President Obamlet
I’ve likened President Obama to Hamlet before.
Once more, it seems he’s made up his mind about what to do but then again perhaps he’s not made up his mind at all.
Maybe it’s all a clever strategic head-fake on his part. I doubt it, however; Obama’s slowness to come to a decision in military matters has become legendary.
The whole thing is also an opportunity for me to revisit my earlier rewrite of Hamlet’s famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy on procrastination and the perils of decision-making and gear it to Obama’s predicament. As before, I really needed to change very little to make it fit:
To strike, or not to strike: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Assad,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To attack: to dither
No more; and by attack to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That Syria is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To act, to attack;
To attack: perchance to depose: ay, there’s the rub;
For in its wake what next may come
Whether or not Assad shuffles off this worldwide stage,
Should give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of intervention;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of chemical war, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his mark make
With a bare missile? who would tyrants bear,
To defy the red lines that he drew?
But that the dread of something afterward,
The unknown consequences in whose grip
A legacy might founder, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!
The fair MSM! Sycophants, in thy orisons
Be all my sins forgotten.
About those liberals
This observation by Robert Frost has long been one of my favorite descriptions of a liberal:
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
Of course, that’s only true when the quarrel is with a member of a protected group. A liberal has no such reluctance when quarreling with a conservative.
Looking for a site with the Frost quote led me here, where I found some others worthy of contemplation, such as this from William F. Buckley Jr.:
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
I would add that liberals have a tendency to ascribe those views, when found and heard, to prejudice and/or malevolence.
Here’s Niall Ferguson:
So much of liberalism in its classical sense is taken for granted in the west today and even disrespected. We take freedom for granted, and because of this we don’t understand how incredibly vulnerable it is.
We’re learning fast, but not fast enough to stop the process, it seems.
”•
”•
PC thought runs amok…
…in the FBI and the military, no less.
We already knew that Nidal Nassan, the Fort Hood shooter, had given plenty of notice of his impending act of violence and that it was ignored, apparently for PC reasons. But the details are still shocking.
We have officially entered bizarro world. Or maybe we’ve been there for quite some time.
[NOTE: By the way, the phrase “run amok,” which I used in the title without really thinking all that much about it, has some interesting origins.]
Nidal Hassan sentenced to death
Thirteen senior Army officers have sentenced Maj. Nidal Hasan to death for carrying out the horrific 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood Army base.
The panel’s recommendation will now go to a convening authority, the general responsible for assembling the capital court-martial, for review and approval. The convening authority can approve or reduce the sentence.
On Friday, Hasan was unanimously convicted on 13 charges of premeditated murder and convicted of 32 charges of attempted premeditated murder. His conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison and the panel was authorized to consider the death penalty.
This is no surprise. I think it is probably what Hassan wants, as well, although here’s what the prosecution had to say about that:
The government argued against the idea that a death sentence would result in martyrdom for Hasan. “He will never be a martyr because he has nothing to give. Do not be misled. Do not be fooled. He is not giving his life. We are taking his life. This is not his gift to God; this is his debt to society. This is not a charitable act. He is not now and never will be a martyr. He is a cold-blooded murderer,” argued prosecutor Col. Michael Mulligan.
It will take quite a bit of time to go through the appeals (no military executions have taken place since 1961, despite 16 military death penalty convictions since 1984), and I make no predictions as to whether the sentence will hold. But if it is overturned, it will probably be because Hassan had inadequate counsel: himself.
Will everybody want…
…one of these some day?
There’s something very wonderful about such an invention, as well as something very spooky.
[Hat tip: Instapundit.]
Ironic, isn’t it?
This article about the inadequacy of the NSA’s security check of Edward Snowden is behind a WSJ firewall, but here’s a discussion of what it said:
A federal review revealed that the U.S. government bungled NSA leaker Edward Snowden’s most recent background check…
Investigators missed key information in Snowden’s last background check, including a security violation and his employment with the Central Intelligence Agency. Furthermore, background checkers did not collect significant information from anyone other than Snowden’s mother and girlfriend.
It’s not that there was any huge red flag that was missed. But the check was cursory and incomplete on the face of it.
And these are the people tasked with gathering intelligence vital to our national security?
Here’s an easy one to answer
Why telegraph an attack on Syria?
One of the odd things about Obama’s intentions on Syria is that the general plan has been leaked to the press. And unless it turns out be be a case of releasing incorrect information with the deliberate purpose of misleading Assad, it’s hard to figure out exactly why the administration would leak like this.
Obama’s defenders, such as Max Fisher, seem to think it’s a wise and well-thought-out move on the part of the administration:
Actually, publicly revealing when, how and where the United States (and some allies) will likely strike makes sense, given what Obama wants to accomplish. If his goal were to fully enter the Syrian civil war and decisively end it, then, yes, secrecy would be the way to go. But the administration has been very clear that it has a much more modest goal: to punish Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons so that he, and future military leaders, won’t do it again.
What’s about to happen, if the United States and allies do go through with the strikes, is less of a war and more of a ritual. This isn’t about defeating Assad, it’s about punishing him. And that calls for being really precise about how much punishment the United States imposes…
…[W]hat the Obama administration appears to want is a limited, finite series of strikes that will be carefully calibrated to send a message and cause the just-right amount of pain. It wants to set Assad back but it doesn’t want to cause death and mayhem. So the most likely option is probably to destroy a bunch of government or military infrastructure ”” much of which will probably be empty.
Aside from the fact that it is probably a fantasy that we could ever read Assad’s mind to that extent and calibrate our strikes so precisely, there is the mystery as to why telegraphing the scope and intent of the attack in advance would be necessary for the success of the plan as described. Fisher indicates that letting Assad know how limited the strikes will be is likely to keep him from escalating and would also deter him from future chemical (or other) attacks, but as Bruce McQuain points out at Hot Air:
Since it is a limited strike and it is going to be against specific units, Syria has the option of dispersing them, an option I’m sure they’ll take. They’ll also likely disperse them in to highly populated urban areas where they can…
Since they have thousands of artillery pieces capable of firing chemical shells, it is unlikely a limited strike is going to even seriously dent that capability. Moving artillery into the cities would likely deter the US more than the US would deter Syria. Helicopters can be moved as well. They don’t need long runways. Other aircraft will be dispersed And finally, command and control are easily moved and dispersed.
McQuain goes on to add that Assad is likely to use chemical weapons again afterwards, just to prove he can and that he is undeterred by the likes of Obama. And, as the WSJ editors point out:
…[T]he attacks are primarily about making a political statement, and vindicating President Obama’s ill-considered promise of “consequences,” rather than materially degrading Assad’s ability to continue to wage war against his own people.
It should go without saying that the principal purpose of a military strike is to have a military effect. Political statements can always be delivered politically, and U.S. airmen should not be put in harm’s way to deliver what amounts to an extremely loud diplomatic demarche. That’s especially so with a “do something” strike that is, in fact, deliberately calibrated to do very little.
Even then, I’m not sure why an advance announcement would be necessary. Perhaps the intent is just to accentuate what a brave and intimidating guy Obama is, and how he keeps his word when he talks about red lines? I think this move might be another subset of Obama’s well-known propensity to overvalue his own rhetoric, and to think that words can substitute for works, and bluster can serve as well as brawn.
[ADDENDUM: Ace takes us for a stroll down memory lane, to that long-ago time when Bush was president and Senator Barack Obama had these ringing words to say about the possibility of Bush’s launching strikes on Iran:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
That was then. This is now.]
A nagging question
Is there a solution to nagging? Just stop doing it, says Taffy Brodesser-Akner (that’s quite a moniker, by the way).
For most people, easier said than not-done.
But of course, I wouldn’t know. I never, never ever nag; I merely offer the occasional exceedingly helpful suggestion, the timely reminder, or the insightful non-directive open-ended question.
But enough about me (please!). The larger question I’m interested in is this: what is nagging? And why is it something men tend to accuse women of, but seldom vice versa? Is it just a question of labeling, or do women actually do more of it? Or is it that men are just more bothered by it, because they perceive it as being given orders rather than receiving requests?
Nagging tends to occur when the members of a couple have different standards about what’s desirable, often in terms of neatness or other tasks. Chore reminders are a classic source of marital nagging, and they can be highly annoying, leading the man to feel he’s married to either his mother or a schoolmarm or some combination of the two. A real turnoff.
But what’s a wife to do when her husband has agreed to do a certain chore and keeps neglecting, avoiding, or forgetting it, over and over and over? She can ignore the fact that he’s ignored it, but that can lead to a lot of pent-up anger and frustration on her part. She can vent that anger and yell at him and insult him—but good luck with that, because it can only escalate the problem and even ultimately destroy the relationship. Or she can nag very politely, making “I” statements and being careful not to order him around, which can sometimes still trigger his annoyance at the fact that she’s peck, peck, pecking away at him.
Some of these problems start when the woman makes a request and the guy says he’ll do it. Maybe at the time he says that he really does intend to do it, but it’s just not as important to him as it is to her, and later it slips his mind. Or maybe he never intended to comply in the first place, and was hoping she’d forget. Or is he showing her he can’t be pushed around? Or is it some combination of those things, plus embarrassment when his failure to do the task is pointed out to him, resulting in anger and counter-accusation (you’re a nag!)?
And by the way, these vicious cycles are usually a lot easier to avoid when you don’t live with someone. It’s also a great deal easier when there are no kids around to stress both parties out. So women who never nagged before can suddenly start doing it after living together a while, or after having children.
So, do men ever nag? And if and when they do, what’s it called?
[NOTE: Without really thinking too hard about it, I’d always assumed that the dual meanings of the word “nag”—to annoy by constant urging and chiding, and an old worn-out horse—were related in their origins. Surprisingly, however, they’re not.]
Why attack Syria?
Is Obama really going to attack Assad’s regime in Syria, or is he just talking? And if he does attack, how far will he go, and what is his ultimate goal?
There’s no dearth of speculation on all those questions. We have Ralph Peters in the NY Post:
Mr. President, do you really think it’s wise to send our missiles and aircraft to provide fire support for al Qaeda? That is exactly what you’ll be doing, if you hit Assad.
Assad’s an odious butcher, filth on two legs. But in the world of serious strategy, you rarely get a choice between black and white. You choose between black and charcoal gray…
For the record, I don’t regret getting rid of Saddam or Khadafy. I regret the ineptitude with which we did these things. When you propose a war, don’t ever expect a cheap date…
We have a president who thinks that, “Gee, maybe, well, gosh, I said I’d do something, so maybe I should…”
That last sentence I quoted in particular seems to describe Obama’s likely state of mind. He drew the line in the sand, and cannot afford to go back on it. And I believe that whatever military response he is contemplating is highly likely to be small and symbolic, in the mold of some of Clinton’s efforts (Bill, that is).
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline is also against an inadequate and half-baked response:
…[W]hen our interest in preventing an Assad victory is factored in, I believe the case for military intervention becomes solid.
But that case rests on selecting military action that sets Assad back significantly. Otherwise, our action won’t help prevent his victory, won’t meaningfully punish him, and will have no hope of deterring him ”” a difficult task in any case, given that Assad is fighting for survival and his supporters see themselves as fighting to avoid genocide against their minority group.
In other words, if Obama aimlessly launches a cruise missile or two, his action will be a mere gesture ”” a transparent, and transparently weak, attempt to save face in light of the “red line” remark. It will be deserving of ridicule and contempt, and will be worse, in my view, than no response at all.
Whatever action Obama takes should meaningfully degrade Assad’s military capacity. If it doesn’t, then Assad will assume that the military benefits of using chemical weapons outweigh any cost Obama is willing to inflict. And the rest of the world will conclude that, to paraphrase Kerry, the international norm against using chemical weapons can be violated without meaningful consequences.
Ah, but Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney has gone on record in saying that the goal is not to oust Assad:
I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change,” said Jay Carney, the president’s chief spokesman. “They are about responding to clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.”…
“It is our firm belief that Bashar al-Assad has long since forsaken any legitimacy that he might have to lead and that Syria’s future must be one that is without Assad in power,” Mr. Carney said.
He said it’s in the national security interest of the U.S. to make sure the use of chemical weapons “not go unanswered.”
So, if one believes the administration (always an iffy proposition), it appears that Obama is contemplating a small action of some sort to show he means what he says, sort of; does not intend to directly overthrow Assad but to somehow weaken him and encourage his overthrow; and has no idea what would happen next except turmoil.
That’s the best I can do to understand what’s going on, but it makes sense from what I’ve gleaned about Obama over the years. The whole thing reminds me a bit of the first few lines of one of Macbeth’s famous speeches:
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well
It were done quickly. If the assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease success; that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases
We still have judgment here, that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague th’ inventor: this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s Richard Fernandez’s perspective.
Also this:
Obama is trapped by his own propaganda, the victim of his own myth. He came to power on the strength of his supposed genius; his messianic transcendance. He was destined to make the world America’s friend; usher in a world without nuclear weapons; and fundamentally transform the nation. He was even going to make the oceans fall. Why he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in anticipation of achievements he had not yet even attained.
It is these expectations that weigh down on him like lead. Had Obama not made any of these vaunting boasts he might not look like the fool he is now. But as his speech on “Red Lines” exemplifies the teleprompter can write check[s] his autopen doesn’t even know how to sign.
Perhaps the only remaining reason for striking Syria without first deciding policy is simply to demonstrate to low information voters that he’s still President; that he can still do something, even if that something is pointless.]
Allan Bloom: on learning history and cultural relativism
I’ve just spent a fruitless hour trying to find the source from which I’d copied the following Allan Bloom quote some time ago. Somehow I’d lost the link, and now I can’t find it again.
But I thought I’d present the quote anyway because—like so much of Bloom’s oeuvre—it shows his uniquely facile mind and brilliant observations.
It was from an audio recording of a lecture that Bloom had given back in (to the best of my recollection, anyway) the mid-1980s. I had tried to transcribe it faithfully, complete with hesitations and idiosyncrasies and audience reaction. Bloom—whom I’ve written about before several times, mostly in the context of discussing his wonderful and highly-recommended book The Closing of the American Mind, was a professor of philosophy for most of his life. He was exceedingly familiar with the outlook of university students, primarily in America but also in Europe. Note that what he said back then describes trends that have only intensified since:
You know, we’ve all read history. Everybody, you know, world history, and weren’t all past ages maaaad? There were slaves, there were kings—I don’t think there’s a single student who reads the history of England and doesn’t say that that was crazy. You know “that’s wonderful, you gotta know history, and be open to things and so on,” but they’re not open to those things because they know that that was crazy. I mean, the latest transformation of history is as a history of the enslavement of women, which means to say that it was all crazy—up till now.
Our historical knowledge is really a history which praises, ends up praising, ourselves—how much wiser [voice drips with sarcasm] we are, how we have seen through the errors of the past…Hegel already knew this danger of history, of the historical human being, when he said that every German gymnasium professor teaches that Alexander the Great conquered the world because he had a pathological love of power. And the proof that the teacher does not have a pathological love of power is that he has not conquered the world. [laughter] We have set up standards of normalcy while speaking of cultural relativism, but there is no question that we think we understand what cultures are, and what kind of mistakes they make.
Bloom was not a cultural relativist; he believed it was a pernicious influence that had taken over American education. Time has proven him correct, has it not?