Posted on 01/13/2012 1:34:15 PM PST by gabriellah
Promises upon promises abound in elections. Senator Obama proved himself a masterful coaxer in 2008, feasting on the pining of an electorate disillusioned with the American political system. He was the unifier, the inspirational personage representing the solution to a failed decade marked by a rowdy Texan in the White House who squandered Americas capital in foreign lands.
The next four years, and surely the next eight, were to be ones marked by a robust economic recovery, a dramatic decline in poverty, and, of course, resurgence of confidence in Americas position in the world.
None of these have materialized. In fact, in each case, the opposite predicament has arisen, pointing to an increasingly appropriate referendum of what Obama so aptly called a one-term proposition at the inception of his presidency.
Throughout the course of his first term, Obama surely learned; whether or not that knowledge satisfies or angers his staunchly liberal base and his detractors is another question. As his presidency has progressed, however, the issue on which he has shifted course almost entirely from his campaign rhetoric is that of counter-terrorism.
Pre-January 20, 2009, there were grand vows of closing Guantanamo Bay and, thus, dramatically bettering relations with the Muslim world. Added in Obamas cornucopia were endless assurances to improve the perception of America throughout the world, as if this were the number one job of the commander-in-chief. Seeing that Bush had but jilted any concern for this in exchange for an utterly disastrous foreign policy and national security strategyat least, according to Obamas tale of what would, under him, be a foreign policy dictated by a new spirit, not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. Obama appeared to plant the seeds for a more internationalist agenda. What happened?
Woe to the peaceniks and the gullible progressives who had reveled in dreams of a dramatic shift from Manichean Bush to judicious Obama.
Today, veteran Democrats heed little their previously boisterous calls for a minimization of foreign policy aggression. They express at best a timid concern for the ironic reality that a president from their own partyone that has over the years claimed to have monopolized representation of the downtrodden and the true ideals of democracyis implementing the most expansive targeted killing campaign in the history of the nation. Drone strikes have increased from one countryPakistan, under big, bad Georgeto five more: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemenunder Obamas Camelot. In number, the attacks have grown significantly, from 42 under Bush to nearly 250just in Pakistanunder Obama.
Secrecy not unlike that for which the Bush White House was criticized enshrouds the current administrations drone campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliate brethren. The president can order the killing of selected individualsU.S. citizens includedanywhere in the world without checks on his executive authority or oversight of any nature. Washington is well aware of this filthy secret, yet but a few souls who once indulged the presidents dictations of legal doctrine now air their critiques of Obamas decision to cast aside his vows to uphold the law of the land and to respect the sovereignty of those nations ravaged by the decisions of one previous American leader who had supposedly embarrassed America with his machismo.
What was to be the most transparent administration in the history of the countrypresumably to be defined by Obamas own words, My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in governmenthas resisted disclosing any details about the structure of the drone program or even the names of those who have been assassinated. Colin Powell isolated within the Bush White House for his dissent on the Iraq War? Well, so be the fortunes of the director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, fired promptly by Obama last year following his efforts to raise debate within the White House on the drone program.
Unmanned successes abroad? Undoubtedly. Gone are the days of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. And relegated to oblivion are hundreds of al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates throughout the Greater Middle East.
But well and alive are claims of a nuanced counter-terrorism strategy driven by the needs of the day. Apparently, its not that Obama, former University of Chicago constitutional law professor extraordinaire, fails to stand for human rights or the rule of law. Its just that he finds sacrificing some of these conveniently frivolous fixtures necessary to perform his most important task: protecting the country and her allies. Surely, a complex conclusion this idea does not provide.
Simply put, in Obamas own interpretation, he embarked on an expansion of the drone campaign to protect the country and her allies. He did what he thought was right and strategically effective. After all, increasingly advanced technology in the form of unmanned aerial vehicles prevents the loss of American blood while efficiently taking out scores of American enemies.
Despite the quantifiable successes of the drone campaign, what should puzzle every witness is the brazen nature of Obamas eager criticism of Bushs handling of counter-terrorism. The president and his proponents continue to claim that Bush-era policies like waterboarding and Guantanamo undermined our security, violated fundamental American legal doctrine, and crossed a historic line of morality. But the same criticisms can just as easily be cast upon Obamas counter-terrorism strategy. Admittedly, drones are one aspect of the administrations strategy, but they do, after all, kill, not torture.
On his vision to lead in the observance of human rights, and the rule of law, and civil rights and due process, Obama has, measured but by his very own standards, sacrificed an abundance of credibility. His expansion of the drone campaign, in cooperation with his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, which extends the Guantanamo transfer restrictions and codifies the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial; and his apparent acceptance of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws, for which he lambasted Bush, have reinforced a well-established lesson: For Obama, the constitution is sacrosanct, except when he feels its not. To move from a position of claiming that he would not use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress to using them 20 times already is telling.
A world of differenceno, changeexecutive power certainly does make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.