April 1, 2009

Thoughts of Obama from Bama

Week Ten – Words Really Do Matter

“Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind."
Rudyard Kipling

“Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bueller,

I regret to inform you that your son, Captain Ferris Bueller, was killed during a reconnaissance mission seeking out friendly members of the Taliban in our ongoing Overseas Contingency Operation in Afghanistan. Captain Bueller deserves our gratitude and….”

During the Democrat primary candidates Obama and Clinton vigorously argued about the importance of words accusing each other of constantly expressing shallow, meaningless rhetoric, empty promises and lofty platitudes. Clinton accused Obama of being an empty suit gifted with superb oratory skills but lacking any real substance, in other words a lot of chopping with no chips flying, while Obama pointed out Clinton’s wonkish, stale and shrieky style of speaking and propensity for taking liberties with the truth. Spinning a good yarn, telling tall tales and talking out of both sides of her mouth and such as she merrily dodged sniper fire during campaign stops across America.

Turns out both were right, as most if not all politicians will say almost anything and usually do, to get elected and Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are no exception. In the final vote tally the words they chose as part of the banter of a heated campaign really didn’t matter as much as their personal charisma (Or lack thereof in Hillary’s case), perceived leadership capabilities, and likability.

In comparison, words spoken by the President of the United States most definitely matter. Presidential proclamations have global ripple effects and can immediately influence worldwide financial markets, international trade and in President Obama’s case, even the Sweet Sixteen and Final Four. Words that address the circumstances involving placing our men and woman of the armed services in harm’s way have special significance as the consequences of presidential oratory in this context has a powerful impact on life and death decisions, war and/or peace initiatives and our ultimate victory or defeat in military engagements.

Considering the power and influence of presidential rhetoric the Commander in Chief’s downgrading of the Global War on Terror to an Overseas Contingency Operation is truly inexplicable, especially in light of our great successes including, for all practical purposes, a victory in Iraq, significant setbacks in Al Qaeda’s global operations and reach and most importantly not one additional terrorist attack on the homeland since the tragedy of 9/11. Could be the Obama Administration’s schizophrenic paranoia about anything Bush, which is not only childish but dangerous, as their doesn’t seem to be any apparent political, strategic, or military justification to support this change in wording and in effect U.S. policy towards terrorism.

Overseas Contingency Operation. What do these new focus group tested and PR driven words carefully chosen by the spin doctors in the West Wing and their Madison Avenue buds really mean and what message do they hope to relay? Surely the genius wordsmiths at the White House could have come up with something more original and memorable. Maybe a sports metaphor in the tradition of the great Muhammad Ali fights, Thriller in Manila or Rumble in the Jungle, would surely better serve their purpose. How about the Massacre in Mosul, the Great Head Towel Flap, the Terrorist Turban Take Down Derby, Cleaning Out Omar’s Carpet and Sheet Head Shake Down as viable alternatives that could very possibly spice up the “Change We Can Believe In Although it’s Hard to Believe We Are Even Talking About This Absurd Idea” Administration's message trumpeting our full scale retreat in the Global War on Terrorism.

A closer examination of our new call to arms, the President’s Overseas Contingency Operation, reveals troubling and even dangerous implications if this silly and truly assinine policy is implemented. The words Overseas and Operation are at least seemingly self explanatory, no harm no foul here. They do raise the question, however, if we have another attack or incident on the US mainland will it be called a Domestic Contingency Operation? Or maybe just a Man Made Disaster as our new Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, recently described it during a Congressional Hearing when sharing her views about the potential of future domestic terrorist attacks.

Contingency seems to be the operative word in the President’s new “phrase” describing our War on Global Terrorism referring to an unforeseen event, emergency, incident or possible eventuality. With all due respect Mr. President, since the tragedy of 9/11 when radical Muslim terrorist extremists having declared a Jihad, Holy War, on the United States of America, turned commercial airplanes into ballistic missiles which ultimately resulted in the cold blooded murder of almost 3000 innocent fellow citizens, there has been absolutely nothing unforeseen, incidental or a considered possible eventuality about our Global War on Terrorism.

In fact, until the “Yes We Can Snatch Defeat Out of the Jaws of Victory in the Global War on Terrorism” gang started giving new orders our mission had been crystal clear - seek out and destroy insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq and contain and ultimately kill or capture OBL (kill, preferably) and his zealot head case Taliban followers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With the exception of the recent resurgence of the Taliban after experiencing an almost insurmountable initial defeat inflicted by US forces right after 9/11, our War on Global Terror, which has cost dearly in blood and treasure, has sent a clear and unequivocal message to our enemies reinforcing our commitment to eradicate the scourge of cowardly Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.


The Presidents new name for our country’s ongoing War on Terror, his Overseas Contingency Operation, also sends a clear message to our enemies as well to so called friends and allies. Sadly, a message of retreat, concession and surrender. Truly a sign of weakness and appeasement to our terrorist enemies which can only serve to encourage and embolden their sinister efforts against us. With the intent of serving as a good will gesture to our so called friends the French, Germans, Brits, the rest of the EU and assorted Arab allies and adversaries. With the exception of the Brits, none of the others can be counted on to cover our back in this or future conflicts, so what’s the point?

We can only hope the disgrace of this cowardly policy helps our new fearless leader maintain his high poll numbers with his adoring European communist and socialist supporters. As for the Russians and Chinese, to borrow a phrase from the Honorable Governor of California, Arnold, I reckon they are thinking that we are just acting like a bunch of "girly men".

The most tragic consequences of President Obama’s downgrading of the War on Terror to an Overseas Contingency Operation is the total disregard and disrespect this policy has for all of those that so proudly wear the uniform and who have suffered and sacrificed so much to protect our liberties and freedoms in this vicious war against Islamic Jihadist. To diminish our military’s hard earned victories and accomplishments to appease our enemy and the Commander in Chief’s leftwing socialist friends back home and abroad is unforgivable and unworthy of the office with which Mr. Obama has been entrusted. For those that have made the ultimate sacrifice or who have been physically and/or mentally scarred for life this politically expedient and callus policy change represents the ultimate insult and gesture of disrespect.

Unlike our Commander in Chief and his leftwing, socialist, pacifist, terrorist appeasing comrades, I for one believe words do matter and am proud to stand with a majority of we the people that are most appreciative and grateful for the service and sacrifice of the members of our Armed Services in our ongoing Global War on Terrorism and Islamic Jihadist Extremism.

I am, “American by Birth and Southern by the Grace of God”
Ron W. Garikes