Kinetic Military Action, Inert Presidential Leadership

March 24, 2011

From the folks that brought you “overseas contingency operation” as a new name for the War on Terror, we now present “Kinetic Military Action” to describe the War on Libya. Somewhere out there, George Orwell is applauding a job well done.

I’m not a Constitutional law scholar like the President claims to be, and I’ve read opinions on both sides about whether the action we are taking in Libya is legal or illegal. According to Vice President Joe Biden, since the President didn’t seek Congressional approval first it’s clearly illegal and impeachment hearings should commence immediately. Oh, wait…wrong president. Never mind.

The most compelling argument in favor of the shelling of Libya being unconstitutional is that the situation on the ground there has no American interests. Had Gadhafi been threatening the United States in some way, the Constitutionality of these actions would not be in question because it would rise to the level of defending the country against a clear and present danger.

Still, I believe that what the President is doing is allowed under the law, which states that he has 60 days to get Congressional approval. Whether what Obama is doing is a wise thing is another matter.

Aside from the fact that America is so diminished under this Presidency that we were shamed into military action by the French, the humanitarian goal here of protecting the rebels from Gadhafi’s bombs is laudable. I don’t buy the argument that because we are not pursuing similar actions in places like Darfur we are constrained from acting in Libya. No, we can not get involved in all of the world’s various hot spots and basket cases, but that doesn’t prevent us from acting when and where we can. We can not aid the citizens of North Korea simply because there is no good opportunity or time to do so. That is not the case in Libya, where the opportunity has presented itself.

Admitting that the goal here is worthy, the execution of this operation has been a bungled mishmash worthy of Ted Mack’s Amateur Hour. For weeks when the rebels were advancing Obama sat on his hands and did nothing. That was the time to get involved, when Gadhafi was back on his heels. Instead we waited until the French and British got a UN resolution to establish a No-Fly Zone. This makes it look like Obama’s getting his marching orders from the United Nations, enhancing the perception of him created by the treacly “citizen of the world” rhetoric he spouts.

Since the minute the jets hit the air Obama has been taking time out of his busy schedule to reassure everyone that we don’t really mean it. Yes, Gadhafi must go immediately, but it’s okay if he stays. Yes, we are bombing tanks, compounds, and roads but we’re not at war, it’s just a kinetic military action. Yes, the American military is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting here but in the next few days we’ll be turning over the lead to the first country willing to stand up and take it. Yes, we are doing this because the Arab League gave us their blessing, even though they apparently didn’t understand that enforcing a no-fly zone might require kinetic military action. Even the name of the operation screams wussiness. “Operation Odyssey Dawn”…what the heck does that mean?

To the surprise of nobody except the true believers out there, Obama wants to appease everybody and instead alienates everyone. His actions are those of a man used to voting “Present” whenever he might be held to account for an unpopular position. He knows the Left is generally in favor of using the military for humanitarian purposes, so he couches the attack on Libya as being for these purposes, he knows many on the Right want Gadhafi’s head on a platter, so he coordinates these attacks with the rebels. The world seems to be going to Hell in a handbasket between the tragedy in Japan, unrest in the Middle East, and now a brand new war in Libya, and where is Obama? Filling out his March Madness brackets, playing golf, appearing on ESPN, taking the family to Rio for a speech/vacation. Not once has he sat behind the desk in the Oval Office and addressed the American people about how we are helping in Japan or in Libya. His statements, when they don’t flatly contradict each other, are mealy-mouthed and incoherent. There is no real, stated goal to this action. This proves yet again that Obama does not take foreign policy seriously, that he views it as an inconvenience getting in the way of his domestic agenda. This is a trait he shared with his Democratic predecessor in office, and is the flip side of George W. Bush.

We are committed to this policy now, and the men we are sending into harm’s way (don’t worry, there will never be boots on the ground, Obama assures us this week) deserve our full support and I wish them Godspeed and pray for speedy success. But the political side of this situation has been an absolute bungle and for that there’s no one to blame except the feckless amateur in the White House.


UPDATE: I’m behind the times. According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, “kinetic military action” is so yesterday. Today’s term is “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” That’s better.


Poetry Cornered

March 9, 2011

Where is my handout?
Poetry on the range
Reid is a clown

This poem brought to you by the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Jonah Goldberg sums up my thoughts in less than 140 characters: “Do we really want to live in a country where we balance the books on the backs of cowboy poets? Umm, yeah kinda.”

The Roundup: Hot Air and Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s site are having some fun with this. So does The Backyard Conservative and Mark Joyella at Mediaite.


Wisconsin Agonistes

March 4, 2011

It’s been so long since I’ve written here, and so much has happened in the world. Forgive me if I’m a little rusty.

John Boehner is the Speaker Of The House, the Egyptians have ousted their authoritarian ruler Hosni Mubarak, from Tunisia to Libya there is widespread revolt in that region of the world, Charlie Sheen is taking up full-time residence at the Waldorf Hysteria, and there have been Oscars and Grammys handed out to musicians nobody knows and movies nobody’s seen. Where to begin?

In Wisconsin, naturally. This is a story that has really gripped the body politic because 1) it portends a huge, forthcoming fight across the nation, and 2) because it’s so weird.

Here we have a newly elected Governor and Legislature (Republican) that is trying to deliver on one of their campaign promises: to pull back the power of the public employee unions via collective bargaining. The newly outnumbered Democratic legislators, suffering from either piqué or panic, left town and are currently living in a hotel across state lines rather than vote. The government unions, meanwhile, are protesting loudly and rudely.

I’ll assume that by now, two weeks into this story that’s been leading the news, everyone is familiar with the issues: Governor Scott Walker and the Republican legislators want the unions to pay for some of their benefits and they also want to take away the unions’ right to collectively bargain for non-salary demands. The Democrat legislators suffered a major case of the vapors at the very idea that unions might have to give these up, so they left town. The unions have conceded on paying for some of their benefits, but still refuse to give up their collective bargaining rights.

The real question here is whether or not the unions should have ever had collective bargaining rights in the first place. And the answer to that question is “No.”

I’ll repeat that: No.

This really isn’t a difficult question, and the only real controversy that arises from this is the same controversy that arises if you try to take a dog’s bone away while he’s still gnawing on it. Keep in mind that we are not talking about private unions. The question here involves public unions, which is a polite way of saying government unions.

To phrase the question correctly, it should be: Should unions have the right to bargain with people they have helped to elect at the expense of the taxpayer? The way it works in the real world is that Politician A promises to give the unions anything they want. The unions then give scads of money to Politician A, mobilize Get Out The Vote efforts, and generally promote the candidacy of Politican A. Politician A then gets elected thanks in no small part to the union efforts, and thanks them by writing them a blank check to be paid for by all the taxpayers of a given state.

In collective bargaining between the government and the government union, where is the real negotiation? Where is the compromise between a union that wants more and a politician who is indebted to these same unions? This would be as cute as watching a dog chase his own tail if it weren’t costing the states and taxpayers billions of dollars, but since this incestuous relationship between government and union is bankrupting states it’s more like watching a snake eat itself.

The unions are not alone in this. I can’t blame the unions entirely for the economic woes of various states, but they certainly bear part of the burden. Governor Walker needs to stick to his guns, and plunge right through that union line. As I write this, he is preparing to lay off something like 1500 union employees to help close the budget shortfall in Wisconsin. These layoffs do not need to happen and would not happen if the Democrats returned to the state house and did their jobs.

Make no mistake here: the Democrats in Wisconsin are willing to put 1500 people on the unemployment line, destroying their livelihoods and damaging the financial health and security of their families, because they are afraid to stand up to the unions that own them. And the sad part is, the unions don’t care. They’re more than willing to lose some people if it means keeping their power structure in place. Sick, sick, sick.


The Roundup: Hot Air asks whether legislators packing up and leaving town—fleebagging—is the hot new trend. Michelle Malkin displays to the world what passes for civility when unions feel threatened and also reveals one of the hidden hands behind the union protests: the White House.


Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.

November 16, 2010

I know that schadenfreude is wrong and a symbol of moral failure, but I just can’t freakin’ help it.

New York Congressman Charlie Rangel has long been one of the looniest of loony Leftists in Congress yet has always managed to circumvent that with his jovial attitude and sharp way with a joke or a one-liner. Rangel comes across great on television: sharp, eloquent, funny. He is the anti-Barney Frank, while retaining all of Frank’s poisonous ideology. But beneath that facade is a stinking mass of corruption, pettiness, and entitlement so putrid that even his fellow Democrats can smell it.

Whether or not his fellow Dems will actually punish Rangel in a manner befitting his crimes (and they are crimes), is another matter. My guess is that they will recommend twenty lashes with a wet noodle or something equally serious and Rangel will take his seat in Congress, dutifully chastened and repentant, and then continue to wallow in the cesspool of corruption.

The Roundup: Michelle Malkin weighs in on cleaning the swamp. Hot Air claims that the “Otter Defense” was failure.


Today’s Lesson in Progressive Politics: Rolling Stone

November 15, 2010

Rolling Stone, the magazine that brought you a five-star review of Mick Jagger’s Goddess In The Doorway album, is featuring in their upcoming issue a political roundtable to discuss the results of the midterm elections. The roundtable consists of Peter D. Hart, who is “known for his nonpartisan poll for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal,” every Democrat’s favorite sage David Gergen, and Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi.

Gergen, as is his wont, tries really hard to be as bland and faceless as a Journey Greatest Hits album and succeeds admirably. The nonpartisan Hart maintains that the results are “hard to stomach.”

But it is Matt Taibbi who gives the real lesson in What Progressives Think:

Taibbi: To me, the main thing about the Tea Party is that they’re just crazy. If somebody is able to bridge the gap with those voters, it seems to me they will have to be a little bit crazy too. That’s part of the Tea Party’s litmus test: “How far will you go?”

Gergen: I flatly reject the idea that Tea Partiers are crazy. They had some eccentric candidates, there’s no question about that. But I think they represent a broad swath of the American electorate that elites dismiss to their peril.

Hart: I agree with David. When two out of five people who voted last night say they consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, we make a huge mistake to suggest that they are some sort of small fringe group and do not represent anybody else.

Taibbi: I’m not saying that they’re small or a fringe group.

Gergen: You just think they’re all crazy.

Taibbi: I do.

Gergen: So you’re arguing, Matt, that 40 percent of those who voted last night are crazy?

Taibbi: I interview these people. They’re not basing their positions on the facts — they’re completely uninterested in the facts. They’re voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that’s enough for them.

Gergen: The great unwashed are uneducated, so therefore their views are really beneath serious conversation?

Taibbi: I’m not saying they’re beneath serious conversation. I’m saying that these people vote without acting on the evidence.

Thank you Matt for being honest. This is what Progressives think: those who disagree with their agenda are crazy and ignorant. And they call us intolerant.