Secretary Kerry's Defense of Fiddling

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, earlier this week we suggested President Obama is fiddling, that is, political campaigning while America and the rest of the world are burning.  Today, Secretary Kerry went on most or all of the Sunday talk shows to defend the fiddling.  Of course, I pictured my daughter learning to hit a baseball with the ball sitting on a stationary tee when David Gregory kicked the interview off with Obama’s criticism of his predecessor in his book, The Audacity of Hope.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gregory sets the stage by suggesting Obama’s grasp of foreign policy is superior to Bush because Obama says so.  What a joke.  If this were Jeopardy, and the emcee asked to whom this quote was directed among the 43 American presidents, I suspect most sufficiently educated contestants would say either Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. Yes, bin Laden is dead (technically a battlefield execution in violation of international law and norms) but Islamic extremists are proliferating.  A President with superior judgment regarding foreign policy might have demonstrated the courage to actually apprehend bin Laden to put him on public trial.

Old Gadfly:  Do you think much could have resulted from such a public trial?

AM:  Do you remember the Scopes trial?  While it pitted religion against science, in the end it demonstrated the power of ideology—whether it be religious or scientific dogma.  A bin Laden trial could have put such ideology on trial.  That’s what our war on terrorism is all about.  And now we see a caliphate emerging in portions of Syria and Iraq.

Old Gadfly:  Why do you think this option was not considered?

AM:  There would be no political capital to be gained from a trial.  But to declare “bin Laden is dead” made for great political capital in election campaigns.

Old Gadfly:  That’s interesting.  When President Bush exercised bipartisan Congressional authority to invade Iraq in 2003, his popularity was nearly 90% and I remember seeing members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, holding hands to demonstrate national unity.  Within a year after the invasion, harsh criticism from Democrats and the left-leaning media began.  I offered an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal that attempted to explain the quick reversal by the left-wing.  I called it the political dilemma (a spinoff of the prisoner’s dilemma used in game theory).  In the article I explained that if Bush were successful in achieving stability in Iraq and the region, this would result in significant political capital for Bush and by association the Republican Party.  This would not be good for Democrats.  Thus, the left-wing undermined Bush’s effort in Iraq.  To Democrats, the outcome must be win-lose—Democrats win and Republicans lose.  If this outcome is not achievable, then the alternative outcome needs to be lose-lose.  If Democrats cannot win, then by God, Republicans won’t win either.  In the Iraq scenario, this tactical objective was achieved (Democrats eventually won large majorities in both houses of Congress).  But not part of the political calculus was a strategic major win for the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq--as we see in Syria and Iraq today.  I am terribly disappointed when I hear or read people say today’s circumstances in Iraq are based on conditions established by the Bush Administration.  The Bush Administration had to fight a two-front war, the one against Iraqi insurgents and the other against political opposition on the home-front.  Democrats demonstrate more animus towards conservative Republicans than they do against militant jihadists/Islamists.  As they say in the Middle East, an enemy of my enemy is my friend.    

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Well, Kerry did defend Obama’s foreign policy by laying out what he called “facts,” such as Obama’s team is far more engaged in foreign affairs than any predecessor.

AM:  Some, I for one, would argue “being engaged” in this case is more accurately described as ”tampering,” or if you prefer, “fiddling,” with existing norms and traditions that produced stability in the international system.  For example, the left euphemistically referred to the eruption of chaos in northern Africa and the Middle East as “the Arab Spring.”  This happened under Obama’s watch.  How would anyone celebrate the Arab Spring today?  Yes, North Korea is quiet for now—wow!  I’m sure any North Korean that is not a member of the government appreciates that consoling thought.  China continues to advance its strategic reach militarily, while America mothballs equipment and gives folks pink slips.  Then, there is Putin and the Ukraine situation.

Old Gadfly:  Watch and listen to (or read the transcript of) to Kerry’s outrage about the Malaysian airliner shoot-down.

IM:  Amazing . . . utterly amazing.  Here are some incredible statements by Kerry:

·         So there's a stacking up of evidence here, which Russia needs to help account for. We are not drawing the final conclusion here. But there is a lot that points and the need for Russia to be responsible. And what President Obama believes and we, the international community, join in believing, everybody is convinced we must have unfettered access.

·         And the lack of access, the lack of access, David, makes its own statement about culpability and responsibility.

Old Gadfly:  What is the significance and irony of these statements?

IM:  The “stacking up of evidence,” a lot of points and the need . . . to be responsible,” “we must have unfettered access,” “the lack of access makes its own statement about culpability and responsibility.”  Yes, there were nearly 300 casualties (to include some Americans) in the airliner shoot-down and the killing of innocents demands culpability.  Yet, in our own country, we see an Administration that seems well beyond culpability when we hear about hundreds of Mexicans being killed from weapons involved in the Fast and Furious operation.  Erik Holder refused to completely cooperate with Congress in its investigation, getting top cover through Obama’s use of executive privilege TO DENY UNFETTERED ACCESS to evidence.  How about the IRS scandal (to censor opposing voices)—Lois Lerner’s invoking the Fifth Amendment as a public servant, the loss of emails, and other points or “stacking up of evidence” that suggest deliberate efforts to deny unfettered access?  And while there are certainly other notable examples, the same critics of Russian attempts to delete social media information regarding who was involved with the Malaysian airliner shoot-down, accuse critics of Administration motives for blaming a video for the attacks at Benghazi as conspiracy theorists, right-wingers, or extremists.  Many of these same critics deride those who watch Fox News as a leading and reliable source to learn about many of these points that become a “stacking up of evidence.”  Of course, if you don’t get an alternative narrative, then the only narrative one knows is reality, even if it’s not true.  Many people in other parts of the world only get the narrative the state wants them to know, such as in North Korea, many parts of the Middle East, and so forth.

AM:  Recall our recent discussion, “Yes We Can!”  The Obama Administration wants to control the narrative to distract Americans from knowing about the need for culpability in our own nation.

IM:  For those who believe in immortal culpability (and accountability well beyond the state), there is great wisdom in Matthew 7:3:  "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (New International Version)”