Is Obama tough enough?

Is Barack Obama tough enough?
Feb 25th 2010
From The Economist


Conservatives call him too weak to be a warrior. Tell that to the Taliban


IF THERE is one thing conservatives agree on, it is that Barack Obama is not tough enough to be commander-in-chief. Some insinuate that he doesn’t love America enough to defend it wholeheartedly. Never before has a president “gone before so many foreign audiences to apologise for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined,” grumbles Mitt Romney, a once and no doubt future Republican presidential candidate. Even France is lecturing America on the dangers of appeasement, which is like “AIG lecturing us on financial responsibility”, scoffs Tim Pawlenty, another aspirant. Mr Obama is “the groveller in chief”, says Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger.

An easy way to raise a cheer at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last week was to bash the president for letting terrorists get “lawyered up”. To tumultuous applause, Marco Rubio, a young Republican firebrand from Florida, urged a more robust approach: kill the terrorists or capture them, “get useful information from them” and then “bring them to justice…in front of a military tribunal in Guantánamo, not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan.” An anti-Obama bumper-sticker asked: “So you’re for abortion but against killing terrorists?”

Most of these barbs are bunk. Yes, Mr Obama favours trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of September 11th 2001, in a civilian court. But that is not a sign of weakness. Several terrorists were successfully prosecuted in civilian courts under George Bush. And though Mr Obama is willing to admit his country’s failings, he is quite ruthless about blowing its enemies to scraps. American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did. For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai. But whether you think it justified or not, it is hardly evidence that the president is “against killing terrorists”.

After more than a year in power, Mr Obama has still not figured out what to do with terrorist suspects captured on foreign soil. He has not yet fulfilled his promise to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay because he does not know what to do with the remaining inmates. Some are deemed too dangerous to release, but cannot easily be prosecuted. In some cases, evidence was obtained by coercion; in others, through intelligence sources that the administration does not want revealed in court. Mr Obama will not rule out holding them indefinitely without charge, but he knows this makes America look bad. He does not want to add to the problem by bringing more foreign jihadists into American custody. Instead, American forces are either killing them or letting less squeamish allies detain them.

In September, for example, America tracked down a much-wanted terrorist in Somalia. Saleh Ali Nabhan was accused of helping to blow up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and was thought to have been the main liaison between al-Qaeda and its Somali ally, al-Shabab. Had he been captured and questioned, he could have been a mine of useful intelligence. But there is no functioning Somali government to hand him over to, so American helicopters vaporised him. This seems to be the rule, not the exception. A recent Washington Post investigation of Mr Obama’s war against al-Qaeda leaders abroad found “dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions” by American forces.

Suspected terrorists caught on American soil are of course taken into American custody. But those caught in Iraq are swiftly handed over to the Iraqis. Those spotted in Pakistan are detained by the Pakistanis—as several senior Taliban commanders were in recent weeks, thanks in part to American intelligence. America maintains a prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, but this will be turned over to the Afghans by the end of the year. None of these countries has a reputation for comfortable cells and polite jailers. In short, it is far from clear that Mr Obama’s policies have led to gentler treatment for terrorist suspects abroad. The opposite may be true. Hence the howls of anguish from human-rights activists who once thought Mr Obama was their man. Hence, also, the urgent need for a coherent detainee policy.


Man of steel
More generally, the notion that Mr Obama does not take seriously his responsibilities as commander-in-chief is risible. In Iraq, he is methodically withdrawing American troops as the country becomes more capable of self-government. In Afghanistan, admittedly after dithering for far too long, he has picked a sound strategy and is seeing it through. The surge of NATO troops into Helmand province appears to be working, at least so far. As for Iran, Mr Obama could always follow Sarah Palin’s advice and declare war on the mullahs so that people “decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think”. But that might have, well, negative consequences. Instead, he is trying to persuade China and Russia to go along with stiffer sanctions to hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This may or may not work. The omens are not good: Iran announced this week a plan to build two new uranium-enrichment plants inside mountains, where they will be harder to bomb. James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh argue, in Foreign Affairs, that Mr Obama should be thinking hard about how to contain Iran after it goes nuclear. The success of Mr Obama’s foreign policy will depend on his ability to choose between finely balanced evils. If he fails, it will not be for lack of steel.

In some senses, i think he's an appeaser like Carter. Not just rolling over either. He apologizes for things he shouldn't have to. His execution of the war, imo, is going as it should. He waited too long on the Afghan deployments though. That wasn't a good thing.

He apologized because the US needed to. International relations have extremely suffered over the Bush years and a country like the US needs good international relations.
The relations that suffered the most are Arab-US relations. The willingness to see civilian casualties as 'collateral damage' and making little to no effort to minimize, or even apologize, for those casualties will not gain you any popularity. This is something Obama has in common with Bush.
Well, he pulled out of Iraq and I don't think it would have been a smart move to immediately after that add troops to Afghanistan. Not to mention, he knew that if he took time to carefully review the numbers and requests, it would come over better to US allies and it would then be more likely that they provide extra troops. And it worked out...

Waiting to review requests when the commanding general there said he wanted them is two different things. His dawdling on that enabled the Taliban. The generals on the ground know more than Obama.

Sure, but you can't always listen to the Generals 100%. The US still had enough troops there to put enough pressure on the Taliban, the General just needed more troops to further advance into the country and even carry out missions in Pakistan.

BubbleBliss wrote:Sure, but you can't always listen to the Generals 100%. The US still had enough troops there to put enough pressure on the Taliban, the General just needed more troops to further advance into the country and even carry out missions in Pakistan.

You have to listen to them. That's why there's a joint chiefs of staff instead of one guy in charge. Keeps the others in line/honest. You certainly can't rely on the politicians. They're the ones who fµqqed up Vietnam.

Oh, yeah. Big time. Politics and Military is like oil and water.

BubbleBliss wrote:Sure, but you can't always listen to the Generals 100%.

Considering the complete lack of any type of experience that Obama has militarily, & quite frankly some of the advisers he has, he should listen quite a bit more.

BubbleBliss wrote:The US still had enough troops there to put enough pressure on the Taliban,

Surly you jest. Remember the "fun" the Soviets had in Afghanistan? Their troop levels were QUITE a bit higher.

BubbleBliss wrote:the General just needed more troops to further advance into the country and even carry out missions in Pakistan.

Well,

1) Yes, going deeper into secluded regions of the country is, was, and has been a necessity since we put "boots on land" there. The LACK of doing so is kinda why we find the situation there the way it is, after all this time.

2) IMO further action in Pakistan is nearly unavoidable now. I mean had we not frittered away resources, time, and our country's integrity in Iraq, and focused on the area that was the "jumping off point" for the attacks of 9/11/01, it might not be, but alas, hindsight is 20/20.

guido wrote:2) IMO further action in Pakistan is nearly unavoidable now. I mean had we not frittered away resources, time, and our country's integrity in Iraq, and focused on the area that was the "jumping off point" for the attacks of 9/11/01, it might not be, but alas, hindsight is 20/20.

Yeah, it is 20/20. If we had spent all of our time there to start with, things might be different. But here's the thing; people talked that we "recruited" terrorists into coming to Iraq to fight us. Probably true. But we're seeing a rise in the Islamic nutz in Afghanistan now. Iran has a stake in that country also but to a lessor extent.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Sure, but you can't always listen to the Generals 100%.

Considering the complete lack of any type of experience that Obama has militarily, & quite frankly some of the advisers he has, he should listen quite a bit more.

That's true.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The US still had enough troops there to put enough pressure on the Taliban,

Surly you jest. Remember the "fun" the Soviets had in Afghanistan? Their troop levels were QUITE a bit higher.

Well, think about this though. Drones are doing most of the assassinations now and the US along with NATO is already well established in Afghanistan so with modern military technology, there were enough troops there to keep the Taliban under pressure.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:the General just needed more troops to further advance into the country and even carry out missions in Pakistan.

Well,

1) Yes, going deeper into secluded regions of the country is, was, and has been a necessity since we put "boots on land" there. The LACK of doing so is kinda why we find the situation there the way it is, after all this time.

2) IMO further action in Pakistan is nearly unavoidable now. I mean had we not frittered away resources, time, and our country's integrity in Iraq, and focused on the area that was the "jumping off point" for the attacks of 9/11/01, it might not be, but alas, hindsight is 20/20.

This is true. Drones are already heavily operating in Pakistan. I'm rather curious about countries like Yemen, etc.

TexasBlue wrote:
Yeah, it is 20/20. If we had spent all of our time there to start with, things might be different. But here's the thing; people talked that we "recruited" terrorists into coming to Iraq to fight us. Probably true. But we're seeing a rise in the Islamic nutz in Afghanistan now. Iran has a stake in that country also but to a lessor extent.

The US has to seriously reevaluate our policies RE: Israel. Those policies in hand with our lack of foresight in remaining "close" to the very people in Afghanistan we backed in their fight against the Soviets, helped fan the flames in terms of what happened the first time the Towers were attacked, as well as 9/11/01. Not to mention much of the terror attacks aimed @ the US, and our allies.

The "far right" in respect to Islamic fundamentalists, has memory that runs deep, and long.

Actually, if you think about it, Islam is going through, what the early Christian (Catholic) church did, & nearly on the same time scale really.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, think about this though. Drones are doing most of the assassinations now and the US along with NATO is already well established in Afghanistan so with modern military technology, there were enough troops there to keep the Taliban under pressure.

It is impossible to put any "pressure" on anyone in that region, (due to its terrain) with drones.

You need more troops on the ground, going through caves, nooks and crannies. Plus, "Winning the hearts and minds" type of stuff, in a way kind of like we'd tried to do in Vietnam...only less political.

Modern military technology means little in this type of combat situation.....unless you're talking about nuclear weaponry of course, and that's an option that we must pray never gets used.

guido wrote:The US has to seriously reevaluate our policies RE: Israel. Those policies in hand with our lack of foresight in remaining "close" to the very people in Afghanistan we backed in their fight against the Soviets, helped fan the flames in terms of what happened the first time the Towers were attacked, as well as 9/11/01. Not to mention much of the terror attacks aimed @ the US, and our allies.

The "far right" in respect to Islamic fundamentalists, has memory that runs deep, and long.

Actually, if you think about it, Islam is going through, what the early Christian (Catholic) church did, & nearly on the same time scale really.

Some polices, i agree. The one thing that makes them unique is they're the only true democracy in the Middle East. Turkey doesn't count since they're technically not Middle Eastern.

Israel's policy of expansion bothers me. Stop with the settlements.

TexasBlue wrote:....Israel's policy of expansion bothers me. Stop with the settlements.

I agree 100%.

And that will forever be the stumbling block in any "Peace Process" in the region.

Funny thing is, many Israeli's (a SLIGHT minority) are against "Zionism"....the ideology behind an expansion of the State of Israel. As a matter of fact, there are many Israeli lawyers, that have taken up the legal cases of Palistinians in land disputes with the Israeli government.

guido wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, think about this though. Drones are doing most of the assassinations now and the US along with NATO is already well established in Afghanistan so with modern military technology, there were enough troops there to keep the Taliban under pressure.

It is impossible to put any "pressure" on anyone in that region, (due to its terrain) with drones.

You need more troops on the ground, going through caves, nooks and crannies. Plus, "Winning the hearts and minds" type of stuff, in a way kind of like we'd tried to do in Vietnam...only less political.

Modern military technology means little in this type of combat situation.....unless you're talking about nuclear weaponry of course, and that's an option that we must pray never gets used.

Well it's not like the Taliban families live underground. But pressure may be a bad word, putting a stop to Taliban expansion might be a better term.

Sure, like I said, you need more troops to push further into Taliban controlled territory.

I don't think Nukes will be used in Afghanistan or Pakistan, the target group is just too little.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well it's not like the Taliban families live underground.

Ahh, actually, that's nearly exactly how it is in many cases...well, for those Taliban & Al Q fighters that HAVE families. Those that do not live "under ground" (the families that is) comprise much of the civilian death toll after drone attacks. Well, them, and the COMPLETELY innocent civilian, with NO ties to the aggressions against the US and our allies.

BubbleBliss wrote:But pressure may be a bad word, putting a stop to Taliban expansion might be a better term.
Sure, like I said, you need more troops to push further into Taliban controlled territory.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. Neither can be accomplished well, w/o increased troop strength.

BubbleBliss wrote:I don't think Nukes will be used in Afghanistan or Pakistan, the target group is just too little.

However the possibility cannot be ruled out....There is a very real possibility that some type of nuclear detonation could actually come from Pakistan...due to terrorist attack.

I do hope it never happens, but nothing can be ruled out.

Sadly, it's all about religion... both of you two's statements. That's what drives the Islamic nutz and the Zionists.

To be fair though, i believe most Israeli people just want to live in peace. Most of the Arab world wants Israel gone. A big difference. Fundamental Islam is destroying that religion.

TexasBlue wrote:Sadly, it's all about religion... both of you two's statements. That's what drives the Islamic nutz and the Zionists.

Exactly, look back through many of my posts RE: this stuff, and I say as much. This makes this "GWOT" (LOL) nearly impossible to "win". When people are guaranteed "paradise" to die in a struggle, it's a far more motivating factor than ANY political ideology. The fight against Communism pales in comparison.

TexasBlue wrote:To be fair though, i believe most Israeli people just want to live in peace. Most of the Arab world wants Israel gone. A big difference. Fundamental Islam is destroying that religion.

As long as you're separating Israeli's from Zionists, I could agree.

Fundamental Islam, and Zionism are not that far removed.

Yeah, as soon as the USA reminds itself that this isn't a conventional war, it might be winnable. One thing Bush said that i agree with is that this conflict will endure long after i'm gone.

TexasBlue wrote:Yeah, as soon as the USA reminds itself that this isn't a conventional war, it might be winnable. One thing Bush said that i agree with is that this conflict will endure long after i'm gone.

For the life of me, I don't see any way, short of abolishing any/all religious ideologies, that this GWOT can ever BE won.

guido wrote:For the life of me, I don't see any way, short of abolishing any/all religious ideologies, that this GWOT can ever BE won.

If the USA got the hell out of all foreign countries, it'd probably end. I'm not quite to that point but i'm getting close to it. Not isolationist by any means.... just mind our own business and to quit giving other countries "aid" and take care of our own problems. Just think of the money this gov't would have.

TexasBlue wrote:
If the USA got the hell out of all foreign countries, it'd probably end.

That's about it in a nutshell...combined with holding our allies to the same expectations as the rest of the world.....or would be enough to quite things down for a while.

TexasBlue wrote: I'm not quite to that point but i'm getting close to it. Not isolationist by any means.... just mind our own business and to quit giving other countries "aid" and take care of our own problems. Just think of the money this gov't would have.

IDK. IMO, the term Isolationist isn't necessarily a "bad" thing.

Certainly better than "globalist", but not as good as "Nationalist"...well, as long as the Nationalism is founded on what's best for all the citizens of a given nation.

I think most people are nationalists to a point. It's just love of country for the most part. But globalism is a two-pronged sword. On one hand, with today's technology (internet, etc) it's inevitable and a good thing for the most part. On the other hand, you have those who want all nations under one banner. It's the latter who scare me.

TexasBlue wrote:

guido wrote:For the life of me, I don't see any way, short of abolishing any/all religious ideologies, that this GWOT can ever BE won.

If the USA got the hell out of all foreign countries, it'd probably end. I'm not quite to that point but i'm getting close to it. Not isolationist by any means.... just mind our own business and to quit giving other countries "aid" and take care of our own problems. Just think of the money this gov't would have.

And what would the government do with it? Provide health care for its citizens? Improve living conditions in inner city and rural America?

BubbleBliss wrote:And what would the government do with it? Provide health care for its citizens? Improve living conditions in inner city and rural America?

That would rest on what the American voting public decided mattered really.

If the Majority continue down the path we've been on since the end of ww2, I'm sure things will continue to spiral down hill.