is not a time for another expeditionary war on our part. It’s a time for redressing our mistakes:

  • We must extinguish the cultural viruses of multiculturalism and moral relativism.
  • We must reanimate American principles and values.
  • We must reinvigorate the American military and reinforce the virtues that made it fearsome.
  • We must cleanse our halls of power of the secret allies of anti-American, anti-freedom forces worldwide.

The war against world Islam – and make no mistake; ISIS is only the tip of the spear – is a world war. It can only be won by a fully mobilized, morally resolute, armed-to-the-teeth nation determined to obliterate the enemy completely and permanently, as we did in World War II. It’s madness to commit one’s forces to such a war in the hesitant, divided, unprepared state we’re in today.

Obama’s request for an AUMF should be defeated.


Tim Turner said...

I'm surprised there are no comments, except to the degree that this analysis is SPOT ON.

In the past 48 hours, I've had a pointless argument online with a French citizen who argued that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity (no surprise.) And I received not one word of support from perhaps 15 others online at the time.

I am ever more thankful and amazed at the heroism and sheer moral certainty shown by the defenders of Constantinople, Vienna and Tours.

That my daughter - and so many others - have no idea what I'm talking about, will be their downfall. She - they - don't even want to HEAR about it because they think it's right-wing war-mongering.

It's difficult to avoid that thought process of, "Ok, just watch what happens." But it's even worse knowing what is coming.

Reg T said...

I wonder if there might not be another agenda, that of damaging and draining the resources and infrastructure of our military, by sending it off to be destroyed via strict and fatally-limited rules of engagement. Think Border Patrol and their ROE that says bean-bag shotgun rounds will be used first - even against armed cartel members. Yes, it's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps not much when you consider what was planned with Fast and Furious.

My memory is sadly tattered, but didn't the last few groups of the Roman army get sent off, piecemeal, to get rid of them? To disperse them so that those in power would not have to worry about them interfering in their plans?

Another possibility is that Saudi Arabia might be requesting aid - as I think they did of both Bushes - in stopping, or at least controlling, the threat to their regime. I'm not sure what sort of pressure they could bring to bear upon him. Maybe photos of him entertaining young male members of the Saudi royal family in a Dubai bathhouse? "Bacha bereesh" (beardless boys) are a delicacy enjoyed by many powerful muslims, imams and ayatollahs.

I sincerely doubt that Obama's policy decisions are actually made by him. But diminishing and limiting the armed forces of this country - just like decommissioning and destroying nuclear weapons in our military control - may be a stealth agenda for whoever really does pull little Barry's strings.

Anonymous said...

Grandpa grows weary of the debate... and cares not a whit for history, other than for the lessons it teaches. The islamic threat is real, as real and more vicious as the threat of the willfully ignorant in our own country, who with no thought of the consequences of what their own submission would be to others; basically state "do what you want to the women and children - just don't hurt me!" It is more apparent every day that the next Crusade will begin in our own country. Militant islam will cross a line here that they will quickly regret, because after that, their sword will be met by AR15. The fight that so many people know is coming, when the people with values, virtue, morals, a firm belief in the REAL God, and a weariness of what was once their nation has now become; and who, providentially praise God are the most heavily armed citizenry in the history of this world; will say "enough." When that day arrives, and it may well be sooner rather than later, the "infidel/patriot" will stand up as one. It will be loud, it will be fast, and it will be.... about damn time. There, we will see the silent majority will not submit and go quietly into the dark night. We will see why "they" fear the infidel, why "they" fear the patriot.
"The Lord is a warrior, the Lord is His Name."