Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Time for Patriotism over Politics
Our country today is in a crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen before: during a period of exceptional global instability, we’re being led by a president who has absolutely no grasp of the danger we’re in; who seems almost bemused by it.
Yikes. It’s like being aboard a jumbo jet at 30,000 feet above the ocean with thunderstorms all around, the number-two engine sputtering while under the control of a pilot who marched with Occupy Wall Street, somehow got hired by the airline even though he’d never actually flown a plane before, and is having so much fun sending out selfies of himself decked out in a captain’s uniform that he doesn’t even hear the alarms going off all around the cockpit.
In a ghastly situation like this, you don’t waste time organizing a review of the airline’s hiring practices. And even if there’s a qualified pilot on board, there’s no way to break through the cockpit’s steel security door to replace the clown at the controls. This is an emergency, which means that all that matters is figuring out how to talk that pilot safely down onto a runway, with the least possible loss of life.
If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the world:
We’ve thrown away the victory our troops won in Iraq by pulling them out too soon, and now we’re making this same mistake a second time by pulling out our troops from Afghanistan. The Islamic State is spreading its power across the Mideast. The government in Yemen has collapsed. Libya is in chaos. The war in Syria threatens the stability of our ally Jordan. Al Qaeda seems to have re-invented itself and launched a new series of deadly attacks on Western targets. Iran is moving ever-closer to having a nuclear bomb. Russia is pushing further into Ukraine, and starting to make noises about the Baltic states, which could mean that Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania is next on Moscow’s hit list. North Korea apparently managed to execute a cyber attack that nearly destroyed one of Hollywood’s most famous studios.
Never has American leadership, and American power, been more needed. Yet our president has so little interest in national security issues that he spends more time watching football games on television than reading intelligence reports in the White House Situation Room. He doesn’t get along with our most reliable allies, and he’s held in contempt by our most dangerous adversaries. He cannot even bring himself to accurately name our country’s enemy, and — after six years in office — it’s obvious that his guiding diplomatic principle is that the world would be a better place if the United States played a smaller role.
This is a national emergency. It means we cannot waste time debating how Barack Obama got elected, or trading punches with the president in hopes of helping whichever Republican candidate we prefer to score a debating point. What happens during the next two years will shape our world for decades to come, and we’re stuck with our current commander-in-chief. We just don’t have the luxury of adopting the old Russian Nihilist slogan “The Worse, the Better.” The cost to our country, and to the world, would be too high. Our overriding objective must be to work as best we can with this president, to get through the current turbulence with the least possible damage.
In other words, we will need to stop thinking like politicians and start thinking like patriots. For example, it means resisting the temptation to stick it to the president the way he sticks it to everyone else. Sure, it felt good to see Speaker John Boehner go over the president’s head to invite Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress. I loved watching the White House staff squirm, and I nearly fell out of my La-Z-Boy laughing as that blonde State Department spokesperson — the one who looks like she’s running for high school class president — made a total jerk of herself trying to read her talking points.
But was it smart to infuriate the president? What if Iran or Hezbollah attack Israel next week, or if there’s some sort of natural catastrophe like an earthquake that flattens Haifa? Boehner can cry on camera while his GOP majority passes resolutions of support, but only Barack Obama can send an aircraft carrier, or rescue helicopters, or Seal Team Six, or whatever else Israel might need urgently to survive. Does infuriating the president make it more, or less, likely that he’ll act as he should? Alas, the question answers itself.
And that’s just one example. Additionally, we seem to be on course to a deal with Iran that will keep the current Tehran regime in power, but with nuclear bombs; at the very least, this will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Mideast (we all know what will happen at the very worst). While he’s at it, the president may decide to emulate Europe by offering diplomatic recognition to the Palestinians. And, if he has his way, he’ll keep releasing prisoners from Gitmo until none are left, and — on his last day in office — he could issue an executive order closing Guantanamo and giving the entire base back to Cuba, probably for nothing at all in return.
What can we do to stop these disasters, or other disasters like these, from happening? And if we cannot stop them from happening, can we delay them, or find some way to lessen the resulting damage? If we cannot stop the president from doing this, can we stop him from doing that? Are there some “deals” that Republicans can cut with the White House that are just awful, but better for our country’s future safety than no deal at all? For instance, if Obama would agree to walk away from his talks with Iran and re-impose harsh economic sanctions on Tehran, would we be willing to give up on the Keystone XL Pipeline?
We need to think hard about making deals like this — revolting though they may be — for our country’s sake. Again, the sad fact is that Obama will be at the controls for another two years, whether we like it or not.
So, my fellow patriots, what do we do now?
Published in General
or even just as human beings who wish to survive another day.
I appreciate the sentiment behind your post, and I agree with your diagnosis of the problem. Barack Obama, who is no patriot, who is no genius, who is a petulant child, is going to do his worst for the next two years. So what approach should we (i.e., Congress) take in dealing with him and his nefarious intentions?
I believe the best strategy is to fight him at every turn. He doesn’t make deals. He won’t trade the sanctions for the pipeline, because he believes he can get everything he wants by being either aggressive (executive orders) or passive-aggressive (vetoes).
The only salvation for the country is the chance, however slim, that there are enough patriotic Democrats in Congress to join with every Republican to see the danger and override his vetoes, and to override with veto-proof majorities his egregious executive actions, both past and future.
If that doesn’t happen, it’s going to be an interesting two years, if we live that long.
this is the way people act around crazy dictators.
He seems so normal. I am used to the Roald Dahl notion of Castros and Stalins–wild-looking people. Obama gets his way in everything. He just does whatever the heck he pleases. I just don’t see stupid, careless, or irresponsible anymore in this guy. I do think he is a new kind of leader to understand. And while we are trying to figure out what we’re looking at and how to deal with it, he is bulldozing the face of the planet to some purpose only he knows.
I’m annoyed with the Republicans, but, in all fairness, maybe the problem is they–we–don’t understand what we are dealing with. We didn’t really understand Hitler for a while either. Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Or Idi Amin. We’re trying to deal with Obama by seeing him in the context of other problems we’ve faced before.
He is a new kind of problem. We don’t know what his ulterior motives are. We do know he is methodical and contained all in his own head. No one knows what he is thinking.
As Einstein said, sometimes you need to forget everything you think you know.
By the time we see Obama’s finished landscape, it will be too late. That’s what really bothers me.
Herb,
I appreciate your call to patriotism as it is a word that has rarely been used for the last six years. However, I do not think it is a good policy to make concessions to terrorists.
The President of the United States has ignored a massive mandate for the Conservative approach concurrent with the conclusive loss of both houses of Congress while Governerships and local government has also reflected the change. His domestic policies are disasters. He obtained the major disaster, the ACA, by a massive fraud now openly admitted. Ignoring the obvious reality of the people’s preference he has thrown down a challenge by his extra-constitutional behavior and his obstructionist veto promises. In this the President has acted as a political terrorist using his office to threaten and coerce. Again I do not think it a wise policy to make concessions to terrorists as they will break all promises and only make more demands.
There is nothing more dangerous than a head of state that knows no limits to power. This will not be the first time in history nor the last. The Republic will endure.
Regards,
Jim
No deals. This is how the GOP solidifies his gains — by behaving as if he is behaving in a reasonable manner.
And why are we looking at an Airbus? To accentuate our sense of danger?
And it kind of rankles to hear spirited, principled opposition derided as (both!) not patriotic, and just politics. Guess I’ll stop here. It won’t get better.
People get ticked off at George W. Bush for the war in Iraq. But I have always seen it as inevitable given Clinton’s actions.
Clinton never signed a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein. He was flying reconnaissance missions over northern Iraq right up to the end of his second term. He, through the UN, maintained the oil-for-baby-formula sanctions against Iraq throughout his two terms. The UN, with Clinton’s blessing, issued something like 1,400 resolutions against Iraq over the course of Clinton’s two terms. Clinton’s administration was not going to stop harassing Saddam Hussein until he let in the nuclear arms inspectors.
If you could have drawn a graph and plotted trend lines based on all of that information, had Clinton remained in office, we would have been at war in Iraq.
That’s why Hillary did not vote against the war in Iraq. She knew all of this.
The war was a landmine waiting for the next president.
We need to do this with Obama. We need to plot his policies and decisions regarding everything he has power over and see where those trend lines go if we are to prevent a worldwide disaster.
I’m with Man with the Axe on this one – it’s up to the Dem’s. Menendez’s grilling in committee last week was most welcome and a small sign of hope (Fienstien can be nuts on many things (“torture”) but her head is mostly screwed on correctly.
I’d argue that GOP be more vocal & insulting. Hussein is delusional – he shouldn’t be humored in any way. Better to work on shaming/blugeoning Dem’s in to veto overrides.
Wendell Wilkie and Thomas Dewey would agree with you. They put country above their own personal interest and lost their elections. This really puts it in perspective, doesn’t it?
Hillary and Kerry decided that it was so important for them to be elected or to support the Democratic Party that it was worth lying about Bush and undermining our troops in the field while they were under fire.
I agree that we have to keep the country’s best interest in mind but let’s be clear here: Obama is an enemy within. We have to keep that in mind.
I choose patriotism over politics. But, I choose the strategic approach rather than the short term tactical one. We need to help reveal Obama’s character and do serious damage to the people who have helped to get him elected. This is important for long term stability and security. Now, just how do we do that?
If we don’t find some way to inflict an ideological defeat on the Democratic Party’s dalliance with the hard left then we will face even bigger problems in the future.
We will get no points with the public if we go along and help Obama where we can — calling a truce, as you suggest. Sure, we might see a Republican president in 2016 but this will just be a normal swing with no lessons learned on the part of the electorate.
As Ball Diamond Ball implies above (#5) we need to find a way to deal with him effectively without losing the overall game. We need to find a way to solve this problem in the long term.
MarciN says Obama is a new kind of problem and I disagree. He is a well known problem but we have never had such a person as president. That is new. That and the other issues underlying this present one — the takeover by the left of so much of our society.
Yes, I think this is probably the only way forward. I believe this is what Newt suggests, too.
I worry that this approach is possibly too little, too late, though. As Herbert says above:
We will have to wait until we are in a life and death struggle to break the stranglehold that the hard left has on the country’s elites. Herbert, hang on it’s going to get a lot worse.
My thanks to all of you for your comments so far — and my compliments. This is precisely the debate I was hoping to ignite among those of us who oppose the president’s policies. As I’ve written before, it’s easy to say what you don’t want to happen. It takes a lot more thought, and sometimes a lot more courage, to say what you want to happen. If we can settle this among ourselves — among those of us who oppose the president’s policies — and if we can articulate what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, we might just find ourselves with more political support than we’d expect.
The floor is open…..
This pilot joined the airline because he hated both the airline and the aircraft’s manufacturer. His intention all along has been to crash the plane. He is positive he will survive the crash and can spend the rest of his life criticizing both the airline and manufacturer.
He will argue that there should be a retooling based on the Tupolev, Yak and Ilyushin frames, administered by The Party of The People. The previous failures of these aircraft and administrations are due to the fact that they didn’t do it right. This pilot and his cohorts will do it right this time.
So there is actually no behavior which will deter the pilot’s desire to crash the plane. Not sure what behaviors will be most likely to minimize his likely success in advance of his forced retirement.
I am extremely squeamish about calls to leave our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to secure our “victory”. What is our goal for these occupations? Is that goal even achievable? While I don’t support President Obama’s foreign policy initiatives I am equally underwhelmed by the utter lack of imagination from the right. Are the only options really capitulation and occupation?
Occupation is not an end in and of itself, but a means to the end of defeating the jihadist enemy.
I recall some wise persons recommending, back in, say 2004, that the better approach to Afghanistan (and also to Iraq) was not to occupy and nation build, but to overthrow the Taliban and al Qaeda, then leave, with the explicit threat that if those same villains come back we will return and destroy them again.
Well, we did nation build, but now we’re leaving, and so we can now do what these pundits recommended way back when. Let it be known that we are leaving, but at the first sign of Taliban-style tyranny or an al Qaeda safe haven we will be back and will unleash all of our might upon them.
Note that this is very much different from leaving and stating that the tide of war is receding and the shadow of crisis is past, and other BHO BS.
Fortunately, the plane is on autopilot while Mr Obama plays golf and complains about America.
Let’s finally understand something: We either occupy long enough to insure stability and security for them and ourselves or we leave as soon as we have defeated the enemy (whatever that actually means). The very idea that we had been in Iraq long enough already is absurd if we look at the other places it has worked. Yes, we do have historical precedents (Japan, Germany, South Korea) and they did work and they are very very very long term commitments. BUT, it’s not the time — it’s the commitment and the ability to stay through it.
Your question about the goal being achievable cannot be answered until we have stayed in country long enough to approach the results we saw in the other precedents. This is not “lack of imagination from the right” — that is a left-wing trope.
Understand this: comparing such culturally divergent places as Japan, Germany and South Korea to Iraq and Afghanistan is a fools errand.
Each of those countries was administered differently based on the culture of the country we were occupying. Occupying Muslim countries is different and we need to treat it differently.
But, the key difference is the commitment and the willingness to stay for a prolonged time. That’s my point. Surely, the experiment for these two Muslim countries has not been played out completely. Address that.
What you are saying is that it’s not possible to begin with. I say we have no evidence of that.
I would say that the last 10 years is evidence enough.
I ask again: what is the goal of the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is a functioning democracy a goal in and of itself? Or are we seeking to eliminate islamist threats? If its the latter than we need less occupation and more puppet dictators.
NOT when compared to my precedents. (Why is this so difficult?)
I agree this is important, but — as my dad said — we’re still stuck with Obama at the aircraft’s controls for another two years. A lot of harm can happen in that time, such as the Iranians getting a bomb, that will limit our future actions. So how do we make sure the plane flies safely until we can get a better pilot in the cockpit?
I’d hate it, but I’d take it.
The allied occupation of Germany was from 1945 – 1952. Shorter than Iraq and Afghanistan.
The allied occupation of Japan was from 1945 – 1952. Shorter than Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US Military Government in South Korea after WW2 was even shorter 1945 – 1948.
There are massive differences between each of these situations and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan that stretch beyond mere time spent occupying the country. Germany had a tradition of democracy that existed prior to the fascists coming to power. Japan has an entirely different cultural tradition and the US occupation used its understanding of that culture to craft a democracy that worked for that people. South Korea was an independent state prior to the Korean War and the Korean war was a defensive war to repel and invasion.
None of these parallels exist in the current situation. There is no tradition of democracy in the middle east outside of Israel. The culture of Islam coupled with the tribal cultures in both Iraq and Afghanistan do not lend themselves to the kind of open society democracy requires. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are characterized by the invasion of foreign armies and not the defeat of Empire builders.
It is such a facile argument (and as evidence shows an incorrect argument) to claim that “equivalent time spent” is all that is requires.
Hi, Larry and Jamie,
I like your debate about our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan — and I’ve got a few thoughts about this myself — but today I’d really like to focus our discussion on the key point of my essay: How do we cope with this president in the cockpit for another two years?
Sometimes we must face horrible choices. I can only imagine what it’s like for a surgeon to decide he’s got to amputate a leg to save his patient…..Are we now facing the political equivalent of this kind of decision?
Our troops are still there. Why are you playing around with terms like occupation when you know that our troops are still in each one of those countries? (This is ridiculous to have such a discussion about basic facts on the ground.)
Sorry for hijacking this thread but we have to have a generally shared set of facts about the past in order to deal with projections into the future. Enough said.
Herb,
Not a chance. No deals. You can’t make a good deal with a bad guy. For the last six years we have got nothing but pure political hard left ideology with a candy coating of sweet talk from these Obamites.
We have a positive agenda. The XL, sanctions on Iran, repeal Obamacare, stop Putin, make war on ISIS. We concentrate all effort on overriding the veto. When we can’t override we pivot to punishing Obama for his obstructionism.
“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
Regards,
Jim
Why are our troops there? Its wasn’t to stabilize the country but rather to fight the Cold War. Do you really think that Germany and Japan would fall to sectarian violence tomorrow if our troops left?