The travails of a war president
While conservatives have struggled to paint President Barack Obama as soft on terror — or perhaps even a closeted Muslim — the Administration has continued to chalk up an astonishing list of national security successes.
The big moment, of course, came in the spring when Obama’s team made the decisions that led to the on-the-ground execution of Osama bin Laden at a residence in Pakistan.
Mr. Obama decided to cast aside diplomatic and legal concerns about a military raid on an ally’s sovereign territory, leading to the confirmed death of the most reviled man in modern American history.
But that high-profile operation was only one in a series of remarkable accomplishments over the last year and a half. In August, Al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan.
Last month, Anwar al-Awlaki, a key American-born Al Quaeda leader was killed by another drone strike in Yemen.
The Obama administration has, in many ways, managed to overcome what was perhaps the gravest fear about his presidency — that he wouldn’t have the stuff to take on the war on terror.
His team has managed to crippled Al Quaeda and other terror cells, while reducing sharply the number of American casualties.
What’s interesting is how little all of this has boosted his political fortunes. The truth is that by the time Mr. Obama took office, most Americans were done with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and perhaps even done with the war on terror itself.
Those conflicts were vanishing from our TV screens and our newspapers and, let’s be honest, from most of our thoughts.
Yes, it was a good thing that bin Laden was removed from the world stage — some people actually took to the streets to celebrate — but for most Americans, those issues have been eclipsed by the economy, by lackluster jobs numbers.
Two other factors shape Mr. Obama’s lonely path as a war president.
The first is that the country’s most hawkish citizens tend to be Republican and conservative and for reasons that have nothing to do with national defense they have no interest in giving him credit for these meaningful successes.
The second is that many of the country’s most liberal and progressive citizens — the president’s natural “base” — also tend to be doves when it comes to the war on terror.
Indeed, for many Democrats, the elimination of key Al Quaeda leaders has been overshadowed by moral questions, including citizen deaths caused by drone strikes, and the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
(Also, perhaps, by revelations last week that the White House has a secret panel, operating without oversight, that can with the President’s say-so put militants — even American militants — on a “kill” list.)
In many respects, Mr. Obama’s political fortunes may echo those of the first President Bush, whose adroit handling of the First Gulf War was quickly superseded by other political events.
Republicans do take an occasional, half-hearted jab at this President’s war record, but it’s telling that they pivot as quickly as possible to talk about taxes, domestic regulations — really, anything else.
So what do you think? Is this a guy who’s been surprisingly tough in keeping America safe? Too hawkish for your taste? Will it make any difference when choosing our next commander in chief next year?
Comments welcome below.
.jpg)
“the most reviled man in modern American history”
This guy is a distant second to Adolph Hitler. Maybe even third or fourth.
Is this a guy who’s been surprisingly tough in keeping America safe?
Yes.
Too hawkish for your taste?
No.
Will it make any difference when choosing our next commander in chief next year?
No.
The presidents policy of killing American citizens without trial goes a bit far:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&hp
The real problem with Obama’s war strategy is that there is no way to shoot our way to victory. Or a more peaceful world. The bottom line problem is that neither the Taliban, nor al-Qaeda, nor any number of other non-governmental threats (NGT’s) have munitions factories or their own secure base of operations. When these groups stop getting support from nations and their secret military and intelligence agencies they will quickly begin to fade away.
Peace is not a winnable military objective. Peace is in the realm of politics and diplomacy. While I give Obama and Clinton credit for doing much better work than the previous bunch on the diplomatic front what we really need is a Diplomatic Surge which will work more forcefully on the issues of India/Pakistan/Kashmir, and Israel/Palestine for starters. And we had better get started working on diffusing the ticking time-bomb of the African continent too.
Regarding the killing of al-Awlaki: The traditional punishment for traitors was a firing squad. al-Awlaki had declared himself to be an enemy of the US and had actively coordinated attacks on the US and American citizens. How is his death by drone significantly different from the result that similar actions by traitors would have produced in the past?
I agree with KHL that peace isn’t something that can be won militarily but I also recognize that there is long history in the conflicts he mentions, all of which includes elements of Western and/or US meddling and none of which is solvable by the US either militarily or diplomatically. In the case of Isreal/Palestine the US was complicit in recreating a long gone (almost 2000 years gone) nation of Isreal by taking land from Palestinians. It is little wonder that we now are viewed with suspicion by many in the area. We may have had the best of intentions but as the saying goes “The road to hell…” .
I think he has zeroed in on the point of our war, which is to specifically kill terrorists who pose a direct danger to the US. His strategy is the correct one; particularly when compared to the bloody, viscous, and inhumane strategy of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in attempts to rule and control Muslim nations.
It may make us a little more uncomfortable knowing exactly who we are killing in our war, however it is more honorable than sitting around bombing and shelling these communities killing families, babies and children, which is what the strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan have done. Modern war kills civilians, targeted assassinations are much more humane and effective. There is no legal issues with killing traitors to the US on the battlefield regardless of their citizenship. We have done it in all major wars we have been in.
So anyway I give our President a lot of credit for this strategy and the progress he has made on waging war against Islamic terrorists. When he gets the regular military totally out of Afghanistan and Iraq he will have finished the job. Also I give him credit for identifying Pakistan as our enemy in this war, as uncomfortable as that is.
Bonnie and Clyde weren’t given a trial and they weren’t as dangerous as the jerk al-Awlaki.
I don’t know why anyone would bring up such nonsense. War is hell. It is supposed to be hell.
You win wars when you kill enough of the enemy so that they sue for peace. The peace process begins when someone sues for peace. The very idea of a “peace process” is stupid and self defeating.
Agree with the majority ( “kill the bastards”) comments above. on this usually liberal-trending site. Ditto distrust of diplomacy.
One factor that will guarantee this being a multi-generational “war” is our continual grovelling before the demands of Israel, and it’s Congress-dominating lobby. U.S. de facto, (if denied) policy of “all people are created equal except Israelis and Palestinians”, will continue to silence those in the Muslim world who might otherwise restrain the lunatics. History will not remember Obama kindly for his object surrender to Israel Lobby, though he breaks no new ground here.
It’s not just “moral questions,” Brian. They’re constitutional questions regarding Gitmo and targeted assassinations. The president has expanded his powers into saying he can personally execute anyone he wants, citizen or not, as long as he labels the person a terrorist. I don’t normally agree with Paul, but I agree with him here. It’s a disturbing abuse of power allowed by a series of gutless Congresses. Since when were we at war with Yemen? What if Yemen just unilaterally decides, without evidence or trial, to assassinate an American for saying bad things about Yemen? Can’t Yemen say, We’re just doing what America does? Our constitution says we’re supposed to be better than this, and has rules against it. This never should have risen to the level of war. It gives Al Qaeda too much respect. It’s a criminal manhunt for a small bunch of thugs and vandals, no different than tracking down Dillinger. Words matter. This isn’t war.
I guess we can just throw out the Constitution when it is inconvenient to follow the rule of law. Obama can get somebody to write a legal memo making it all hunky-dory just like Bush did.
Jim, the founding of the state of Israel wasn’t necessarily because of the best of intentions. Many world leaders just wanted to create a place to get rid of the problem of Jews within their territories. Many in the US were horrified at the idea that many Jews would want to come to here. The founding of Israel was as much a matter of expediency and prejudice as anything else.
Unfortunately for Obama, his failed economic policies overshadow any foreign events successes.
Unfortunately for Obama, he has had to support a war he, himself, opposed as Senator.
Unfortunately for Obama, his left-leaning support base doesn’t approve of his hawkishness-by-necessity.
Unfortunately for Obama, it was Bush’s Patriot Act that allowed the Osama success.
Unfortunately for Obama, the shoes he has on are tens times bigger than the man in them.
There was/is a specific armed transnational army capable of killing more people than the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and who have explicitly declared war on the US. The law enforcement mindset is not valid and wrong, this was and is a war against this little and marginally dangerous army. Invading nations and bombing civilians was wrongheaded and probably immoral, using covert intelligence, drone strikes and special forces against the leaders of this small army is very valid, very effective and far more humane than other methods. There is no legal issues killing someone who is in an enemy army regardless of citizenship. This is not a “kill them all” idea at all this is a smart idea to kill as few people as possible.
Anyway Obama has done a great job on this front, much better than Bush. If we were not in a depression it would be a very very big deal.
Let’s see the other day Brian was ripping into Cain and today we praise Obama. Jobless rate is over 9%, stocks are way down, the economy is growing at less than one per cent, stimulus one was a flop. So how long did it take to find something positive this president is doing. Gary Knell you have my sympathy!
Oh, and whatever you do don’t add ObamaCare to his list of accomplishments. The way the courts seem to be headed that will be a failure as well!
You can and should be a tough and do everything necessary to protect the US. And you can and should be tough and do everything necessary to protect the rights of our US citizens. Even the ones that deserve to die.
“There is no legal issues with killing traitors to the US on the battlefield regardless of their citizenship.”
Mervel, these were two American citizens sitting in Yemen. What is the battle field? Everywhere?
Jim, I am about as hawkish as they come and this doesn’t equate to a “firing squad” in my book.
At some point if you are not careful you forget about what it is we are actually fighting for. The rights and lives of US citizens is at the top of my list.
Yes, Hillary, the Republicans have done a great job of ensuring that Obama’s half-hearted stimulus, which CBO and most independent economists agree prevented 15%+ unemployment, is seen as a complete failure. Just as your bete noire, Paul Krugman predicted.
Newt, the “stimulus” that you are referring to was passed under a democratic super majority. This “blame it on the minority” business is getting tiring.
Finally some folks on the left are starting to get their head out of the sand.
From Joe Biden this weekend:
“Right now, we are the ones in charge, and it’s gotten better but it hasn’t gotten good enough,” Biden told WLRN. “…I don’t blame them for being mad. We’re in charge. So they’re angry.”
I don’t know what he means by “gotten better” but he seems to be coming around.
Paul, I obviously blame the inadequacy of the stimulus on Obama and his ever-so-fleeting super majority. Just as I blame Obama and the Dems for failing to fully investigate and prosecute Wall Street fraudsters. These to failures have led to the political failure of his administration.
If only the alternative weren’t so much worse.
And, how this stuff come up on a thread about the propriety of killing real or suspected terrorists.
last sentence above should end with “?”.
During WWII if you joined the Nazi’s and happened to be in Yemen I think we could have legally killed you. But let me say I agree this is messy and not always clean and we need to be careful, but I think their main propagandist.
The other advantage of this strategy is that it is making Al-quida look as weak as they really are, they are no longer hero’s standing up the US, they are simply losers hiding from the US. Plus they are successful, think of the number of Al-quida including Bin-Laden who have been killed since Obama took power. He really needs to take credit for this it is a big deal, he is actually defeating this army we have been fighting for the past 11 years.
Mervel, I take your point about enemies in a war. Unfortunately I don’t believe the actual legal picture is quite that clear. WWII was a declared war and any US citizen who was working for the enemy was clearly a target.
But the “War on Terror” is a pretty nebulous definition of war and it makes me very nervous to see the rights of citizens chipped away. Maybe you feel like your family is safe and all of your friends are safe from a targeted assassination, or extraordinary rendition, or jailing without writ of habeas corpus, but once those things happen to an American citizen there is a legal precedent for it to happen again at any date or circumstance in the future.
Regardless of how unsympathetic a character Anwar al-Awlaki may have been, we have laws in this country to protect ALL of our citizens.
I’m pretty sure Congress gave it’s blessing to the War on Terror under Bush II, morally dubious as are all of the above.
I can’t believe that anyone would second-guess the murder of any person, citizen or otherwise, who, among other things, encouraged, and assisted the would-be Christmas Day underpants bomber, and the Ft. Benning whacko, and was actively planning further attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
When Obama starts snuffing Americans against whom there is not overwhelming evidence of their profoundly murderous intentions, give me a ring. Until then, fire away, boys.
Sorry, I missed the “innocent until proven guilty by the consensus of public opinion” phrase in the Constitution. My mistake.
Why DO we need lawyers anyway?