How’s that 3-D chess in the Middle East going for you, Obama?

The New Neo Posted on by

Even Time magazine thinks Obama’s Palestine/Israel policy isn’t going well:

Obama had prioritized resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But his demands ”” of a complete settlement freeze by Israel and reciprocal gestures toward normalizing ties with Israel by Arab governments ”” has been rejected on both sides. And while no recent Administration has had much success in this realm, veterans of the peace process concur that the President’s initial approach was flawed. It may have even done more harm than good, they argue, by raising expectations that could not be met, leaving both sides mistrustful of Washington’s intentions and creating a situation where either Netanyahu or Abbas would be painted into a corner.

Maybe it’s even 4-D chess Obama’s playing, it’s so complex.

Hamlet-in-Chief: Obama loses the name of action

The New Neo Posted on by

Now comes the news that President Obama has rejected all “of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team.” Instead, he wants to clarify the exit strategy first, and turn over responsibility to an Afghan government that he simultaneously criticizes for being corrupt.

Let’s review: during the 2008 campaign, one of the linchpins of Obama’s foreign policy plan was the commitment to winning in Afghanistan. Obama spoke of defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as transforming the Afghan economy from poppy-growing to more acceptable pursuits.

In other words, he had huge plans for Afghanistan, while simultaneously criticizing the Bush administration’s involvement in nation-building in Iraq. It is clear in retrospect (and even was clear at the time) that Obama’s main interest in Afghanistan was his desire to pump up his commander-in-chief bona fides, and elevate it as the “good war” to Bush’s bad one in Iraq.

Now both of those motivations are gone. Democrats no longer support the war in Afghanistan because they don’t have Bush to kick around anymore, just the increasingly insubstantial memory of him. What’s Obama to do? Go against his base, and fulfill his campaign promises? Or break those promises, as he’s done with so many others, assuming no one will remember and/or care, as well as citing changed circumstances (although nothing has really changed except the political climate here)?

Well, if you’re Obama, you can always dither. Or, rather, launch another study. And then another—and claim all the while that you’re merely being reflective and thoughtful, smarter than your predecessors, and smarter than your generals. After all, what do they know? Were they ever community organizers?

There is probably even more going on than this, because if that’s all it was, my guess is that Obama would have made some decision by now. Either Obama is (a) constitutionally incapable of making a decision (or perhaps even understanding that this is what presidents have to do); or he is (b) incapable of making a decision that will offend a large group of people either way it goes. In the meantime, he is causing the demoralization of our troops in Afghanistan by showing an abysmal lack of leadership on the war there, after cynically and disingenuously making it one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

This indecision has gone on way too long, which brings us once again to the Hamlet comparison, although indecision is by no means Obama’s only tragic flaw. Let’s take another look at the problem with Hamlet:

The whole [of the play] is intended to show that a too close consideration, which exhausts all the relations and possible consequences of a deed, must cripple the power of action…

The mystery which surrounds the play centres in the character of Hamlet himself. He is of a highly cultivated mind, a prince of royal manners, endowed with the finest sense of propriety, susceptible of noble ambition…

But in the resolutions which he so often embraces and always leaves unexecuted, his weakness is too apparent; he is not solely impelled by necessity to artifice and dissimulation, he has a natural inclination for crooked ways; he is a hypocrite toward himself; his far-fetched scruples are often mere pretexts to cover his want of determination–thoughts, as he says, which have

—-but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward…

On the other hand, we evidently perceive in him a malicious joy, when he has succeeded in getting rid of his enemies, more through necessity and accident, which alone are able to impel him to quick and decisive measures, than by the merit of his own courage, as he himself confesses after the slaying of Polonius. Hamlet has no firm belief either in himself or in anything else. From expressions of religious confidence he passes over to skeptical doubts; he believes in the ghost of his father as long as he sees it, but as soon as it has disappeared, it appears to him almost in the light of a deception. He has even gone so far as to say “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so;”…

The shoe does seem to fit, doesn’t it? Shakespeare wasn’t just a superlative poet, he was an extraordinary observer of human character.

One of the things Obama seems to either be unaware of, or to not care about, is the psychological effect his stalling has on the troops and on our enemies. It demoralizes the former and cheers the latter.

Wars, as well as nation-building and economic development, are not just a matter of tactics. They involve perceptions about will and commitment. The enemy (be it the members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the poppy-dealers of Afghanistan) size up the opposition. If the US is thought to be weak or indecisive, it appears to them to be extremely worthwhile to continue on the present course against the US in hopes of prevailing in the end, whatever might happen in the short run after Obama finally makes his much-awaited decision.

That was a huge part of the calculation by the enemy in Vietnam, and it worked very well for them. Vietam was a war of attrition; the enemies there calculated that they had more tenacity than we did, and they were correct. Obama is sending a similar message to enemies in Afghanistan—and around the world.

[NOTE: In related matters, here and here are some previous articles on Obama’s failure to understand the concept of victory.]

Not so fast, Representative Owens

The New Neo Posted on by

Could it be that Hoffman won after all in NY 23? A voting snafu in a vital county, and absentee ballots yet untallied, might end up putting him in the House of Representatives after all

Too late for the historic health are bill, of course, for which Owens cast one of the deciding votes. But no matter; if Owens hadn’t been around, Pelosi would almost certainly have twisted an additional Blue Dog arm to get her magic number.

Health care reform: as Maine goes…

The New Neo Posted on by

…so goes the nation?

Maine and Massachusetts are two of the most liberal states in New England—indeed, in the case of Massachusetts, in the nation. I’ve written before about the difficulties Massachusetts has faced (and been unable to solve) in its efforts at health care reform, and Maine is another case in point.

Maine has been trying its hand at health care reform for quite some time, and so far its attempts have culminated largely in failure. That doesn’t stop both sides of the political spectrum from attempting to use Maine’s experience as an argument for the implementation of their own policies on the national level:

Maine’s history is a cautionary tale for national health reform. The state could never figure out how to slow the spiraling increase in medical costs, hobbling its efforts to offer more people insurance coverage. Many on Capitol Hill have criticized national reform legislation for similarly doing little to tame costs.

To [Senator Olympia] Snowe, Maine’s past shows that change, while needed, should be incremental because mistakes are common. This is among the reasons she opposes an immediate public insurance option. “I mentioned to the president that people can’t digest everything at once,” she said in an interview.

To conservatives, Maine proves that government efforts to strictly regulate the nation’s health insurance market are doomed. Many of the reform proposals circulating on Capitol Hill have already been tried in Maine.

“These reforms are very well-intentioned, but in reality they have yet to produce the promised results or even be financially sustainable,” said Tarren R. Bragdon, chief executive of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a conservative research organization in Portland.

To others, Maine’s failures show why some reforms can be tackled only on a national level. Maine has the nation’s oldest population, its poor are among the sickest, and its median income ranks low.

Read the whole article to get the details. But the gist of it is that Maine lacks the money to accomplish its goals, and liberals are looking to shift the state’s problems to the federal level in hopes that they can be solved, despite the fact that nothing indicates that this is fiscally possible in our straitened times.

Mainers see their state as poor, and it is. But the article leaves out the main reason why the state is so poor and the population so old: high taxes that discourage industry and force young people to leave if they want to make a decent living. The Obama administration and the 2008 Congress seem determined to repeat the first problem on the national level, as well as adding a few more besides.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s some common sense from Senate Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Seems as though trouble might be brewing for Reid in the Senate.]

Paglia on Pelosi’s triumph

The New Neo Posted on by

Once again Camille Paglia displays her inability to connect contradictory thoughts and come to some obvious conclusions about them.

In the past, I’ve written about her tendency to criticize nearly everything Obama does while simultaneously excusing his errors and fawning over him. Now she’s done the same for Nancy Pelosi, which may be an even more astounding demonstration of convoluted mental gymnastics.

In Paglia’s most recent Salon column, she praises Pelosi’s ferocious ruthlessness while at the same time offering a cogent (and nearly Republican!) analysis of why the bill Pelosi has just strong-armed through the House is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever.

In her article, Paglia shows us the trap to which doctrinaire feminism can lead, if taken to its illogical extreme. The title and subtitle of the piece say it all: “Pelosi’s victory for women: sure, her healthcare bill is a mess, but her gritty maneuvering shows her mettle.”

Earth to Paglia: there’s more to life—and feminism—than mettle. Extremism in the cause of tyranny is no virtue. Showing you are just as rough, tough, cold-blooded, self-serving, partisan, power-mad, and statist as men can be in ramming through an agenda that is destructive of personal liberty as well as having immense negative consequences for the country as a whole is hardly a victory for either women or feminists.

In the end, it may be only a temporary one, even for Nancy Pelosi herself. Let us hope.

On Veterans Day

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a slightly-edited repost of an article originally written in 2005. This year, however, the celebration of Veterans Day is especially poignant, given two realities: (1) the Ft. Hood shooting and the politically correct inability of the military to pay attention to the obvious troubling signs in one of its officers in time to protect its men and women; and (2) President Obama’s Hamlet-like indecision about the war in Afghanistan, and his lack of leadership in following through on a plan he articulated back in March or the recommendations of his own hand-picked general.

Let us honor those who have served, as well as those who are serving now.]

Yes, indeed, I am that old—old enough to remember when Veterans Day was called Armistice Day. The change in names occurred in 1954, when I was very small, in order to accommodate World War II and its veterans.

Since then, the original name has largely fallen out of use—although it remains, like a vestigial organ, in the timing of the holiday: November 11th, which commemorates the day the WWI armistice was signed (eleventh hour, eleventh day, eleventh month).

I’m also old enough–and had a teacher ancient enough—to have been forced to memorize that old chestnut “In Flanders Fields” in fifth grade—although without being given any historical context for it. I think at the time I assumed it was about World War II, since as far as I knew that was the only real war.

You can find the story of the poem here . It was written by a Canadian doctor who served in the European theater (there is no separate URL for the discussion of the poem, but you should click on the “John McCrae´s Poppies in Flander’s Fields” link on the left sidebar). It’s not great poetry, but it was great propaganda to encourage America’s entry into what was known at the time as the Great War.

The poem’s first line “In Flanders fields the poppies blow” introduces the famous flower that later became the symbol of Armistice—and later, Veterans—Day. Why the poppy?

Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.

There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before.

But in this poem the poppy plays one more role. The poppy is known as a symbol of sleep. The last line We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields might point to this fact. Some kinds of poppies are used to derive opium from, from which morphine is made. Morphine is one of the strongest painkillers and was often used to put a wounded soldier to sleep. Sometimes medical doctors used it in a higher dose to put the incurable wounded out of their misery.

Now a day to honor those who have served in our wars, Veterans Day has an interesting history in its original Armistice Day incarnation. It was actually established as a day dedicated to world peace, back in the early post-WWI year of 1926, when it was still possible to believe that WWI had been the war fought to end all wars.

The original proclamation establishing Armistice Day as a holiday read as follows:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

After the carnage of World War II, of course, the earlier hope that peaceful relations among nations would not be severed had long been extinguished. By the time I was a young child, a weary nation sought to honor those who had fought in all of its wars in order to secure the peace that followed—even if each peace was only a temporary one.

And isn’t an armistice a strange (although understandable) sort of hybrid, after all; a decision to lay down arms without anything really having been resolved? Think about the recent wars that have ended through armistice: WWI, which segued almost inexorably into WWII; the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine; the Korean War; and the Gulf War. All of these conflicts exploded again into violence—or have continually threatened to ever since.

So this Veterans/Armistice Day, let’s join in saluting and honoring those who have fought for our country. The hope that some day war will not be necessary is a laudable one—and those who fight wars hold it, too. But that day has not yet arrived—and, realistically but sadly, perhaps it never will.

Obama in video at the Berlin Wall

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama went to Berlin before his election, on a triumphant campaign tour. He had time to go to Copenhagen to plead for a Chicago Olympics. And he will make time for an extra-special Oslo jaunt in order to receive his very own Nobel Peace Prize.

But he only found time to appear at the 20-year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall through the magic of video. Otherwise, poor Hillary will have to do.

As part of his taped address, Obama intoned:

“Few would have foreseen ”¦ that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

I have a bit of a quarrel with the word “led” to refer to what Obama is doing to this country. But of course, it’s never about him—except when it is. The man seems compelled to continually bring his personal history into each and every occasion, even when he can’t be bothered to be personally present.

Hasan: “Secondary trauma;” political correctness

The New Neo Posted on by

We’re now hearing about “secondary trauma” as a reason—even a sort of partial excuse—for Hasan’s killing spree at Fort Hood. Here’s the definition:

In medical parlance it is known as “secondary trauma”, and it can afflict the families of soldiers suffering from P.T.S.D. along with the health workers who are trying to cure them. Dr. Antonette Zeiss, Deputy Chief of Mental Health Services for Veteran Affairs, while not wishing to talk about the specific case of the Fort Hood slayings, explained to TIME that: “Anyone who works with P.T.S.D. clients and hears their stories will be profoundly affected.”…

At army hospitals dealing with P.T.S.D. patients, the staff is required to periodically fill out a ‘resiliency’ questionnaire that is supposed to gauge how well they are coping with the burden of their patients’ emotional and psychological demands. “It takes its toll on people,” says one officer at a Colorado military hospital. “You cannot be un-affected by the terrible things these soldiers have undergone.”

Secondary trauma exists. It is one possible reason for burnout, and it can cause helpers and therapists to quit their jobs. It most definitely can cause helpers and therapists to feel stress and depression.

But it most definitely does not cause helpers and therapists to become mass murderers.

So, what did cause Hasan to cross that line? We can start with his clearly-expressed ideological sympathy with jihadis. This editorial asks the very pertinent question:

Did 13 American soldiers die at Fort Hood because officers were afraid of appearing insensitive to Muslims?

The answer, I’m afraid, appears to be “yes.” There is little question that Hasan raised so many red flags, so often and so flagrantly, that he should have been relieved of duty long before he was able to go on his rampage.

Predicting violence is always a difficult task, but in Hasan’s case it wasn’t even the issue: loyalty to this country was. Even if he had not murdered thirteen soldiers, he could have been expected to represent a security risk in other less violent but still very damaging ways.

The bottom line is that there should be no place in the US armed forces for a person who has professed alliance with or sympathy for jihadists. This has nothing to do with purging the military of Muslims, and everything to do with a common sense case-by-case approach to the question of loyalty to this country versus loyalty to our enemies.

During World War II, this question was faced and “solved” in a maximally politically-incorrect way: detention camps for Japanese-Americans. It was a response to a very real problem: that of the potential for a fifth column in wartime due to divided loyalties. But it was a policy in which many innocents were punished and restricted in order to contain the guilty few.

Hasan and current military policy represent the opposite: a policy in which we refrain from punishing or restricting the guilty few in order to protect the many innocent. If we make that choice, we end up with a massacre of other innocents such as happened at Fort Hood, or even worse.

What about an approach that represents some sort of happy medium? How about responding appropriately to the potentially-guilty few who make themselves obvious— those who, like Hasan, have made it clear that their loyalty is to the enemy and who are therefore significant risks for betrayal and mayhem? If we can’t manage even that, I’m afraid that political correctness has morphed into a near-suicidal insanity.

[ADDENDUM: Red flags, anyone?]