Let me start by stating a wee bit of political taxonomy for those readers who desperately want to pigeonhole me: I’m socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and a hawk about terrorism.  Note that I qualify my hawkishness.  We don’t need more Irans (overthrow of one democratically elected government), Iraqs (neo-conservative world building), or Vietnams and Afghanistans (supporting corrupt regimes in a long war for little gain).  I don’t think we need to kill more young men and women with surges, boots-on-the-ground, and other early 20^th century Pentagon ways of doing business.  Our first priority in national defense right now is counter terrorism, whether the nuclear kind (India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan) or bombing-public-places kind, home grown or otherwise.  Terrorism is a killer disease that must be eliminated.

That said, I have to wonder: what is Obama doing?  The only way I’d send five murdering terrorists back to the Middle East is in body bags.  These people aren’t U.S. citizens; they kill U.S. citizens.  I don’t doubt the family and friends of that Idaho soldier are happy right now, but he wore one set of those boots on the ground.  I’d wager we just traded his life for at least twenty other American or European lives.  That’s the problem with terrorism.  The soldier volunteered to fight.  Innocent men, women, and children, the usual victims of terrorists, don’t volunteer to die.  We pay Obama to make those hard decisions.  He f$%&#ed it up royally!

I’m trying to look for logic in Obama’s decision.  Maybe those five terrorists finally became peace-loving and truly devout Muslims who will now practice the goodness and love that the Prophet preached?  Or, maybe all those horrendous CIA torture sessions brainwashed or brain damaged them so much that they’re only qualified to herd goats now?  Or, Obama is feeling regrets about taking out bin Laden, the hero of so many murderers in the Middle East?  God knows—or Christ and the Prophet.  I have another theory.  I’m reluctant to air it here because, in spite of the first paragraph, people will accuse me of working for that infamous Fox News dark Gothic rock band Murdoch-Ailes-Rove.

But here goes.  Obama is taking heat for the VA snafu.  His VA secretary took the fall, but let’s face it: that happened on Obama’s watch and his administration knew about it some time ago—in other words, another royal f*^%k-up that proves once again his ineptitude as a manager.  He’s a Harvard theoretician, not a practical manager.  His two terms have been marred by major snafus.  He couldn’t even manage his pet project, now called Obamacare.  Worse, he can’t pick people who can manage.  His two terms haven’t been as disastrous for the country as Dubya’s, but that’s not saying much.  Ineptitude seems to be a necessary condition to arrive at the presidency in the 21^st century!  (Of course, that just mirrors the mind numbing ineptitude of members of Congress!)

So what’s Barack’s solution to cool the VA snafu’s heat?  A major distraction, of course.  I still don’t understand the logic of it, though.  In my book, negotiating with terrorists and letting five of them return to their killing and maiming ways just gives conservatives something additional to scream about.  We’re talking about future American casualties now, not past ones murdered by the VA.  Come to think about it, both these problems need special counsel to determine if President Obama broke any laws.  Murdering our veterans who fought overseas to fight is just as bad as releasing terrorists who will kill more U.S. citizens.  Ergo, why Obama would think that changing the discourse to the latter is beyond me.  It just adds fuel to the fire already licking around his heels.

It’s not just the damage these five terrorists can do.  It’s a major change in policy.  From Reagan forward, the official policy has been not to negotiate with terrorists.  (Never mind that Reagan began to negotiate after delaying the Iran hostage crisis resolution—thanks to Papa Bush—and that helped him beat Carter.)  To negotiate with terrorists emboldens them—they will conclude that terrorism works, and why wouldn’t they?  The only way to handle terrorists is to meet fire with fire, and drones and special forces, supported by good intel, are the most effective weapons.

There’s a wee bit of controversy associated with the soldier himself.  The Pentagon says he didn’t desert.  Buddies who were or are in Afghanistan say he did.  There are reports that six soldiers died looking for him.  This all needs to be hashed out because it tarnishes the soldier’s release.  But I don’t begrudge family and friends’ happiness at getting their soldier back.  What’s done is done, and they can rejoice.  He was lucky that he didn’t lose his head, but, to think that others, our soldiers or innocents, will lose theirs at the hands of these savage murderers because of this new policy on counter terrorism, goes against everything I believe.  If U.S. Special Forces had entered that Taliban camp and freed him, I would be applauding and not wondering about Obama’s brain fart.  If anything needs consistency in U.S. foreign policy, it’s counter terrorism, independently of whether those in control are progressives or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans.  ‘Nough said….

And so it goes….

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2014 at 4:00 am and is filed under Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.