Posted on 03/10/2009 3:50:22 PM PDT by Michael Eden
There's such a thing as a contradiction in terms: Obama's "adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined" while preaching the message of "fiscal responsibility" certainly qualifies. Hence "Obama budget" and "fiscal responsibility" is oxymoronic. Another terrific new oxymoron that Obama has added to the lexicon is "moderate Taliban":
NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Barack Obama is open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban, The New York Times reported on Saturday."Moderate elements of the Taliban"?
Did FDR reach out to "moderate Nazis"? Did Truman reach out to "moderate Stalinists"? Did Martin Luther King go after those "moderate Ku Klux Klansmen"?
The strategy of co-opting a few of ones' enemies and turning them into allies is probably as old as warfare. And General David Petraeus (a genuine hero, by the way), who proved a master at identifying and separating factions of former enemy fighters in Iraq, has discussed employing a similar strategy in Afghanistan.
But when a professional soldier such as General David Petraeus talks about separating factions of Taliban from the rest of the herd, it's the opinion of a successful military strategist who has already proven he knows how to win wars. When Barack Obama - who criticized General Petraeus for his war-winning "surge strategy" - talks about "moderate Taliban," it's the opinion of an ignorant weasel who has already shown he would rather make friends with radical fundamentalist Muslims than attempt to defeat them before they kill even more innocents than they already have.
The quintessential element of an appeasing weakling is to identify "moderation" in one's enemies where none actually exists.
Petraeus I trust implicitly to do the right thing for the United States and for the forces under his command. He will pursue the best path to victory. Obama I also trust implicitly - to be a an appeaser who sees friends where only enemies exist so that he can talk of having won "peace in our time." He has already tried to prevent America from obtaining victory in Iraq by opposing the strategy that made that victory possible.
It was just short of two years ago that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said of Iraq: "Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything." Obama joined with Harry Reid:
In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."Now Obama is able to plan the withdraw of United States combat troops from Iraq - not with their tails between their legs in defeat, but in victory - because Bush, Petraeus, and far better men than Obama made the right decision.
Whenever Obama talks about the war in Afghanistan - or anywhere else American troops are fighting, for that matter - let it be remembered that he vehemently opposed the surge strategy that brought us such tremendous victory in Iraq. And let us never forget that the man is in his heart an appeaser who will be all too embrace a short-term success even if it will lead to a long term disaster.
My biggest fear of all is not that Obama will demand that Petraeus find "moderate Taliban" whether they exist or not, but that he will find "moderate Hamas" in Palestinian-controlled territory and "moderate Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both are terrorist organizations that would like nothing better to exceed Hitler's tally of six million murdered Jews.
The best way to create "moderates" in the Taliban is to let them know in no uncertain terms that their alternative to becoming "moderate" is certain defeat and death.
This is so easy, isn't it? The obvious sails over the 0bamabot's heads. What was in that Kool-aid, anyway?
I thought he did.
Forget the significance of Hitler — FDR pandered enough to Stalin in his socialist blindness and faux reality. It drove Churchill crazy, as it should have, when Churchill KNEW what Stalin was all about. I think FDR realized what and who Stalin was, and liked alot of his socialism and control. FDR certainly had enough communist friends.
Darn, this sure sounds familiar. Deja vu....God help us.
Well, he did, since he was great friends with the Kennedy's, wasn't he?
I love that title.
Ok, now I love the article too.
He did.
The “moderate NAZI” he spoke with was Joe Kennedy.
Ah, a fellow lover of history!
You raise some valid points, which I agree with, but chose to avoid for purposes of clarity. FDR himself came out of a VERY fascist government philosophy.
From "Liberal Fascism," page 11, with supporting footnote: Even more telling, FDR's defenders openly admitted their admiration of fascism. Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential member of FDR's Brain Trust, said of Italian Fascism, "It's the cleanest, neatest most efficiently operationg piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious." "We are trying out the economics of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages," proclaimed the New Republic's editor George Soule, an enthusiastic supporter of the FDR administration. [Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939, 2006, p. 32, 29]
And FDR most certainly DID dally with Stalin in a way that drove Churchill nuts, as you point out.
Still, once war was on, FDR at least didn't seek to "reach out" and "comprimise" with the Nazis.
Thanks, Gator.
I love your slogan at the bottom of your post. The sooner this stuff fails, the sooner we can get back to doing the things that actually work.
Neville Chamberlain thought there were moderate tendencies in Hitler that could be cultivated and exploited. If Chamberlain really knew what type of genocidal monster the Fuhrer was, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have wasted his precious time trying to talk to him. Similarly I’m afraid Obama does not realize that the Iranian Big Man may, like Hitler, actually mean what he says.
This is so easy, isn't it? The obvious sails over the 0bamabot's heads. What was in that Kool-aid, anyway?
Did you hear about the fact that Obama told Gordon Brown to take back the bust of Churchill Britain gave the US following 9/11? Of course, the spirit of Churchill - that Obama apparently despised - was, "NEVER give up! NEVER surrender!" I can understand why Obama wouldn't want to look at the embodiment of THAT message every day.
My theory is that Obama is hoping that Britain gives him a bust of a former prime minister that is more his style: the Great Appeaser, Neville Chamberlain.
This posted just as I was writing my own post mentioning Chamberlain.
Colonel Kangeroo gets it. I sure wish Obama did.
bump to that
Well, he should have reached out tot elements in the military who wanted to overthrow Hitler. He never did so, however.
Moderate Taliban.
Moderate Taliban: "I'll plan a homicide attack on a bus full of kids"
Extreme Taliban: "I'll plan a homicide attack on a dozen buses filled with kids"
Whether we would have or should have cooperated with them is something we could thrash out, but Roosevelt did work with Stalin and also worked deals with Darlan, the Vichy French commander in North Africa, and Badoglio in Italy.
Okay folks, lets give credit where it’s due. The stopped clock is right twice a day.
‘Reaching out to moderate Taliban’ is the Afghan analog of the reaching out to moderate Sunni insurgents in Iraq that created the Awakening Movement. Splitting the Taliban by drawing off elements have become disenchanted with Al Qaeda and turning them into allies is good strategy.
And, if the plotters had killed Hitler and taken control of the Nazi government, negotiating with them would have been good strategy.
I watched a program on the History Channel on the plot to kill Hitler (Valkyrie). And it was noted that the German officers DID try to reach out to allied troops - but they were ignored, because the allies had no way of knowing whether the plot was sincere, or just a ruse. So the Germans realized they had to kill Hitler themselves, and THEN reach out to the allies.
We're kind of in the same place with the Taliban. How do we know friend from foe in the Taliban? How do we know that some won't get inside just to kill, or at least to collect intel on our forces?
Again, Petraeus - an incredible man - I trust to wisely reach out under military judgment. Obama, not one bit.
For the record, I note that Petraeus had this idea in Iraq, and has suggested trying it in Afghanistan. And that's fine. I trust Petraeus.
But I don't trust Obama. He opposed Petraeus' successful strategy, and I see no reason why Obama SHOULD be trusted.
Hence, when Petraeus suggests looking for certain men among the Taliban, fine. When Obama suggests this as a major shift in strategy, NOT FINE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.