Harnessing the Good Guys

It’s been an interesting few months in Obamaworld. The Obama Justice Department now wishes to conduct criminal investigations into detainee treatment following 9/11. Apparently, Eric “We Are a Nation of Cowards” Holder is disturbed that CIA personnel roughed up Khalid Sheik Mohammed and some of his cronies after they murdered 3,000 of our citizens in 2001 in an effort to learn more about Al Qaeda and its plans. Evidently, burning, beheading and maiming is fair practice for the bad guys, but making the bad guys extremely uncomfortable is out of bounds for us.

Last month, Congress voiced its extreme displeasure with Dick Cheney’s authorization of hit squads of CIA operatives that were to be deployed in Pakistan to take out high level Al Qaeda figures. Apparently, it is fine to take them out with drones (thereby risking collateral damage), but taking them out face to face at close range is impermissible.

What is interesting to me is that these positions follow closely on the heels of Obama’s off the cuff remark in his press conference that the Cambridge police had acted “stupidly” by arresting Henry Louis Gates for being disruptive when police were called to his residence responding to a call regarding a potential break-in. After leaping to the conclusion that the Cambridge police acted stupidly, our “post-racial” president then went even further and initially asserted that this incident was about race. Finding himself caught in this entanglement, he tried to slither out from under the controversy by stating that he “could have calibrated his words more carefully” (how Clintonian) and then tried to whitewash it all using Rodney King (“can’t we all just get along”) diplomacy at the infamous “beer summit”.

What does the Gates incident have to do with how we deal with international terrorists? Quite a bit, actually. Taken together, they speak volumes about how Obama and his advisors view the world. In Obamaworld, the guys that are charged with protecting us are the ones that need to be restrained, collared and contained. They must abide by a strict set of rules, and in some cases, even abiding by the rules may not be enough. In the Gates incident, the police officer in question was not shown to have violated any rule or procedure. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the alleged wrong was that he was threatened with a drill. Now, it might be different if they actually harmed KSM with it, but it’s hard for me to feel a great sense of injustice because the mastermind of the most bloody attack on U.S. soil was shown how a drill works. Obama and his crew seek to impose strict rules on the good guys. The bad guys get to do whatever they want.

The whole Gates incident gives us a peek at how Obama thinks about the world. Think about it for a moment. That press conference was extremely revealing. Obama (a Harvard educated lawyer) said, “I don’t know what the facts are, but the white cop was wrong.” That is Obama’s starting point. The guy in charge of protecting our lives and property was presumptively wrong.

Similarly, that is the mindset with international terrorism. The terrorists need to be protected from the guys that are in charge of protecting us—just to make sure they don’t get overzealous. The guys at the CIA are wrong. They need a labyrinthian set of rules to follow when interrogating the most evil guys on the planet. Eventually, the lawyers in Obamaworld will come to develop a code of permissible conduct for our CIA operatives.

It’s one thing to question a little dust-up between a Cambridge cop and a Harvard professor where no one got hurt, but Holder and his staff apparently don’t realize that his crusade will lead to an upgrade of Al Qaeda’s training manual.

The Stoning of Soraya M.

The recent uprising in Iran has been labeled by some as the “lipstick revolution.” While the spontaneous rebellion following the Iranian elections has quieted over the past week, it was apparent that many of the malcontents taking to the street were young women. Indeed, the icon of these street protests was Neda (or “voice”), the young Iranian woman that was gunned down and whose gruesome death was seen over the internet across the globe. My last post questioned why Western feminists have been so silent in the face of a regime and religion that so tramples on women’s rights.

It was timely that I saw the recently released film “The Stoning of Soraya M.” last weekend, and I highly recommend it. The movie is about a young Iranian woman who is unfairly accused of adultery and framed by her husband, a no-account scoundrel that wishes to unload his earnest, hardworking wife for floozies. In the West, an unscrupulous oaf can do this simply—by divorcing, dividing family property and paying the requisite maintenance and child support. It may be unpleasant for the woman, but she will get on with life.

But under Sharia law, it is another matter. In the film, the husband is able to arrange the stoning of his wife by co-opting a false witness, manipulating Sharia law and the local mullah. This is permitted to occur as a consequence of misogynist religious doctrine, the welding of law and religion, and the unchecked power of local religious leaders. The final scene is jarring—a graphic barbaric and brutal execution of a beautiful young woman in which her father, sons, and husband, along with the rest of the community all partake.

Although the actual incident upon which the film was based took place in the mid 1980’s, stoning continues to be a staple enforcement mechanism for sexual mores in the Islamic world. In a widely publicized case last year a 13 year old rape victim was stoned to death when her family reported the rape and she was accused of adultery.

In a sad coincidence, The Stoning of Soraya M. was released within 30 days of the slaying of Neda. That a segment of this culture society uses violence and threat of violence in a most barbaric way to prevent women from exercising their sexual freedom, shoots them for expressing themselves politically and beats them for not adhering to the Islamic dress code is astonishing to me. And, as I observed in my last post, what is more astonishing is the silence from Western feminists. And I also remind you that this is a culture that President Obama is tripping over himself to engage and show respect. The oppression of women by societies like Iran’s is on par with how blacks were treated in the deep South in the 50’s or in South Africa under apartheid. Why is the world so tolerant of it?

Where is NOW?

Although I believe that the correct posture of the Obama administration in the current Iranian crisis is circumspection, I believe it is high time for private citizens to voice their support for the currents of change in Iran.

In particular, I have observed with interest that it is women, particularly young women that appear to be at the center of this nascent movement. Women are defying the regime, marching in the streets, chanting, pushing back their head scarves, sporting the green markings signifying the movement. As I noted in my previous posting, the demonstrations are about much more than which stooge of the mullahs gets to be president. It is about giving voice to the people, and in particular, women. In watching some of the video that has made in out of Tehran, I saw young women bravely absorbing the thuds of the batons, being kicked, shoved and brutally pummeled by the thugs that run this government. These women want a voice. They want to be educated. They want to be full and equal citizens. I read “Reading Lolita in Tehran” a couple of years ago. It highlighted this sick and decrepit society that forces young women into hiding so they can read the world’s great literature. It is a pathological system that permits women to be stoned and beaten for being out with a man alone.

Yet, where is NOW? Where is Susan Sarandon? Where is Barbara Streisand? Where is Anita Hill? Where are all these folks? I went to the NOW website today. There are little stories about reproductive rights, discrimination and the murder of Dr. Tiller. That is all fine. Women are being beaten in the streets of Tehran today and there is not one word on the NOW website in support of these women. The misogynist Iranian regime will deprive women of THE RIGHT TO READ A BOOK, let alone permit women to exercise reproductive rights. And yet the silence from the feminist left in this country is deafening.

Well, this bald, fat, middle aged white conservative stands with you today, ladies. You deserve a future. You deserve a voice. You deserve to have the freedom to be educated, to be with who you want to be with, and to be full participants in your society. And I hope you get it. It’s a shame that your sisters here don’t share the outrage with me.

Hope and Change

Watching the news that has come out of Tehran has been intriguing to me. Not since the protests of 20 years ago at Tiananmen Square have I felt such a glimmer of hope for a people as I do now. Iran is not simply a country—it is a civilization suffocating under the rule of the clerical tyrants that have been in charge for 30 years. I see the prosperous, progressive society it could become. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is that it will end as it did in China, precisely 20 years ago, with the regime resorting to naked force to silence the people. But I do hold out a glimmer of hope, and if there is any hope at all, we must stay out of it.

In this instance, President Obama is doing precisely the right thing--- say as little as possible. His remarks have been carefully restrained and circumspect. He has been careful not to be seen as taking sides. And his foreign policy team has been careful not to be seen as tilting one way or the other.

Unfortunately, John McCain has been railing that Obama has abandoned fundamental principles about human rights. Hogwash. What McCain simply doesn’t understand is that the mullahs have made a career out of vilifying the Great Satan. They need to demonize us. Any overt interfering and taking sides will give them exactly the excuse they need to exert force against their own people. We shouldn’t be cheerleading anybody. Obama is entirely correct when he says that, “Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as advertised.”

I have been (and undoubtedly will continue to be) critical of Obama’s approach on many economic and foreign policy issues. But on this particular day on this particular issue, I’m glad that Obama, not McCain is at the helm. McCain does not understand that the protests are not about a particular candidate. The protests are about an Iranian people that want a voice in their own future. The mullahs are dying for us to pick a side. If there is any hope that now or in the near future for a second Iranian revolution, we must be silent.

Making Progress

I’ve been following President Obama’s “Muslim Outreach” program with a high degree of interest as I believe that reducing the tension between Islam and the West is one of the single dominant themes of our time. I admit I have been pretty skeptical since Obama’s opening act included a Grand Apologia in front of European audiences and a fawning videotape sent to the mullahs in Iran, purportedly designed to open dialogue with them.

But I have to say, I give Obama’s Cairo speech this week a B. He appears to be making some progress. At least he didn’t bow to any Saudi kings on this trip, apologize directly for America’s misbehavior, or completely throw the Israelis under the bus. And I give him credit for at least explicitly putting forward the checklist of items that will need to be tackled if there is to be peaceful coexistence between the West and Islam.

And while he should be congratulated for identifying the issues that cause friction between Islam and the West, his approach will fail unless it contains two key elements that are essential in relationship: reciprocity and accountability.

It is all fine, well and good to attempt to come to some sort of rapprochement with Islamic nations, and to take affirmative steps to achieve that. But such unilateral steps will be futile unless the Islamic world wants to take similar steps. Obama commented that “some in my country… view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.” Islam needs to demonstrate concretely that this view is incorrect. But Islamic leaders were strangely silent following 9/11 and the murder of Theo Van Gogh. They took no steps to assist when their Arab brethren were being ruthlessly slaughtered in Bosnia and Iraq. Muslim protesters only come out when their sensibilities are offended by cartoon depictions of Allah with a bomb in his turban or when people like Geert Wilders observe the connection between Islam and violence.

It is fine for Obama to try to improve the West’s image with the Islamic world, but the Islamic world has a way to go in improving its image with the West. To many in the West, Islam conjures up images of extreme violence, intolerance, tyranny, opposition to scientific progress, and misogyny. These images did not arise out of thin air—they are based on the experiences observed by the West. If the Islamic world continues to embrace intolerance, violence and tyranny, no rapprochement with the West will be possible unless the West chooses to accede to these elements of their society. So while I applaud an effort undertaken to reach out to the Islamic world, the Islamic world must reciprocate and it must reciprocate by forcefully denouncing those elements of its society and culture which are an anathema to the West.

The second issue I have with Obama’s approach is accountability. While he stopped short of blaming America, he attributed the problems in the Middle East to, “tension that has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslims were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” In other words, Muslims are historical victims. And this is the biggest reason why I remain skeptical of the Obama approach. Victim hood of white colonialism remains hardwired in the DNA of the Democratic platform, both domestically and internationally. We will make no progress until the Muslim peoples reject victim hood and take responsibility for their own societies and outcomes. By casting them as victims, Obama is perpetuating their own powerlessness vis-à-vis their purported oppressors whether it is the Israelis or, more accurately, their own political and religious tyrants that enslave them.

I applaud Obama’s efforts to bridge the gap between the Muslim societies of the Middle East and the West. I agree that George Bush could not have given this speech. But real relationships are based on reciprocity and accountability and thus far Obama has been reluctant to demand either from the Islamic world.

Playing Hardball

Barack Obama came to office as an untested one term senator and a one term state senator. He had no legislative accomplishments to his name and no executive experience. So it was natural that we would question whether he was tough enough for the top job in Washington.

His first priority after assuming office has been handling the banking crisis and the economy. In this arena, he had his artillery tubes trained on the villains he deemed responsible for the mess—the bankers. He immediately went after the highly paid executives of financial institutions, capping their pay, and in the case of AIG, threatened to “pursue every legal avenue to block [these] bonuses and make the American taxpayer whole.” At one point in addressing AIG, Obama lost his voice and commented, “excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here.” His treasury department let it be known that as part of the regulatory overhaul, they will be focused regulating and limiting executive pay in financial institutions, and hinted that regulation of executive pay might not end there.

Having put the financial executives in their place, Obama next focused on the auto industry, and in a stunning exercise of government power, pressured GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign. I don’t know whether Wagoner was performing well or not under the circumstances, but it seems to be somewhat heavy-handed for the government to meddle in corporate governance in a for-profit enterprise. Immediately after Wagoner’s ouster, Tim Geithner then let it be known that he would not hesitate to pressure a bank CEO to resign.

Team Obama has no qualms about pushing around corporate CEOs. In addition to their shareholders and boards of directors, corporate leaders now need to worry that their performance will be assessed by the bureaucrats in Washington and that they will be unceremoniously shoved over a cliff. And if you happen to run a large financial institution, you now have your pay limited and you effectively serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Treasury. I thought they did this kind of thing only in the old U.S.S.R. This is real hardball. By strong-arming them, firing them, and taxing them, Team Obama has shown that it can and will play tough with the “recklessness and greed” in the corner suite.

Unfortunately, the tough talk and tough action seems to run out of gas when we’re talking about the murderous thugs overseas that have threatened us and our allies. The steely gaze averts when confronting dictatorial thugs bent on acquiring the means to inflict mass murder. Both Iran and North Korea have cavalierly ignored multiple UN resolutions with respect to their nuclear programs and have essentially dared us to do anything about it. The same Team Obama that demonstrated flinty resolve in dealing with American CEOs has shown quite a different tone when it comes to our adversaries.

With Iran, a country that has threatened the existence of one of our closest allies and continues to speed along on its project to acquire the means to do it, President Obama has elected to reach out to them. In a videotaped message to Iran last, he gushed effusively about the accomplishments of their culture (without a footnote about the part that promotes beating women) and wished them happy holiday in Farsi. The response was an immediate rebuff from the mullahs, a diplomatic b—ch slap. Worse, the Financial Times last week reported that the Obama administration is seriously considering accepting Iran’s nuclear enrichment program as a fait accompli. In other words--Israel, you’re on your own. There will be no response from the U.S.

The Bush administration dropped North Korea from the terrorist sponsor list last year in hopes of wooing them to the six-party talks. The North Koreans have, in response, re-commenced their game of cheating and backpedaling on their commitments. This week, they once again stuck a finger in the eye of the Obama administration by firing a missile over Japan. When questioned about the impending launch last week, Robert Gates said meekly, “I would say we’re not prepared to do anything about it.”

So much for the Axis of Evil. It appears that we will simply offer no resistance to a nuclear North Korea or a nuclear Iran. Iran will be permitted to keep the centrifuges humming and North Korea will continue to gain concessions from the West without ANY meaningful concessions in return.

When Obama talked about $170 million in AIG bonuses, the rage in Obama’s face was palpable—you could actually see the veins pop out in his neck. He commits the full force of his administration to keeping capitalists in line and has no hesitation to use all legal and political means to make sure corporate executives reign in greed and recklessness. And he doesn’t flinch when he threatens other CEOs with the

In this administration, though, regime change is reserved for the capitalists. Confronting regimes that each have promised to incinerate a close ally of the U.S. is another matter. With rogue regimes, the Obama rage vanishes like smoke on a windy day. I don’t know how you even compare $170 million in bonuses with the idea that a madman has or soon will have the means to destroy Seoul or Tel Aviv (or New York or Washington D.C.). So far, the response from Team Obama has been a video postcard wishing them well and hoping they have a nice holiday.

Just Wonderin'

I’m really trying to figure this all out, but some of this just doesn’t make sense to me. These are just a few random observations that are causing some serious cognitive dissonance.

-The Obama administration is seriously considering slashing funding for “unproven missile defense technology” (at the same time North Korea is threatening to lob a missile over Hawaii) but at the same time believes that it is essential to spent billions on unproven “green” technologies and unproven stem cell research.

-Obama seeks to create a “post-bubble” economic model, one that doesn’t rely for growth on “just on an overheating housing market, or people maxing out their credit cards” but instead wishes to build it on the pillars of a government spending bubble with the government maxing out on its credit card.

-After at least 60 released Gitmo detainees returned to terrorism, the Obama administration is so confident in its vetting process that it now wishes to release some of the Gitmo inmates on U.S. soil (and give them government benefits).

-Barack Obama has never worked in business, and has been in his job less than 100 days, terminates his first employee this week—a CEO of a publicly traded company.

-GM is out of cash and teetering on bankruptcy and the Obama administration promptly hands it a new obligation—stiff new fuel efficiency requirements, which will require substantial cash investments.

-The Obama Administration hammered John McCain’s support of taxing health benefits in the waning days of the campaign and filled the airwaves with sharp ads claiming McCain wanted to take health care benefits away. Just a few days ago, this headline appeared in the New York Times:

Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits

These are just a handful of things I’ve been trying to reconcile lately. It hasn't been easy.