Vision, Mission, and Strategy


Hillbilly Politics

When America bombs, the world is better off. Even as in Libya, when led by an incompetent Commander-in-Chief and an incoherent Administration

I miss President George W. Bush, The Decider. His deterrence bone fides were so well-understood after our 2003 invasion of Iraq, that Libya’s Colonel Gaddafy decided to unilaterally surrender his weapons of mass destruction program to the armed forces of the United States before they ever had to fire a shot. Not a peep was heard from Libya while The Cowboy slept in the White House.

Joe Biden warned us that international tests were coming when the young President became the resident. The tests have begun in earnest.

The Biden tests came first from would-be Christmas, underwear, and Time Square bombers. The “would-bes” saved President Barack Obama from an “F”, before Fort Hood. Then came Russia and START, and Obama cheated on the test using UK nuclear secrets. By “passing” the unilateral weakening of US defenses through a last-minute-before-Christmas, Lame Duck Democratic Party-Majority Senate ratification, our grading curve translates Obama’s pre-Libyan, overall national security grade to a D-minus.

He barely scores a passing grade only because he hasn’t yet blown the achievements of President Bush and the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Libya President Obama faces is far less dangerous thanks to his predecessor’s dismantling of the WMD program of the veteran killer of Americans via hijacked planes. It is doubtful that Gaddafy would have dared to defy any request of a still in office Bush. Moreover, if Obama were feared by even one enemy of the US on earth, it might have been more likely that he would have passed on any involvement in Libya. But given Obama’s weak standing and long-time preference for using our armed forces more as a meals-on-wheels humanitarian community organizing operation, the female Dem “hawks” in the administration got the March Madness, Bracketologist-in-Chief to sign onto a show of American force between vacations, apology tours, golf rounds and sellouts of American oil companies to Brazil.

I support the President and the troops (and whatever mission they decide upon…)

All that said, this conservative Republican supports the actions of the President in Libya thus far and will likely consider the adventure a net positive for U.S. national security no matter if Gaddafy ends up staying, although I do have hopes that despite the incredible blunders already, the odds are that Gaddafy will be forced from power. The reason I support the action is due to the high premium I place on the need for American deterrence and the high but difficult to calculate value I put on same.

It is vital the U.S. be feared

The fact is that the “D” next to Obama’s name given the actual behavior of Democrat presidents and congresses for the past 40+ years, greatly reduces American deterrence. This is especially the case given the behavior of then Senator Obama when he joined in the Big Lie of the Bushlied chorus from 2004-2008 and when he and his most-hawkish cabinet member, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to defend the troops, not once but twice before they moved into executive positions.

The Three Fillies of the Apocalypse

The fact of the matter is that after Libya, enemies of the U.S. know that President Obama can be persuaded to drop bombs on Muslims in the Middle East, instead of just apologies. It is vital that enemies of the U.S. have some reason to pause before they defy us. On that basis, I am thankful that the female hawks (Secretary of State Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Foreign Policy Advisor Samantha Power) finally persuaded the architect of ObamaCare to care about Libya.

Yes, he bungled the matter for weeks, says former President Bill Clinton, by dithering behind the scenes and then by seeking the blessing or abstentions, of the butchers of Beijing. Yes, he incompetently spoke a great truth during the dithering that Gaddafy must go and has tried to back track on the obvious goal of the official U.N. mandate to protect populations. Yes, his Secretary of Defense incompetently contradicts him on the need for the removal of Gaddafy from power.

All that is true, and for all we know a Libya without Gaddafy could be Somalia II. But the new Libya would be a lethal-air force-less Libya.

The main goal of the War on Islamist Terror, even if Obama’s administration won’t call it by its name, is to prevent more 911s. One of the keys to the safety of our homeland since September 11, 2001 has been to deny al Qaeda and other terror groups, safe havens from which to train and terror states within which to harbour and amass money.

We can do that with small forces via whack-a-mole no matter what follows Gaddafy. I have no problem with a whack-a-mole policy. Detroit and Chicago police have been playing it for decades.

Close call on the wisdom of the action, not the constitutionality

I hope fellow conservatives will refrain from claiming that our liberal President is acting in violation of his power to wage war as Commander-in-Chief due to his failure to get pre-authorization from a Congress that has the sole power to “declare” war. As we discussed ad nauseum with liberals wanting to impeach President Bush, despite Congressional authorizations to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e. erstwhile declarations of war), the term “declare” is a legal term that has lost much of its meaning since the 19th Century.

One of the main reasons the framers rejected the un-workable Articles of Confederation and its weakened executive in favor of the “Commander-in-Chief” language of the U.S. Constitution was precisely to put our Chief executive on par with other such leaders of world powers in his ability to act quickly, lest we be fatally weakened in world affairs.

I consider the War Powers Act (1973 statute passed over Nixon veto) to be unconstitutional, but even if it isn’t, President Obama can wage war for 60 days carte blanche. Then, Congress can cut off funds, which is the exact circumstance the Constitution gives Congress each and every day. They can also impeach a President.

When we elect a man to be President, we give him, rightfully, very broad powers. Let that be a lesson to us the next time we get to choose and consider whether the “R” or the “D” is better at Big D, deterrence and defense. The choice is clear in 2012.

I admit that the choice is not so clear now in Libya, much as it wasn’t in Bosnia, Kosovo and other actions. But as for this fighting gamecock, we will support America and the only foreign policy it has, including our actions in Iraq.

At least now, and from this day forward. there would be reason for a potential enemy of the United States to fear that Obama might drop a bomb on his head. It is especially important that Iran’s mullahs have seen something other than a bow from Obama.

My headline quote about the efficacy of American bombings for more than 20 years is being put to its ultimate test.

Mike DeVine

Legal Editor – The Minority Report

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist for Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeHillbilly PoliticsUnified Patriots,  Political Daily and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

www.devinelawvista.com


7 Responses to When America bombs, the world is better off

  • Bruce says:

    Mike.

    I think I get it now. You’ve watched one too many John Wayne movies or maybe Ronald Reagan movies where cowboy rides in with the white hat and guns a-blazin. He saves the young damsel in distress and then rides off into the sunset. Mike, the cowboys days are over. In fact the days of “the decider” are over. Please come on Mike do you really think Bush scared Gadhafi to gave up all of his weapons. He may not have the ability to launch them very far but he still can use them on his people. And this START treaty you keep going on about and how it weakens the United States. Wasn’t the original START treaty signed in 1991 by none other than GB1 (Republican). Now a continuation of the treaty which continues the idea of the original treaty is weakening the US “just because” it was signed by President Obama.

    The whole Muslim world is changing. The vast majority of the Muslim population is under 25 years of age. They don’t hate the US in the same way the older and ruling class in the Muslim world does. That is why there have been all of these revolutions in the Arab world. Obama has been trying to balance our perception in the world and not let this up and coming majority see us as waging war on the Muslim world as they are being told by their leaders. Taking his time and getting other nations involved I think is a smart thing. And besides we are already neck deep in two other wars. Do you think Obama doesn’t know he has the most powerful armed forces in the world by far. Your problem is you just want to see bombs dropped and that will solve everything. We dropped bombs for over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan has that solved everything? I don’t think so.

    It’s never good when our troops are put into harm’s way and any time that decision is made it should be made carefully not just “DECIDED”.

    Black in America Baby……..The revolution has been televised

  • Bruce says:

    Mike,

    I was just thinking about your three fillies comment and it came to mind. Wasn’t Condoleezza Rice “the deciders” security council at the time he launched the war on Iraq. Didn’t she write a wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled “Why We Know Iraq Is Lying”. I am willing to bet the decider had his own filly pushing him to go to war. He was just more of a cowboy about it. Maybe to satisfy your passion for bombs in 2012 we should make it a point to elect a woman as president. There are a few of them out there Condoleezza or Hilary take your pick………. “bombs away”

    Black in America Baby……The revolution has been televised……

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    I’m really more of a Gary Cooper movie buff but both Hillary and Condi are too soft on defense for me! Nice arguments man.

  • StephC says:

    In fact the days of “the decider” are over.

    I feel sorry for you if you really think this. I don’t know what else to say about it except how much it saddens me.

  • Bruce says:

    StephC,

    “I feel sorry for you if you really think this. I don’t know what else to say about it except how much it saddens me.”

    Why would you feel sorry for me? I am just stating the facts. We are in a different time and things can’t be handled the way there were before. There are reasons the president is proceeding the way he is in Libya and not taking the lead per say. They reasons are as follows:

    1) We are already in two wars do we really want to be involved in a third
    2) The whole Arab world in being shaken up do we go to war in all of the countries involved
    3) The president is trying to maintain our image in the Arab world especially with the new generation. (most of the population of the Arab world today is 25yrs old or younger)
    4) The French and Italians get most of their oil from Libya they have the greatest interest in the outcome and they should be the ones taking the lead and bearing most of the burden.

    In this post Mr. DeVine took the liberty to call the president and I quote “an incompetent Commander-in-Chief”. All of you need to step back for a moment take off your republican, conservative, or tea party hats (which ever you choose) and look at what is really going on. I am sure the “decider” would have thrown on his cowboy hat and just jumped in. But like I said the day of the decider is over. Just like the day of that land-line phone in your house is over.

    Black in America Baby……The revolution has been televised……

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Bruce, given that Gadaffy unilaterally surrendered his WMD to Bush after we toppled Saddam, I’m sure Gadaffy would have continued to behave if Bush were still the decider.

  • Bruce says:

    Mike,

    You know that I like you. But sometimes you really amaze me. How can you say “I’m sure Gadaffy would have continued to behave if Bush were still the decider.” First of all his problem is with his own people not the United States. He is facing a civil war and I don’t care who is the president he won’t easily give up a country that he has ruled since 1969. He has survived through 8 different presidents, and none of them has really made him “behave”, maybe that depends upon what your definition of behaving is. Everyone is calling for Obama to oust him, well what happened with the other 7 presidents before Obama. This is not just a problem with Gaddafi the entire middle east is in an uproar and the situation needs to be handled accordingly not by some cowboy.

    Black in America Baby…..The revolution has been televised……

March 2011
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  


    


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.