Maggie's Farm

One of my dearest, longest and most respected friends has stared more deeply and widely into the dark side of reality than anyone.  We just discussed my “Davy Crockett attitude” toward President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. My way of being is to find reasons to smile in the face of challenges.  I, also, believe this travesty further removes him from the ability of serious-minded people to support him.

My friend is qualified to be less sanguine: he served as a combat advisor in Vietnam, a MSM war correspondent in SE Asia, a refugee worker for the Cambodians who could escape massacre, became a Catholic priest, served at the Vatican, is currently a challenging professor of philosophy at a major college, and continues his priestly ministering.

Here’s what my friend has to say about what he titles “Taliban Peace Prize For Obama.”  (My friend chooses to withhold his name from this post, so as not to intrude politics into his classroom or ministry.)

Giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is an even more political act than giving it to Arafat. More shrewd as well.

 

The Nobel committee hopes to influence Obama's decisions on Afghanistan. Now that he is an internationally recognized man of peace, he is not going to order a surge in Afhanistan. McChrystal won't get the troops he says he needs.

 

The White House has been preparing this ground for weeks, suggesting that since Al Qaeda is now weak a Taliban return to power needn't worry us. We can live with that, they say off the record. The great military thinkers Joe Biden, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod have developed a long-range John Murtha strategy that will operate along the lines of a video game: if you see movement on the screen, push a button.

 

And with the Taliban back in power, we won't have to worry about messy elections. But what about those who fought with us? What has the Taliban in store for them? If Afghanistan were not a land-locked country, we could expect thousands of boat people.

 

But not to worry. When asked about a possible bloodbath following a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, Obama said he didn't really have a problem with it and its possibility should not determine policy. He won't have a problem with it in Afghanistan either. After all, we've been told, Afghanistan, like Vietnam or Iraq before the surge, was always unwinnable. We'll accept a certain number of refugees to help ease the short-term sting of conscience over betraying an allly. But as with all vices, repetition makes the practice easier. This won't be the first time we've betrayed an ally.

 

It will destoy the military, of course, but by the time that becomes clear Obama will have passed from the scene.
Also read this on Obama's attitude toward bloodbath in Iraq, and this commentary on the political award to President Obama.

1.  Everyone should start their day with a good laugh, it scientifically proven to lead to better attitudes toward whatever we do, which is scientifically proven to lead to better results;

2.  Because I can’t find any other commenter who believes he deserved it, it’s heartening that we can unite around common-sense;

3.  Since none can justify it, commenters on other candidates for the 2010 congressional and 2012 presidential election may be more honest about those who run on empty records and words;

4.  President Obama’s preparation for and delivery of an acceptance speech may distract him from doing more to weaken the US and allies and reward foes, thus furthering peace;

5.  President Obama no longer actually has to do anything to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, which may reduce he further worsening the outcomes of the measures already taken, thus furthering peace;

6.  All those living in countries wracked by conflict and those in countries where they are oppressed can relax instead of fighting or standing up, knowing that hope is enough to be rewarded for accomplishing nothing, thus furthering peace;

7.  The Nobel Prize will fit in nicely to the new White House décor alongside the Obama chosen faux painting;

8.  Displaying encouraging honesty, President Obama says “ ‘I do not feel I deserve to be in the company’ of previous winners, ‘transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.’ ”

9. I can look forward to President Obama’s picture officially being hung alongside Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho’s.

10. The 50-year old childhood book I have of Nobel Peace Prize speeches that inspire by the winners’ track-records will rise in value.  Perhaps, President Obama will use the prize money to buy it from me.

For those interested, here’s the Nobel Peace Prize announcement.  Here’s some of those considered less deserving by the Nobel committee.  The faux painting honored by being chosen to grace the White House.  President Obama’s acceptance comments, including no comment about what he plans to do with the $1.4-million prize money – my hope should be adequate, right?  The New York Times, of course, struggles to find foreigners who are diplomatically complimentary, but finds few.  Nonetheless, the New York Times coverage is predictably laudatory of "Imagine". Struggling to draft my Happy Face list, I finally found someone on the Left able to find a reason to favor of the Prize choice as a repudiation of President Bush. Since this diverges from other leading Left commenters, who find it absurd and undeserved, we can look forward to they ignoring their prior words as they once again shamelessly find excuses to extol the sagacity hidden to everyone else.  To prolong your Happy Face, don't click on Memeorandum for the outpouring of incredulity.

If you can read this, you’re aware there’s a debate within and outside the Obama administration about what the US is to do about Afghanistan.  If you are, also, a careful reader you are probably confused or conflicted.  With good reason.

Eight years after 9/11, the objectives and the means to them are still unclear or ill-focused.  We’re told by various authorities the objectives range from containing a relatively few Al-Quaeda to reconstituting much of the social fabric and governance of Afghanistan and its immediate neighbors.  Similarly, authorities recommend means that range from narrowly targeted attacks from within or outside Afghanistan, or Pakistan, to increased ground forces to major social welfare and government reform efforts, each with differing time horizons.

Those authorities with the most experience in these matters tend toward the broader objectives and means.  Yet, all of them caveat their course with hard-learned reservations about success.

THE authority, as provided by the Constitution, the President, despite his and supporters’ politically convenient mouthings meant to win an election, is determined to, according to reports from insiders, re-examine the entire matter from basic assumptions forward.

Opponents of his presidency find themselves in the comfortable position that Obama capitalized upon pre-election of pointing out the gross inconsistencies in the president’s words, actions and results.  This is furthered by the arch comedy of verbal hypocrisies from his supporters.

A few more global strategists, like Henry Kissinger, point to the broader tableau of possibilities, involving India, China and Russia much more deeply.  However, none have demonstrated such inclination.  Indeed, even the NATO countries are, as usual, hesitant to increase their meager commitments, especially to unsure decision-making in Washington and prospects.

Compounding all this is that, now including the global economic shakeout, none of the Western countries appear willing to devote the commensurate resources to the broader missions.

So, ultimately, the start-from-scratch debate is healthy in revealing the stakes, the stake-holders, the opportunities, the risks, the costs and the constraints. Regardless of efforts for the debate or process to be more transparent, it is reasonably so, and such decisions are always finally made among a small circle and the inescapable responsibility of the President.

Obama administration insiders preclude withdrawal.  That leaves either a full-bore effort, which may or not succeed, or a lesser effort that everyone with access to the best information says will only prolong everyone’s agonies with less to no expectation of satisfactory resolution.

No one’s eloquence can mask that stark choice.  Polling indicates that is recognized by most citizens.

Politicians tend to see compromises as the natural order of things.  The rest of us live in a more directly consequential reality.

All of the evidence so far about President Obama indicates his reality is dedicated to vapid speeches.  No tangible results have come from any.  On any subject, only his hardest-core supporters still rally to his words.

I support the fullest re-examination of all aspects of our involvement in Afghanistan, both in itself and for its vital educative function for all of us.

I support the direct consequences of whatever decision is made by President Obama to be properly seen as his responsibility alone.  He has finally cornered himself, and has run out of words to distract from that.

What we’re debating is not just the fate of Afghans, Pakistanis, other countries, our or others’ security and pockets.  It is, also, the determiner of our own and President Obama’s mettle, integrity and future.