First of all your post made me chuckle. Not that you intended to do that but it did. As you guys know by now I tend to get wordy and can’t stop typing once I start – yet you still want my opinion? Well, it was funny in my head!
I have no doubt that there was a tactical justification to close those embassies, and the prison breaks were probably part of that decision. Current threats probably entered into that decision as well so I don’t second guess the decision to act although a valid question would be “what message did closing the embassies send to our enemies?” Did we over-react? Who knows but the concept of “better safe than sorry” comes to mind.
Again, I don’t second guess that decision but I do adamantly question why we, the strongest nation in the world, are in a position where we are running from an enemy that we had on the run only five years ago.
Our President, Barak Obama, assured us not long ago that al Qaeda had been decimated and was on the run. In case you missed it the first fifty times he said it he repeated that message in many of his speeches and so did Joe Biden. In case someone missed all that Obama even had his minions out there telling us that al Qaeda was “decimated and on the run.”
I think it was comedian/commentator Dennis Miller who pointed out that the definition of “decimated” (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary) is “to select by lot and kill every tenth man of” the group.” Key point being the killing of only 10%, which leaves 90% intact.
If that is the definition Obama used he sure pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public – AGAIN!
Reducing your enemy by only 10% is hardly damaging to them and does very little to render the enemy insignificant. We are seeing this come true as we speak. The American public being misled by President Obama is nothing new.
If we have reduced al Qaeda by only 10% (we had them reduced more than that until Obama took over) they are still a formidable force. Ironically there was a 32% combined death rate in Gettysburg and that did not end the war. That also does not count wounded which makes the casualty rate even higher. The Confederate Army alone suffered a death rate of some 37% and kept fighting.
An interesting contrast to that is Desert Storm in 1991. Desert Shield, the build-up, lasted about six months and then Desert Storm, the war, after a one month air campaign to soften the battlefield, took only 100 hours to win the ground war. We had a casualty rate significantly less than 1%.
This is an example of how to fight a war. Politicians, once they conclude that they cannot resolve the issue diplomatically, give the military the goal and parameters within which to act. The military then conducts the war as military strategic and tactical planning dictate with the politicians staying out of the way (unlike Vietnam). Mission accomplished at very little cost of lives (successful use of the military as an extension of politics but by other means).
It is my opinion that Obama is not trustworthy and he has provided us ample evidence over the years to support that opinion. I don’t just automatically assume he is wrong but if Obama told me that it was daytime I would look out the window to verify that the sun was up.
A leader who does not have the trust of his followers cannot lead, he can only force. This is apparent more each day with new regulations and such, many not passed by congress (our representation) but implemented against the will of the people by the use of Executive Order.
I am not a conspiracy theorist although a few conspiracies might have merit. An example would be TWA flight 800 and the real reason it crashed. Another example is the Constitutional qualification of Obama to even be president. For the record it is my opinion that Obama was probably born in Hawaii just as he said he was. Nobody knows this for sure because all we have to go by is a fake birth certificate.
I believe he probably has a real birth certificate that will probably show that he was born in Hawaii. HOWEVER, he is constitutionally required to be a NATURAL-BORN citizen and he is not (being born in Hawaii makes him a citizen but not a natural-born citizen).
I read the article on the link you provided, thank you. It was interesting and makes one think about how effective our foreign policy has been, which is to say it has generally been horrible.
One point of interest was a statement by Ayman al-Zawahiri. He said that breaking the prison in GITMO is on their list of things to do. I find this especially interesting because it actually fits into Obama’s playbook well. Obama campaigned and won election in part because he promised to close the prison in GITMO. When he won election he saw that closing that prison was impossible and it has been a major thorn in his side ever since.
What has been happening recently in GITMO? Obama lifted the moratorium on releasing GITMO detainees in an effort to get them out of GITMO so it would be easier to close the prison since he can’t close it any other way. And he is, even in the face of prison breaks by known terrorists and the increased threat (evidence by the embassies closing), standing by that decision. Something about our releasing terrorists whose only goal is to kill us just begs the question “What are you thinking?”
Are there any parallels that can be drawn between an attack on the GITMO prison and what happened in Bengazi when our Ambassador was killed? I don’t know but you asked me what I thought (you might regret doing so).
Obama got the United States a war in Libya in 2011 solely for political reasons. Wars are justified if they are in the national security interests of the United States and there is considerable room to define what constitutes a national security interest. However, the dictator of a country, in this case Qadaffi, killing his own people DOES NOT constitute a national security interest of the United States.
Ok, but you can do other things with the military in terms of “humanitarian” missions and helping out in the earthquake/tsunami in Japan in 2011 is a perfect example of a Humanitarian mission. That’s true. However, you CANNOT use the United States military in an offensive combat role in a humanitarian mission. If anyone dies due to your action that is MURDER. How many Libyans did we murder in the name of humanity in 2011? Talk about an illegal war – the liberals have no idea!
Don’t misunderstand me here. The murder of innocent people by anyone or any government angers me. However, unless it is either self defense or in the case of our military the defense of a United States national security interest, killing people just to satisfy an emotion is nothing short of murder.
Could we have found a national security reason to get involved in the sovereign issues of Libya? You bet we could. How about securing Libya’s weapons and especially their weapons of mass destruction (chemicals and such) from falling into the hands of terrorists who would gladly use them against us? That is absolutely in our national security interest and would absolutely justify the United States penetrating the sovereignty of the nation of Libya. So why didn’t we do that? If I had a dollar for every time I ask that question I would be rich.
So now we have involved the good name of the United States in a hog-squalor. We have asked our military to kill people when there was no national security reason (I am not concerned about a “declared war” as long as our actions can be justified as defending our national security).
We have abused our constitutional powers and gotten away with it because congress has no stomach for the constitution either.
Ok, at least tell us about the good that came out of all of this. Tell us how those weapons and WMDs are now secure and can never be used to harm Americans. I wish I could but we have done nothing to secure those weapons. In fact some of them were used to kill our United States citizens in the Benghazi attack the next year (kinda reminds you of Fast and Furious doesn’t it).
By the way, this is also the ONLY legal justification to get involved in Syria and so far we have ignored it. I guess defending our national security doesn’t fit the big plan.
So, why did Obama take the risk of an illegal war and murdering people? The character of those people is irrelevant. First he assumed that the American people would not see it this way and instead let their emotions about those “poor helpless” Libyans hide the fact that we were killing people in the name of “humanity.” So far he has been pretty successful with that because the American public as a whole is very uninformed.
So how does this relate to the killing of the Ambassador in Benghazi the following year on the anniversary of 9/11? Our involvement in killing people in the name of “humanity” in Libya in 2011 established the notion that it is “OK” to use the United States military to satisfy an “emotional” need, that of interfering in the sovereignty of another country when there is no national security reason for doing so.
Fast forward to Benghazi on 9/11/2012, the night of the attack. There is an understanding starting to develop that the United States was participating in an operation to supply arms to the Syrian rebels and using the compound in Benghazi to do so. Helping the Syrian rebels fight the government is an emotional need of Obama. I believe he wants, make that needs, to get involved because just as in the Libya involvement in 2011, he believes his involvement in Syria under the guise of “saving lives” will garner him popular support. He even has John McCain helping him on this.
Have you ever wondered why the investigation into this is taking so long and is stalled by Obama at every opportunity? Have you ever wondered why the most powerful person in the world (Obama) who is in charge of the most powerful military in the world, who is constitutionally charged, over and above ALL ELSE with defending the freedoms of our nation and people, refused to even lift a finger the night of the attack where four Americans gave their lives for their country, and our OFFICIAL presence in that country was attacked? I believe he had his hand in the cookie jar and didn’t want to get caught and the lives of four Americans, to include the official representative of the United States in that country, was, in the mind of our president a “small price to pay.”
Let me tie this all together and bring it back to GITMO and Zawahari wanting to break the prisoners out of prison (you didn’t think I could do this but just watch, after all you did ask me what I thought).
Obama knows he can boost his popularity if he gets involved in the business of others in order to “save lives.” He confirmed this in his participation in the air-war in Libya in which the United States military killed people of a sovereign nation when there was no U.S. national security justification. I believe he wants to do this again, this time in Syria protecting the lives of the Syrian rebels. In order to do this he needs to get arms to the rebels but knows he can’t legally do that.
All this establishes the notion that Obama will go to great lengths to secure the support of the American people. A President should strive to get the support of the American people but do it by leading them and protecting their freedom; not by illegally and immorally playing on their emotions.
If only he could close that darn prison in GITMO as he promised to do the first day of his presidency. He has tried very hard to close it but those rascally Republicans (using logic, precedent, and the constitution) just keep getting in his way.
Perhaps he could actually close the prison if he just let everyone free so they could return to their country of origin, or perhaps return to the battlefield. After all, if there are no prisoners it would make sense to “CLOSE THE PRISON.” This would make ALL his supporters happy. However, those darn Republicans and their inconvenient Constitution will raise the BS flag on him and he knows it.
Is there any way he could get someone to help him empty out that prison so he could then close it once and for all? I wonder what Zawahiri is doing? Oh, that’s right, he is planning an operation to break into the GITMO prison and release the prisoners. Coincidence? You decide.
I am not saying that Obama and Zawahiri are in cahoots and planning things together. In fact I would adamantly say that Obama is NOT in cahoots with Zawahiri over this. However, this could be a great help to Obama if it happened because he would finally get to carry out his ill-conceived promise to close the GITMO prison.
We saw no attempt by the commander-in-chief to defend the United States when we were attacked in Benghazi and I doubt we will see much effort on the part of Obama to stop al Qaeda from breaking into the GITMO prison to release their fellow terrorists.
Politics is a rough sport. Dirty politics is a dirty rough sport. If you want to succeed in dirty politics you need an uninformed public. And that we have plenty of that.
One last thing and I will stop this runaway thinking thing. I read a few of the comments at the end of the article you referenced and some people seem to think that we are fighting the terrorists because of oil (and gas). Well I have news for these people. We are fighting to defend our freedom. The terrorists, in an unprovoked attack, killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11/2001. We are a free nation and as long as there people who would pick up arms to take those freedoms away from us we will be at war because without freedom we do not have a country.
Does oil factor into this? You bet it does! Our major source of energy comes from oil and as long as our way of life depends on energy, we will fight to ensure the free flow of that precious energy/oil. Many people think we want to take oil fields from other countries so we can sell it. We had every opportunity to do just that in Iraq but we never took it. We don’t want to control the world’s oil but we absolutely have an interest in the free flow of that oil (free flow meaning not impeded by terrorist’s threats). Because of the direct tie of energy to our way of life and freedom, we will go to war to ensure that free flow. If you want to reduce war then stop the threat of people interfering with that oil flow.
How about the United States converting to green energy (before it is ready for prime time)? Fine although very expensive and damaging to the economy (which could collapse as a result), but even if the United States used zero foreign oil we would still go to war to ensure the free-flow of oil to those countries with which we trade.
I am kinda shy and I hate to type but if you want my opinions on something else just ask (and send me a ream of paper – LOL).