Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook

Friday, June 01, 2012

"A Critigue of The New York Times 'Secret Kill List' Article"

If you have not seen this exceptionally well written response on Extreme Liberal's Blog to a recent New York Times article, it is a must read. With enviable clarity it is forcibly argued, superbly documented, and just so damn reasonable that I felt compelled to share a few highlights here. I urge readers, however, to follow the link to better appreciate the depth and breadth of this enormously insightful critique.
The long and detailed New York Times piece entitled “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will” is causing a lot of stir on the left and the right.
As I was reading it, I didn’t have a hard time imaging what the reaction from some on the left would be. The person that always comes to mind is Glenn Greenwald, whose sentences almost always include “a noun, a verb and drones”.
As a liberal, I have a lot of problems with our country’s use of force, whether it’s a Democratic or Republican administration. I do, however, trust Democrats much more than Republicans when it comes to executing our foreign policy. And yes, I wish that Democrats were less militaristic. . . . I’m still going to vote for Democrats, because I really don’t want Teapublicans getting their hands on our vast, powerful military again. We’re still cleaning up the mess left by the last group of Republican bullies.
. . . I’ve come to realize that all presidents are tasked with the thankless job of protecting America from those who want to do us harm. It’s incredibly easy for us keyboard warriors to opine about what the government should do, but we aren’t reading those daily briefings and aren’t privy to the intelligence that career officers are gathering. Because of that, I no longer have a knee-jerk reaction to all the actions our government takes when it comes to military action.
Echoing my thoughts, Extreme Liberal goes on to examine, in great detail, each of the following issues raised by the Times article.

-- The need for secrecy in intelligence gathering:
I’m amazed at how many people think our foreign policy and intelligence should be an open book, as if our enemies reading it is no big deal.
-- Where the buck stops:
. . . whether you agree with President Obama’s position or not, the man deserves credit for standing up and taking responsibility for what our military does when targeting terrorists and the potential collateral damage that our strikes may cause.
 -- Ignoring the role of Congress when discussing Quantanamo and Anwar al-Awlaki.
PP: This section is simply too important and well argued to merely "highlight" here.
-- Using former Bushies when it's convenient for furthering the meme:
This next passage [from the Times article] is very revealing of the techniques used throughout the piece to appeal to the “both sides are the same” crowd.
-- Throwing in that "caved" meme:
When they return to the Guantanamo Bay issue later in the piece, the authors push another meme of the Professional Left, the “OMG, he caved” meme. I’ll send you to my piece on Guantanamo Bay again, in case you didn’t click the first time. It shows the circumstances that the newly elected president faced from both the right and his own party in trying to close Gitmo.
Extreme Liberal concludes by returning to the beginning and to "the reality of the violent world we live in" -- a reality that none of us particularly relishes but one that is with us nonetheless. "It ain't the 50s no more."

19 comments:

  1. I have a problem with these drone strikes as well, and I'm a liberal. I try to figure out if it's just an evolution of war strategies necessitated by country-less enemies. I don't know. But I don't want the power in the hands of the Republicans either, and I don't want them picking out more Supreme Court justices. That's a scary thought too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't want them in the White House, in the Congress, in the governorships, in the state legislatures, or on city councils, planning commissions and education boards, or sitting on judicial benches at any level. Have I overlooked something? Seriously, though, I share your concern about drone strikes and confess to having one foot in both columns for the moment. There comes a point where we have to figure that those people sitting around the briefing table have a lot more facts at hand than we do - and that includes Greenwald.

      Delete
    2. Have I overlooked something?

      Given Romney's dog-on-roof episode, the old adage "I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher" comes to mind.....:-)

      Delete
  2. "Both sides" (parties) inevitably have to use violence to defend the country -- we don't live in a world where total pacifism is practical, and never have. But Democrats do, at least, target the actual enemy instead of invading countries not related to the problem. If Bush had been President in 1941 he would have responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Mongolia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My bleeding liberal heart tells me that I have to mostly agree with all you have written while the wee bit of me that is a bit conservative and pops up now and again reminds me that there are always grey areas that confuse everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kay, I didn't write this. I just highlighted a very tiny bit that in no way is representative of the depth of this article. You're right, though, in that there are always those nasty gray areas that just serve to confuse us. If we all thought in terms of black and white, we'd be Republicans. ; )

      Delete
  4. Until someone sits in the Oval office and reads the daily briefings and knows things you or I will never know the President should not be judged on what we would, or would not do. After we elect the president we have to trust him for good or ill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is true, especially in Obama's case, who seems to have a keen mind and a cool head on his shoulders.

      Delete
    2. "After we elect the president we have to trust him for good or ill."

      No no...
      Conviction, not faith.

      I'd trust Obama not to be a complete idiot, not to be rash, and not to be malicious. Unfortunately, that is about as good as it gets when talking about trusting politicians.

      Delete
    3. All we have to do is think back to the Bush/Cheney reign of terror.

      Delete
  5. "It’s incredibly easy for us keyboard warriors to opine about what the government should do, but we aren’t reading those daily briefings and aren’t privy to the intelligence that career officers are gathering."

    Excellent. I couldn't agree more. That same kind of dynamic is behind Obama's painfully long timelines for getting our combat troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In all these matters the decisions don't come easily. They do come with the certainty that however Obama decides, he will generate bitter criticism from one quarter or another.

    In both conflicts we've gone up against guerrilla-war foes mostly using large-scale conventional forces. That presents the bad guys lots and lots of targets for them to use the element of surprise against. The result has been messy, with too many of our people killed or seriously injured without making substantial inroads against the enemy's ability to go on doing what they're doing.

    Obama has sought more innovative and flexible ways to hurt them back with less exposure of our people. He seems to be getting better results with fewer losses. The existence of a kill list as part of this approach holds obvious potential for sensationalizing and drawing criticism. The people doing both don't have to write to the parents and spouses of troops killed or maimed. Nor are they subject to being blamed should some jihadist fiends pull off another attack that costs a few thousand more Americans their lives.

    Adamant pacifists would have us believe Obama's choice is between killing or not killing. In truth, given the realities of what al Qaeda and its ilk intend to do if allowed the chance, the choice is between killing of being killed. That is the essence of war, and the reality is that whether we like it or want it or not, al Qaeda gets an equal say in whether it continues or ends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, this is such a fantastic comment, I don't even know what to say. It's worthy of a blog post all by itself, imo.

      I'm by no means a hawk but I think it's equally naive to believe America doesn't have enemies. We should have learned in Nam that bombing the hell out of a country doesn't work like it did in WWII. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism have introduced a whole new and much more deadly aspect to war. It ain't like it used to be and while I prefer that we not go around policing the world, the fact is, that world has shrunk dramatically over the last few decades. Hell, I think I'd have a heart attack if I looked up and saw a drone hovering above, but if it takes out a known terrorist before he blows the crap out of thousands of us, I can't object too strenuously even if I have some reservations about their use. While Bush & Co. targeted the wrong culprits after 9/11 (probably deliberately), the fact that those operatives could and would carry out such a daring attack should signal to us just how dedicated they are.

      Delete
  6. Thanks for reposting my blog post, it seems like a lot of people have lost their minds about the responsibilities of the President. Every president in our history has had hard choices to make, yet many seem to hold President Obama to an unreasonable standard. I can just imagine what others would say if POTUS just backed away from protecting the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for reposting my blog post. I'm glad you liked it. Every president has had to make tough decisions when it comes to national security, it seems like President Obama is being held to a higher standard for some reason. Like Jeremy Scahill calling him a murderer on Up With Chris this weekend. According to his standard, all American presidents are murderers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, EL. I have my own theory about why some are holding Obama to a higher standard. It starts with "R" and ends with "ism." Of course they become highly incensed when they get called on it but reality is not their strong point, even though they love to use "The reality is . . ." in every one of their arguments.

      Your article resonated with me which is why I wanted to share it. Your level-headed approach is a refreshing change to all the hysterics from people like GG and Scahill.

      Delete
  8. I have wondered for awhile now just how much the President is a prisoner of his circumstances. Probably more than any of us realize, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of "his" circumstance or just circumstances? I don't know but I think a lot of people are disappointed that he isn't all-powerful, doesn't have a magic wand and think there are no Republicans obstructing every move he tries to make.

      Delete