Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Was Obama watching the video feed or not?

In Opinion on May 5, 2011 at 10:45 am

The Wall Street Journal editorializes today about the unstable and critical relationship the US has/should have with Pakistan.  (LINK here).

A few thougths about Pakistan and partnerships.

First, start with a fact – Pakistan will do always what it determines to be in its best interest (not a criticism – they MUST and SHOULD do that).

Second – ditto for the USA.

An alliance, a marriage, a club, a pact or a partnership of any kind, hinges on a mutuality of (or at least an alignment of) interests, correct?

Is it safe to assume that Pakistan would love to align its interests with the world’s super power?  I think so.  The problem is, with the current administration’s hot/cold, hawk/dove, on/off approach to foreign nations – with its unpredictable, episodic, circumstantially malleable ‘doctrines’ – there is no way for Pakistan (or Germany, or France or . . .) to align itself with the unknowable.

This is part of the altruistic ‘religion’ that is taking over most of American culture and is creeping into our foreign policy to our detriment.  In that religion having a self-interested agenda is, well, sinful.  However, since having a self-interest is intrinsic in man’s nature, that culture and a desire to be sinless inevitably lead to deception, duplicity and downright dishonesty.  Consequently, altruistic America never states its goals or objectives in rational, concrete words, ergo Pakistan’s tendency to hedge in its dealings with an America on whom it can’t rely.  And our constant complaints about their hedging contributes to the spiraling race down the rabbit hole.

The world is in desparate need of a strong, forthright American policy doctrine and statement.

Instead we have a president, who while being praised for a bold, courageous, brilliant act (killing bin Laden) can’t or won’t tell us whether the orders given to the Navy Seals were “kill him” or “capture him” or “do whatever feels right to you, soldier.”

Instead, we have a president who oversaw a plan for a raid for months or weeks, so he had to have known there would be photos.  (“They took a camera?  Damn!!” – I doubt those words were spoken in the Oval, don’t you?)  But, there was, AFTER THE FACT, a 2-day debate in the administration about whether to release the photos . . . didn’t you think about that question beforehand, maybe during the same deliberations that we can deduce included this statement: “Yeah, let’s make sure we have everything we need on the ship to perform a proper Muslim burial.”

Instead, we have a president who made a point of releasing photos of himself and his team watching “in real time” the video feed of the raid, and then has his surrogates tell us multiple, conflicting versions of what happened during the raid that he supposedly witnessed first-hand.  Odd, isn’t it?

Mr. President, were you watching in awe or were those photos just for ostentatious, self-aggrandizing effect?

Bold?  Brave?  Believable?  Trustworthy?  A good ally for a foreign country?

We need a better brand of politician – and SOON.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: