About Me

Name: halthouse1
Email: exetertraining@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine: A Necessary Evil

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine

Clear and Present Danger

If an individual, or the United States as a sovereign nation is aware of a building danger to security or safety, is the optimal plan to wait until it is a clear and present danger before dealing with it? Common sense would seem to dictate that the line separating danger and imminent danger is extremely fine, and that waiting is in no way consistent with the premise of either personal or national security.

As an individual you would work the problem through the system to try and contain it. As a nation facing entities and regimes that seek to inflict as much damage and destruction as possible on innocent men, women and children, the solution is more complex. And yes, this solution may in fact require the use of military force to take that threat out.

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine was put in place by the Bush administration in 2002 with the expressed purpose of giving the United States the right to protect, not only our citizens, but our allies around the world from the ever increasing threats that exist. It stated that the United States had the right to deal with a building threat to security in addition to a threat that presented a "clear and present danger" Unfortunately for all involved, because it was implemented by President Bush, it is a pariah that President Obama wants to eradicate.

Obviously, Iran is the textbook case for the fine line that we have to walk. There is a quickly building danger posed to world security by the Iranian nuclear program. Our "allies" in the fight to end or contain this threat, Russia and China, are not true allies. In fact, China and Russia have their own agendas, which will prevent them from taking any real action against this regime. China has a need for the Iranian oil to fuel its 6% plus economic growth. Russia has economic ties to Iran and is in fact helping them in building its’ nuclear infrastructure and missile defense system. This very missile defense system will make dealing with the nukes problem, when it does become a clear and present danger, that much more difficult to deal with. Is waiting for this point in the best interest of United States national security?

The Obama Doctrine

This apparent method of the Obama administration for dealing with threats to the United States and our friends around the world has become clear. Ominously clear. It is the idea of diplomacy first and second, with the implementation of sanctions and deal making together with our supposed allies to gain the help needed to deal with the problem third. The fallacy of this plan?

You cannot enter into substantive and valid negotiations with when the other party to those negotiations is a rogue regime with the stated goal of destroying our allies and the U.S. You cannot implement economic sanctions against a government who does not have the vested interests of its' own population at heart. Additionally, when your partners in imposing the sanctions will most likely not abide by them, this method of containing the threat will fail. China and Russia have clearly stated that they do not favor sanctions at this time. 

At the same time, through the Obama Doctrine premise of appeasement, the United States has portrayed itself as the polar opposite of Bush. Weak and willing to give up most anything to achieve our goals in ways that will make them unachievable. We gave up missile defense in Poland and Czechoslovakia to appease the Russians with the understanding that they would back sanctions, and they did not.

Our allies in this fight against global threats, as well as Iran and North Korea, do not respect weakness, but they will take full advantage of it. For the Russians under acting leader Putin, they will get whatever they can from the United States, and in return most likely never come through on their side of the bargain. For Iran, they will play the game and dance the dance, stringing us along while continuing on the way to a nuclear capability.

What the Obama Doctrine does not seem to account for is that rhetoric, flowery speech and empty threats do not scare anyone. Anyone, except for those around the world who see it for what it is: “Clear and present danger" to the United States itself. In the end, those nations who live under a daily threat to security will be forced to take matters into their own hands, act unilaterally, and pay a price to ensure national security.

What the Obama Doctrine needs to account for is that in the world today, the emphasis has to be on a pragmatic approach to events, and not an approach designed to simply be "not George Bush." While the far left may endorse that, the rest of us will pay the price. 

Michael Haltman writes The Political Commentator, with articles having been picked up by publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun-Times and Houston Chronicle. He focuses much of his writing on national security,  the war on terror, the presidency and politics as usual. Living in New York, aware that Americans have short memories and our enemy’s great patience, he hopes that his articles will help keep us vigilant and aware. Michael welcomes any questions or comments at exetertraining@aol.com.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Do Obama And Richie Cunnungham Have In Common?

FromThe Political and Financial Markets Commentator "Happy Days" Are Here Again? I have been talking for some time about the fact that the goal of President Obama is to be well liked in the world. To be the anti-Bush. To make no waves, speak the words that everyone wants to hear, promote an agenda of diplomacy no matter what with the hint that there is the potential for strong action behind it. Does anyone really believe that to be the case. President Bush was hated around the world, but our enemies knew that he carried a big stick. Does anyone fear Obama and his sidekicks Pelosi and Reid? It is critical as a superpower for that to be the case. As an example, to play diplomacy games with Iran is a losing proposition if they know that they can just string us along with no fear of the end game. All because he wants to make friends. Just like Richie, when we need a little more Fonz! The Cunningham Effect (RealClearPolitcs) "Happy Days pivoted around the friendship between two very different American teenagers, Richie Cunningham and Fonzie Fonzarelli. Richie was clean-cut, wholesome, an absolute goody-goody, and everybody loved him. Fonzie, especially in the early series, was a tough nut. Greased-back hair, always astride his outlaw motorbike, decked out in Marlon Brando T-shirt, Fonzie inspired fear and envy in men, and swoons among the gals. Everyone was frightened of Fonzie. He could banish bad guys with a look. In one episode, Fonzie tried to teach Richie his style. Richie practised the grimaces, the flexes, the stares, but alas the bad guys were not impressed and certainly not deterred. In the midst of a desperate scrape, Richie turned to Fonzie imploringly and asked: Why are my deadly looks, threatening flexes and strategic grimaces having no effect? Oh yeah, Fonzie replied, I forgot to tell you. For all that to work, once in your life you have to have hit someone. You cannot imagine a deeper strategic insight. At some point, Obama is going to have to do something seriously unpleasant to someone..." Does he have it in him?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Obama: How Do You Get A Schoolteacher This Mad?

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com
 

Friday, May 8, 2009

President Obama: How Do You Get A Schoolteacher This Mad?

Outrage Over The First 100 Days Of The Obama Administration

The Obama apologists love to invoke the first 100 days argument. That is, how can you expect miracles in 100 days when the president "inherited" the huge problems left by the Bush administration. Now I have my problems with the Obama administration, some of which I detail below, but nothing like those expressed in the letter following the picture of the one room schoolhouse.

Number one, as my expectations from a president go, I don't give a timeline of when I expect accomplishments to be seen. I just want to see steady progress being made.

Number two I also don't like to hear constant excuses as to why things are as they are and how the problems are so difficult. When a man or a woman chooses to run for office, they know what they are signing on for. Just do it.

Finally, as an observer of the President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth, I don't like to see them going around the world apologizing for what it is we do, bowing to foreign leaders (although not all foreign leaders if you know what I mean) and cozying up to leaders such as Hugo Chavez.

This is all separate from his foreign policy charade of appeasement and serious "negotiations" with rogue countries that does nothing except buy these rogue nations time to accomplish whatever it is that rogue nations want to accomplish.

The Anger Of A Fourth Grade School Teacher

What does it take to stir the ire of a schoolteacher? How do you manufacture outrage that erupts into an open letter to President Obama. I guess I will step aside and let you read it for yourself:

Winton School House

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America . You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead?

What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You don't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you. You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.

I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.

I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

Sincerely,

Ms Kathleen Lyday

Fourth Grade Teacher

Grandview Elementary School

11470 Hwy. C

Hillsboro, MO63050 Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out There?

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2009/04/pakistan-taliban-and-islamabad-is.html), Mike Haltman
 

Friday, April 24, 2009

Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out There?

Beating a Dead Horse

If I am getting tired of talking about the same thing, then people must be getting tired about reading about the same thing. This situation was once a dangerous thought, then a dangerous development, and now it is seemingly an extremely dangerous reality.

Slowly but surely, as discussed in this blog ad infinitum, the Taliban is moving towards Islamabad and a de facto takeover of the government of Pakistan. Much like Hitler was appeased by France, the UK and the Soviet Union in the 1930's when he was allowed to take Czechoslovakia, the Taliban has been appeased but does not seem satisfied by what they were given either.

What will be the result if there is a full takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban, and more importantly the weapons that Pakistan controls. The world, as the saying goes, will be up a very brown creek without a paddle. There have been questions all along regarding the current government of Pakistan in terms of it's allegiances, and that is who we are counting on to put down this dangerous, dangerous situation.

What are the world leaders saying:

- After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told lawmakers in Washington on Wednesday that the Pakistani government was "basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists," Islamabad has seen a flurry of diplomatic activity.

Huh? Any thoughts on how to diffuse the situation Madame Secretary, or do we just go with the flow on this one?

- German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Prime Minister Gillani to express her concern. And Western diplomats met with Pakistani lawmakers throughout the day to assess the government's likely response to the threat.

Really? Is that making anyone feel better?

- This is what the Taliban had to say:

"Taliban fighters from the nearby Swat Valley have infiltrated the area in recent days, emboldened by a government-sanctioned peace deal allowing them to enforce Sharia, or Islamic law, in the valley, a onetime tourist paradise.

Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani told reporters in Islamabad on Thursday that the government would see to it that the peace agreement isn't violated. "The government will not allow anyone to challenge the government," he said in a statement.

But in Buner, the Taliban remained largely in control despite the stepped-up paramilitary presence.

"We will not leave the area," a Taliban commander, Mufti Bashir, told local journalists.

Map locates the Buner region

Since entering Buner from Swat, the Taliban has reportedly set up checkpoints, begun patrolling roads and ordered barbershops to stop shaving beards, which are favored by Islamic militants. The moves have prompted some residents to flee..." (LA Times)

President Obama, I don't want to be an alarmist here, but what are the plans besides calling the Prime Minister and voicing our concern, or going to United Nations demanding this to stop.

This is the Taliban that does not answer to any international voice, and if this development that could turn disastrous for us all is not stopped and stopped now, your health care plan and the rest of your socialist agenda could be rendered moot. Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »