SOLO-International Op-Ed: The Anti-American President, Pt 7

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2010-09-01 03:06

SOLO-International Op-Ed: The Anti-American President Pt 7

Lindsay Perigo
September 1, 2010

The Anti-American President has just announced the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Consistent with his opposition to it from the get-go and his opposition to the Surge that saved it, President Obama has prematurely abandoned it. He has ended any combat role for American troops in Iraq and withdrawn 100,000 of them. It remains to be seen whether the barbarians who very nearly derailed Operation Iraqi Freedom the first time, when the Generals went wobbly and Saddamite Democrats declared the war lost (they wished!) and the Surge a failure, will resume their rearguard bombings and beheadings and succeed this time. Early indications are that they have already resumed their atrocities. Unperturbed, The Anti-American President has kindly given notice to the Taleban and al Qaeda that American troops will be soon leave Afghanistan too, and blithely continues to do nothing while Iran proceeds apace to acquire a nuclear capacity.

None of this is surprising from this President. Nor is his mean-spirited refusal to say to George W. Bush, "You were right and I was wrong."

What was incongruous in his strangely muted speech was his attempt to hijack the occasion, supposedly a celebration of an international triumph, to make a pitch for his socialist domestic policies.

Barack Hussein Obama—the man variously, less than fondly, and justly, referred to here as Chavez-Obama, Obamugabe and Obamalini—had the unmitigated gall to say this:

As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

That effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation's strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity. We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation's long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for - the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

You have to hand it to the guy for sheer brazen effrontery—although perhaps an awareness of the nerve of his remarks accounts for the President's lack of nerve in the delivery of them. Barack Hussein Obama, the Alinskyan Marxist (see previous editions of The Anti-American President) who wants to "spread the wealth around" has the gall to invoke the American Dream while penalizing at every turn "anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it"?! The guy who's run up deficits higher than his predecessors' combined has the brass to bemoan record deficits?! The guy who agrees with the EPA's woeful and ludicrous classification of CO2 as a pollutant has the temerity even to allude to an energy policy?! The guy who's expanded the size of government and state control over the economy to unprecedented levels has the impudence to equate his galloping socialism with the American Dream built on self-reliance, individual initiative and capitalism?!

The American people were mistreated to a loathsome spectacle this evening—an unAmerican President polluting a patriotic occasion with a pitch for unAmerican policies. They will undoubtedly vote accordingly in November.

Mr. Obama may have called off Operation Iraqi Freedom; he cannot call off Operation American Freedom. He himself, The Anti-American President, is almost certain to be its chief casualty.

Lindsay Perigo: editor@freeradical.co.nz

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


Petraeus: Koran burning plan will endanger US troops

Marcus's picture


Protesters burned an effigy of Pastor Terry Jones

"The top US commander in Afghanistan has warned that troops' lives will be in danger if an American church sticks to its plan to burn copies of the Koran.

Gen David Petraeus said the action could cause problems "not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world".

Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center, plans to put copies of the holy book in a bonfire to mark this week's anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

There have already been protests in Afghanistan and Indonesia."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...


General David Petraeus: said he was very concerned by the 'potential repercussions'.

"Images of the burning of a Qur'an would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan, and around the world, to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said.

"I am very concerned by the potential repercussions. Even the rumour that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul. Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."

Muslims consider the Qur'an to be the word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Qur'an is deeply offensive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

Several Points

Doug Bandler's picture

Does it mean knee-jerkedly pro-Republican?

Yes basically. It means that he accepts many NeoCon arguments especially in foreign policy. From reading Tracinski, I would never know he was an Objectivist. I would think he was a secular Conservative writer. The concern that is being expressed by "the Fox News of Objectivism" comment is that too many Objectivists are too cozy with Conservatives. Adam Reed calls them "Objectivism plated Conservatives." There is some truth to this. However, there is a danger going the other way too (which I think Reed does); i.e. getting too cozy with the Left/libertarians.

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, I still maintain that nothing was good about them and that they are TOTAL failures. There was way too much altruism and multiculturalism in their foundation. Bush, who I think very low of, was an altruist and could not conceive of a non-altruistic war. Also, he was a Christian multiculturalist who did not understand the depravity of Islam or Mesopotamian culture. He thought he could create politically stable societies there (forget Jeffersonian Democracies - no one was ever expecting that). But even that was not possible, not in the Middle East. Not under Islam. We should not have even tried such nonsense.

I have read enough commentary on this issue to know that the better military minds were capable of coming up with NON-NATION-BUILDING strategies. We did not need to spend 1 TRILLION (!!) dollars in Middle Eastern welfare. Yes, I am disgusted by the "forward strategy of freedom".

I believe you yourself made an observation about the fallacy of hating the good because it isn't perfect.

This has been your blind spot IMO on this issue. Bush was NOT GOOD! He was horrible but not evil. Obama is evil. That is the proper distinction.

There is nothing more painful

steve b's picture

There is nothing more painful than to be an American right now and have Barack Obama speak in your name. This is the worst, live-with-it-every-single-day pain I've ever known. But then, I should have known that when Michelle, who said she hated America until her husband ran for President, loves America, I would hate it - i.e., I would hate how she and Barack characterize it.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I believe you yourself made an observation about the fallacy of hating the good because it isn't perfect. We're not going to have an Objectivist in the White House in the foreseeable future, in part because Objectivists themselves so foolishly eschew such an idea while offering voting advice (or issuing edicts) that is often idiotic, e.g. the fatwa. A Dem-scum President and a Dem-scum Congress: exactly what the fatwa sought. Those Objectivists made their bed; they should openly and explicitly remake, or lie in it.

To expect Iraq to be a Jeffersonian republic is silly, too, especially when America itself is a Jeffersonian republic no longer. There are still good guys and bad guys. The good guys, alas, are much more "mixed" than they used to be, and that was mixed enough! Doesn't mean one should aid and abet the bad guys. We have to educate the good guys and obliterate the bad guys: in this context, the beheading bombing Jihadists. I don't understand the practice of saying this present war is undeclared or vague. They have proclaimed Jihad on numerous occasions! Jihad is war!! And they haven't simply proclaimed it, they have waged it. There is nothing undeclared or vague about this. WTF is the matter with folk?!

As for immigration, I've made my position clear many times.

As I'm writing this, Glenn Beck is having another meltdown. "Wake the hell up, America!" He's not wrong. "Our children are being submerged in the filth of communism." He's right. He's onto some leftie professor propagating filth at taxpayer expense. He's right. And he's right to get emotional about it. He's a good guy, but he's got that Goblianity bullshit. He's a good guy we have to try to educate.

Bush too is a good guy who needs educating. Obama, on the other hand, is pure unmitigated evil. Obsessing on the flaws of the former should never be at the expense of making sure the latter is removed from the White House asap.

PS—I note your calling Tracinski the "Fox News of Objectivism." I've seen this said about him before. By Fred Weiss if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Does it mean knee-jerkedly pro-Republican?

Sounds good Doug

gregster's picture

"and our immigration policy, including travel restrictions, in order to stop any further demographic incursions of Sharia and jihad into the West."

Even Objectivists shy from this.

one more from Diana

Doug Bandler's picture

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/...

I am not suggesting that the U.S. remove itself from a "war footing" because we are still in a war, however ill-defined, that is by no means over. But the lessons of six and seven years of fighting should teach us that Afghanistan and Iraq are not defensible fronts in this battle against expansionist, jihadist Islam. The lessons of six and seven years of war should teach us that these countries constitute a pit in which our resources sink and disappear without even the possibility of resurrecting them as a bulwark against jihad in the future.

This is a good point. One which Robert Tracinski and the NeoConservatives need to learn. Diana goes on to make this crucial point:

But remember, it's not as if "Al Qaeda" is neatly confined to our current battlegrounds. What about Al Qaeda in Iran? (What about Iran?) In Yemen? In Gaza? In Madrid? In London? Perhaps in Washington, D.C.? The infiltration of jihadists is as advanced as it is complex, and defeating it requires more than massive deployments of troops abroad.

Exactly. Massive troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have achieved nothing; can achieve nothing given the reality of Islamic-Mesopotamian culture. Lastly Diana says this:

For starters, it requires total reconfigurations of two national policies: our energy policy to decouple us from Islamic oil; and our immigration policy, including travel restrictions, in order to stop any further demographic incursions of Sharia and jihad into the West. Sadly -- tragically -- such required reconfigurations won't happen in the Obama years. But it is vital, it is urgent, that we plan now for what comes after.

This last statement shows the Conservative in West but the points she raises are crucial ones which Objectivism needs to answer. The point about Middle Eastern oil is easy to answer - domestic laissez-faire in oil and energy production. But the point about demographic incursions, i.e. Islamic immigration, is a point which Objectivists are sure to battle over as "open immigration" is such a mushy, ill-defined concept.

Obama, of course, is useless in this war and in the deepest sense he is on the side of our Jihad enemies. But if we should get a Republican president in 2012, what will he/she bring to the war table that differs from Bush? Is there any chance of an American president rejecting the Truman/Bush doctrine of nation building and democracy spreading?

Excellent Diana West Columns

Doug Bandler's picture

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/...

This one shows the utter failure of the Iraqi nation-building project.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/...

This one points to why it had to be a failure.

Fact is, there's nothing in it for us. Iraq is no US-ally-in-the-making. Just for a reality-check, look at France, for goodness sake. Despite our intertwined histories from Lafayette to the Lafayette Esquadrille and onto Normandy and beyond, and our intertwined cultures, we can hardly depend on France as an ally -- even after saving it twice from Germany! And Iraq...?

Diana West is a Conservative with a traditionalist bent but her foreign policy analysis is head and shoulders above Tracinski's*. Her main point is that it was folly for the U.S. to think that it could change Islamic-Mesopotamian culture. She's right.

None of this changes the fact that Obama is still a traitor and the only reason he is pulling out now is to aid the Democrats in the midterm elections. Obama is such a deceitful son-of-a-bitch. Its impossible not to hate the man.

____________

* Its depressing that the one Objectivist that took up political commentary as a specialty is so bad at it. Its nearly impossible to read him anymore. The Fox News of Objectivism.

America's Defeat in Iraq

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom but it should have been called Operation Iraqi Self-Rule. "Autonomy" and "self-rule" are the political values which largely dominate the US and the world. Certainly more so than "democracy." And vastly more so than "liberty."


After over 7 years, $700 billion, and 4000 killed, a fairly-horrific, socialist, shariaist dictatorship (headed by Saddam) was replaced by a moderately superior one (headed by Maliki). Was this death-agony of effort worth it? Did this unending exercise in foreign nation-building and domestic self-sacrifice profit us?


Consider all the resultant violations of civil liberties at home, and support for friendly dictatorships abroad -- all the torture and detention without charge -- involved in our "war on terror." Consider all the hatred the world has now for "the American way" and capitalism and individual liberty.


After George Bush's admittedly-successful military Surge, does America and the world have more freedom and hope -- or less?

Actually ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... 50,000 troops remain in an "advisory" capacity, so Obama is covering his ass. But it would be a tragedy if, after all this, the bombers and beheaders win out after all (and a travesty if they do so by means of the ballot box). The optimistic part of me (ever-diminishing nowadays) still hopes for a stable, West-friendly and relatively free regime, even though it's stuffed with hideous Islamogoblins, which regime's existence in the Middle East is indeed in America's self-interest.

America should have insisted on a secular constitution, no doubt. My concern here wasn't to relitigate the Iraq War, though, but point out the chasm in Obama's tongue.

but was nation building necessary?

Doug Bandler's picture

Yes, Obama is a disgrace and the most anti-American president in history. But this essay raises the issue of nation-building and democracy-spreading and trying to transform the Middle East. I still say that Iraq and Afghanistan represent the wrong approach to war; an altruistic approach to war. The Middle East can't be transformed because of one thing: Islam. Nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to failure from the start.

The question now is whether our pulling out will hurt or help us. Many anti-nation-building but very pro-war Conservatives (Diana West, for example, who is awesome) are wondering what Obama's back up plan will be if Iraq should go Sharia (which it looks like it will). What is needed is a non-nation-building strategy for war; something Obama is incapable of as he is anti-American to his core.

All of this was unnecessary. I have mixed feelings with this troop withdrawal. I consider the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" to have been altruistic garbage yet Obama never has a benevolent or liberty oriented motive. He is too evil for that. So I don't know what to feel.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.