OBAMA VS. OSAMA
PROMISES AREN’T PLANS, BARACK
by Ralph Peters in the New York Post
read the entire article here
This week, Obama claimed, again, that he’d promptly capture Osama bin Laden. OK, tell me how: Specifically, which concrete measures would he take that haven’t been taken? How would he force our intelligence agencies to locate bin Laden? And he can’t just respond, “That’s classified.”
He also claimed that fighting terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military one (should we send the NYPD to Mosul and Kandahar?), and that the answer to terrorism is the approach taken after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, featuring conventional trials and prison terms.
That flaccid post-’93 response only encouraged terrorists – who are unfazed by the prospect of a US prison, where the quality of life’s better than it was at home. The Clinton administration’s hesitancy and softness gave us the subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, on our embassies in East Africa, on the USS Cole and, ultimately, the events of 9/11.
The senator needs to tell us why it would be different now.
Obama has also said he’d send our troops into Pakistan, although he’ll withdraw rapidly from Iraq. His unwillingness to discuss the consequences of a hasty retreat from Baghdad is one thing – but invading Pakistan would be an order of magnitude worse.
A substantial number of Iraq’s 26 million citizens did welcome us. In Pakistan, with its 170 million Muslims and some of the most rugged terrain on earth, anti-Americanism prevails. Any US military incursion would be greeted with outrage and demands for a military response.
Nor does Obama appear to grasp that armies need fuel, ammunition, food, spare parts and other supplies. Nearly everything for our troops in landlocked Afghanistan, from bottled water to medical supplies, now comes via Pakistani ports, roads and railroads. If those long, difficult routes were cut, how would President Obama supply our troops? And no, it can’t all be done by air.
Oh, Pakistan has nukes, too.
Obama appears out of his depth on all this, but the gushingly friendly media have given him a pass on every groundless claim or gaffe. It’s time for journalists to start asking him tough questions – to press him when he doesn’t give serious answers. Isn’t that their job?
Those who knew Obama in his university days claim that he couldn’t be persuaded to study history. It shows. And his lifelong lack of interest in the military is self-evident.
The response that “he has knowledgeable advisers” isn’t enough. Obama’s military and counterterror “experts” compose a unique collection of the dismissed, the discredited and the dysfunctional. Most appear to be out to settle personal grudges rather than to advance our nation’s security.