Obama's decision to allow the SEALs to use force was a good one, and he should be congratulated. But the situation will escalate, and the odds are that U.S. warships won't be in perpetual patrol in the area. Thus, an American ship will be attacked and hijacked in the future which will require a far more systematic approach of dealing with the pirates before they go to sea, which in turn will demand, at some point, some unpopular decision-making.
Obama is also right to send troops to Afghanistan, to follow the Petraeus plan in Iraq, to continue the Predator attacks in Waziristan, to go back on promises about wiretaps and renditions, and to drag out his plan to close Guantánamo. That said, all that is masked by the "I'm not Bush" rhetoric; overseas apologies; the use of euphemisms to eliminate words like "terror," "war," and "enemy" from the vocabulary of the ongoing war; and multipolar, multicultural, and multilateral easy sloganeering.
So far, such dissimulation has some advantages, since the therapeutic mode allows more latitude with the use of the force than the "smoke 'em out" lingo. But such a Janus-approach to national security has a brief shelf life. Soon everyone will tire of Obama doing one thing while saying another (think campaign finance, FISA, NAFTA, drilling, nuclear power, coal, etc.).
On the one hand, Obama has to be careful that those on the Right won't give him credit when credit is due, given his prior serial criticism of the U.S. while abroad, coupled with his tiring false contrasts with Bush to make himself the constant hero.
On the other hand, Obama has to be careful that the Left won't feel it's been had and finally come to the conclusion they are getting Bush with a charismatic facade designed purposefully to appease or mislead them.
Bottom line it is usually better simply to allow rhetoric to reflect reality and keep the two harmonious rather than constantly trying to have it both ways. One can keep quiet and carry a big stick without claiming that one is not carrying a stick at all, or would probably never use it right before striking.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
Bush never said the two words in the same sentence. Islam was the "Religion of Peace" and terrorists were some areligious anomaly disconnected from any body of belief. Even the name "War on Terror" is a euphemism which names the specific tactic Islamists thugs use rather than the thugs themselves.
Only because he's decided to make the program focus on right wing extremists here in Amerika.
The recent pirate hostage incident set the tone -- Obama will vote present, do as little as possible, wait for a situation to resolve itself, and if it turns out well he will say, "I take the credit" and if it turns out badly, he will say "America is to blame".
The war on terror is like an antibiotic. You either take the full course or risk making things worse. We saw the result of half-measures during the Clinton administration. Pin-pricks just piss off the enemy. They need to be exterminated. I fear for this country.
The Kinder, Gentler War.
Obama is a serial liar and after a while people in America will see through the lies.
Aaaaaargh! I don't often take issue with Mr. Hanson, but I do this time. He should have spent a lot less time complaining about Obama's naivete, and a whole lot more time discussing this, which he treats merely as a throw-away line.
Why is it "the most dangerous thing of all?" What are the possible consequences of "sort of fighting a war?"
There is plenty of historical precedent against which to compare Obama's decisions -- his fecklessness echoes that of Britain and France during the '20s and '30s, for example.
The consequences of failing to understand the seriousness of the situation, and the mixed signals it sends, and the consequences of delay, are great. I wish Mr. Hanson had dwelt more on that aspect.
Threatening to get rid of our nuclear arsenal only increases the likelihood that we’ll have to use it.
I suppose we'll discover that once again when the next inevitable "Man Made Disaster" comes to our shores.