Saturday, May 21, 2011

Demanding Obama the War Monger

I Hate Green and All the Other Colors Are Awful

Most of the more stable, rational citizens among us grew quite tired of the autocrat's war mongering habits.  Stranded amid agonizing, relentless evidence of one policy failure after another, George II predictably slithered to the last possibility of a rehabilitated role as "Commander in Chief" as a desperate refuge for the wreckage of his "legacy."  Adding the GOPCon's base -- the hill billies  and bigots among us -- to the mix, the inevitable "war mongering" expanded to include a grisly dose of, also inevitable, "fear mongering."

Like anxious whores with complexion problems, the American media adopted "looking the other way" as a full time day job.

With memories like a marble in a mayonaise jar, Americans seemed to have no choice other than to measure the next (and current) President by the vacuous character pathology of the last one.  It is no surprise that the media critique of Obama's view of the role of Commander in Chief is littered with precisely the questions  which should have been asked a decade ago, that is, all the "commentary" which turned out to comprise the "afterbirth" of George II's murderous, Biblical efforts.

All the conclusions are present, each one amplified by this very, very suspicious press.  The questions which should have been posed during the military rampage of the autocrat now surface as somehow suspiciously legitimate  and provocative concerns for his successor.   Even the usually mild tempered BBC news anchors have mounted the band wagon like love starved lumberjacks..

What Questions?

(image source)

"Who will Obama kill next?"

The wing nuts seized on national race fear after the bin Laden killing.  To terrorize the wheel chair crowd, Obama was painted as a frightening minority killer who had just found his pace.  Like a rogue bear after eating his first delicious human, there would be no limit to the arbitrary killing spree once the black man's appetite had been whetted.

"Why isn't the US in the 'lead' in the NATO attack on Libya?"

Okay all you American geriatrics, look for the pill vial marked "super power palliatives and mood stabilizer."  We didn't like it when the country acted unilaterally in the Bush Oil Wars.  Even the tragic collection of international extortion victims unwillingly filling the ranks of our teetering "coalition" fell far short of shaking the "unilateral" label.

Most of the sensible ones left as quickly as possible after the timing became "polite."

Back then we didn't like being "in the lead."  Now, because, by the way Obama is black, we don't like being "out of the lead."  When the autocrat was "in the lead," attacking the wrong country, we were mildly skeptical.  When war policy under the thoughtful Obama is "out of the lead," we are confronted with outrageous evidence that US "super power" status is faltering.

It is.  Still, as Americans, it is entirely reasonable to demand that "we have it both ways."

"If Libya, why not Syria"

The local autocrat in Syria has murdered more of his citizens than Gaddafi has.  Granted, dictator Bashar al-Assad, has shown an internationally reconciling appetite to do the dirty with single bullets instead of Gaddafi's Howitzers, but numbers count.  

The invitation to the "hypocrisy party" was engraved in pure silver as far as the wing nuts and media were concerned.  The implication was that American military force was to be applied based on the whimsy of the body count, and that any other, more pensive reaction only marked indecisiveness and leadership failure. 

After all, a thundering, self-validating show of force would have been the way that George II would have approached the matter.  Shuddering, we can only guess what our autocracy might have considered a "proportional response" to the crimes in the Syrian streets.

US force was exercised in the Libyan desert as a result of a UN mandate.  We can either have a reactionary, half-baked "shoot first" policy or something much more mature and effective.  We made that clear choice in the 2008 election.

Obama and Netanyahu

"Eeeek!  Why is Obama throwing Israel under the bus?"

Past Presidents, luxuriating in the domestic bliss of being supported by domestic Israeli PAC dollars, have benefited greatly from the political and financial convenience of an endless war between the parties of Golan and Gaza.  Americans might have had a few passing moments of reflection as we watched the Jerusalem crowd humiliate the Palestinians for profit and glory, but, thanks largely to our "media," we never saw anything which might seriously pique our ideas of fairness.

George II had no problem with a dawdling repetition of the long tradition of ineffective tid-bits of international meddling.  Why couldn't Obama just "stick with the script?"

MeanMesa has posted on this topic plenty.  Most recently,

The Earth has moved under Israel's feet.  It has also, with the advent of the "Arab Spring," also moved under our own feet.  The script has changed, and no amount of Israel PAC dollars can move the Earth back to the Old Testament closet where it has been dreamily stored all these years.

George II might have attempted to remain on the moving soil, but Obama is clearly not satisfied with the choices contained in the low risk, "low hanging fruit."  The President assumes, correctly, that we Americans are now insisting on something far better than that.

Further, these examples represent only a sample of the onslaught.  The GOPCon "talking points factory" has not missed any opportunity to promote their insinuations of distrust and alienation when it comes to the President.  Happily, the ranks of the questionably "avid" and the "uninterested" have continued to dwindle.

The American "War Dream"

It is unsettling that the act of killing bin Laden, along with the other rather well designed diplomatic moves the President has taken lately, have served to shore up Obama's popularity.  More substantial accomplishments, perhaps because they are also more complicated, have been "set aside" in favor of a thoughtless regression back to the old, hackneyed WWII Victory March mentality.

Obama's "faltering leadership" has shown its colors to all who are even a little willing to see the facts.  The US "ship of state" has been artfully navigated through this last round of threatening seas by a Commander in Chief with irrefutable competence -- especially when compared to the man he replaced in the Oval Office.
Two important facts are in the full light of day.  

First, unlike the effeminate George II, Obama is man enough to take chances.  Granted, the fearful geriatric crowd doesn't particularly like such things, but most of the rest of us are convinced that living in this modern world requires such boldness.  The history of this moment is not written for the timid.

This "risk taking" productivity isn't isolated with military and diplomatic action, either.  The same flavor of the moment has been issued from this Presidency minute by minute since the Inauguration.  Health care, Wall Street regulation, energy policy, disaster responses and other elements of essential politics have been handled by this man even in the midst of relentless savage attacks by the media and the wing nut knuckle draggers. 

Second, we face the unavoidable question of "class."  Obama has clearly dispatched the constant temptation of the bully pulpit to engage in political "cat fights" as he faces his scurrilous detractors.  The President is making his own "high class" demands on the Americans.

"Grow up.  We Americans have a much greater challenge than one which can be met more coarsely with unbridled fear and manipulation.  Those days are in the past.  Now, we all have to actually think.  What do we want?  What do we stand for?  What are we willing to do about it?"

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.

No comments:

Post a Comment