The 2012 presidential and congressional
campaigns have been in various stages for well over a year and have
thus interfaced with a series of “scandals” perpetrated in
government agencies and the military which have provided fodder for
both an ever excited media and for politicians always looking for
some election advantage. The Obama Administration has found itself
in the position of needing to diminish the impact of the most notable
of these events, although the actual importance of some is
questionable.
The case of Solyndra Corp. which
received a half billion dollar federal loan guarantee to make solar
panels and then filed for bankruptcy protection certainly had the
most financial impact. The fact that the loan guarantee was hastily
approved and was used as an example of Obama's “green jobs”
initiative, complete with an Obama photo op at the plant, makes this
fair game for Republicans who are campaigning against size and waste
in the federal government. Its 500 million dollar price tag
certainly causes it to fall into the “scandal” category.
But the less expensive but seemingly
more egregious recent events, at least on a personal level, of the
General Services Administration and the Secret Service have gotten
more media and congressional attention. The GSA “conference” in
2010, aka a good time jamboree, cost $823,000 (or more). This four
day conference for about 300 GSA employees featured a clown, a mind
reader, ridiculously expensive food and drink as well as high dollar
accommodations at the 4 star M-Resort, Spa and Casino in Las Vegas.
“What were they thinking?” is the question in most peoples minds.
The Congress should subpoena the mind reader and find out.
The GSA is responsible for the
purchase, rental, maintenance and management of government buildings
and facilities. It would seem that they could have found a
conference room or two somewhere near by their headquarters in
Washington D.C. to stage a “conference” or as this was a Western
Region Conference of the Public Building Service perhaps conference
rooms could have been found in San Francisco or Denver, homes to
regional headquarters. Clearly that was not the intent. Instead it
was just another excuse to have a good old time on the taxpayer's
dime(s).
Is the the Obama Administration's at
fault? Well, the head of the GSA was a Democrat political appointee
before she resigned after the whistle blew. Politically, it
reenforces the public's cynicism of bloated, out of control
government which plays into the Republican/Tea Party election
strategy.
Now comes the Secret Service party
animal behavior in Cartagena, Columbia prior to Obama's visit there
for the Summit of the Americas heads of state meeting. Eleven Secret
Service agents and ten members of the U.S. military picked up
twenty-one local prostitutes and took them to their hotel rooms.
“What were 'they' thinking”? On a basic level we know, but somehow
they weren't thinking at all about how this fell outside personal
behavior codes of the highly professional Secret Service or how
unlikely it was that it could remain “secret”. Prostitution is
legal in Columbia and when one of the agents got into a payment
dispute with one of the lady entrepreneurs she wasn't afraid to make
an issue out of it.
Moralists can make whatever they want
about this but the main issue is one of a possible breach of
security. These agents were part of the advance team for President
Obama's visit. Consorting with foreign nationals creates a risk of
compromising information about the Presidents visit that could
potentially put him at risk. Again, this was not Obama's or his
administration's fault but it represents another brick in the wall
that separates the government from the people and contributes to the
aforementioned cynicism.
Two military “scandals” have been
produced by the media in recent months and weeks. The first involved
four Marines pictured urinating on the corpses of a few terrorists
that a few hours before had been trying to kill them. Showing their
contempt among themselves for these Taliban “combatants” is
entirely understandable. These Marine's battalion suffered seven
deaths in their seven-month deployment. Aside from the politics
which overlays this entire war like a thick fog, the reaction of high
U.S. officials is less understandable on several levels.
“Analysts” made the hypothetical
argument that the Taliban would be so enraged that it would stymie
talks between them and the Karzai government over a possible
political settlement. This is absurd on it's face and it didn't
happen, although those talks have failed for other reasons. The
Taliban will seek any accommodation that advances their quest to
weaken and eventually replace the Karzai government. Clear evidence
of this comes from a New York Times quote from Taliban sources: “The
Taliban initially indicated that the video would not undermine the
push toward talks, saying that they saw it as just more evidence of
what they said was American brutality and arrogance.”
This of course did not deter Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from
indulging in the expected politically correct lamentations. These
were described in the media as “ expressions of outrage and
contrition”. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Clinton
said: “It is absolutely inconsistent with American values and the
standards we expect from our military personnel . . .” Of course
the ever watchful Taliban took note of the media frenzy and a few
days later made this absurd statement: “We strongly condemn the
inhuman act of wild American soldiers, as ever, and consider this act
in contradiction with all human and ethical norms.”
“Human and ethical norms”? This
from a medieval political/religious movement that stones people to
death for “moral” offenses. “While the images largely dominated
the news in Afghanistan on Thursday, the Taliban’s campaign of
assassinations continued when a suicide car bomber killed the
governor of a district in the southern province of Kandahar. “ (New
York Times; 1-12-12). Apparently Secretary Clinton wasn't “contrite”
enough.
Fast forward to April 18, 2012. The
Los Angeles Times published photos of members of the 82nd
Airborne Division displaying body parts of Taliban terrorists that
had blown themselves up in a failed roadside bomb suicide mission.
Once again Panetta hurriedly sounded almost desperate to appease
someone; Karzai? The Taliban?, Afghan citizens?
While certainly true, getting your picture taken with an enemy who has just blown himself up is an “offense” that demands perspective and balance. The media, opponents of the war and liberal critics of the military, have gone overboard and swept military and administration officials along with them in both these incidents. These are not “high crimes” but a reflection of war weary young men who have become inured to the horrors of combat. Commentators have described this and the urination incident as “desecration”, a powerful word:
Desecration:
“1. (Sociology) to violate or outrage the sacred character of (an object or place) by destructive, blasphemous, or sacrilegious action.”
These commentators would have us believe that the bodies of a terrorist enemy killed in combat or blown up at their own hand, have a “sacred character”. Some claim that because of the common Islamic faith of the Taliban and the Afghan citizenry in general, that all Afghans will be offended. But this is overstated. The body parts pictures include Afghan policemen and an Afghan regional official admitted that Afghan security force personnel had done the same thing several months before.
The real scandal in both these military incidents is the continued presence of American forces in this war which offers no plausible successful outcome. A remarkable 69% of Americans think the U.S. should no longer be involved in Afghanistan (CBS News Poll; 3/26/12). Politically correct scapegoating of young American soldiers, and constantly apologizing to terrorists and dysfunctional and hostile governments simply because the are Muslim, is sure to figure into the perspectives of American voters in November.
No comments:
Post a Comment