A Leadership Vacuum

In the Summer and Fall of 2008 we were reliably reminded by all and sundry, and particularly by Candidate Obama, that the conflict in Iraq was an illegal and immoral war, drawing American resources from the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. Indeed, if memory serves, Candidate Obama proudly proclaimed that he had voted against the war in Iraq, although he had not been in the US Senate at the time.

It is now clear that the war in Afghanistan was a "necessity" only to the extent that Candidate Obama needed a stick with which to beat the outgoing Bush administration. Had Afghanistan been a genuine priority for Team Obama, surely they would have developed a number of possible policies over the course of the campaign. These could have been refined with the Pentagon and State during the transition prior to the Inauguration, and then implemented early in the Administration.

Instead, some 9 months after taking office, there is no plan, only a promise to make no hasty decisions. The Israelis could have won the Six Day War 45 times in time it has already taken Mr. Obama to decide on his course of action. More significantly, young Americans have DIED while Mr. Obama has waffled.

In a recent address to troops in Florida, Mr. Obama pledged that he would not risk their lives except in cases of "absolute necessity." In such cases, the nation would "back them to the hilt." The clear message was "You're not going anywhere anytime soon."

But perhaps we should expect no less. After all, Candidate Obama described Afghanistan "a war of necessity," not one of "absolute necessity." Thus he is barred, by his own lights, from sending more troops, and those who are there need not look for additional support.

The message for our men and women in uniform, and indeed for all of us, is clear, dispiriting and frightening.

Our CinC is AWOL

Mao Rebukes Obama

"Our duty is tho hold ourselves responsible to the people. Every word, every act and every policy must conform to the people's interests, and if mistakes occur, they must be corrected - that is what being responsible to the people means."

I trust that Ms. Anita Dunn is bringing these passages to the attention of Mr. Obama.

Mao on voting "Present"

What is work? Work is struggle.There are difficulties and problems in those places for us to overcome and solve. We go there to work and struggle to overcome these difficulties. A GOOD COMRADE IS ONE WHO IS MORE EAGER TO GO WHERE THE DIFFICULTIES ARE GREATER."

emphasis added.

Where Mao and Obama Differ

Further from Chairman Mao:

"We stand for self-reliance. We hope for foreign aid but cannot be dependent upon it; we depend on our own efforts on the creative power of the whole army and the entire people."

Memo To Anita Dunn

Re: Mao

Ms. Dunn, I have listened with interest to recent interviews in which you identified Chairman Mao as one of your favorite political philosophers. While granting that he accomplished remarkable things, I cannot overlook the fact that most of his writings, at least in English translation, are unremarkable, or the fact that historians hold him responsible for the deaths of 70 million of his countrymen. Certainly that is a record I do not wish my government to emulate; I also trust it is one you do not support.

I apologize bringing the Chairman's blood soaked record to you in such a peremptory manner, but your comments suggest you are a relatively young person who merely knows Mao as the kindly face beaming from the portrait in Tianamin Square. On the other hand, I recall the Cultural Revolution, have a friend whose father was sent off to be "re-educated," and a copy of Mao's Little Red Book. By the way is it true that re-education camps are part of Mr. Obama's agenda for 2010?

But to improve your understanding of Mao, allow me to offer a sample of what passes as "penetrating thought":

"All men must die, but death can vary in its significance. The ancient Chinese writer Szuma Chien said, 'Though death befalls all men alike, it may be weightier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather.' To die for the people is weightier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather."

So I may avoid a "light weight" death, could you perhaps advise who the Administration currently regards as the fascists, the exploiters and the oppressors? Is there perhaps a Web site where I can sign up for automatic updates? I would hate to miss a purge or a show trial; I would dislike that nearly as much as I would to be called a kulak or a wrecker myself.

But if worst comes to worst, and we are both sent for re-education, perhaps you will have the time and the inclination to explain to me how you reconcile the works of Mao with those of Mother Therese. It might help while away the time leading to our appointment with the firing squad.

The Rule of Law(?)

Of late there has been some reporting and much talk of an Administration "campaign" or "war" against Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and others who believe less government automatically creates more freedom. At the moment, the attacks appear to be limited to smear tactics, rumor - mongering and planting false quotations. One is left to wonder, though, how long it will be before the White House slips into full Nixonian mode, attempting to use the IRS and other agencies to crush its opponents.

Which calls to mind a rather old statute, known to old lawyers as "42 USC 1983." It reads in part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,....

It means that if an official uses his or her office to deprive others of their civil rights, that official can be sued in civil court, and be stripped of the usual protections that attach when someone is attempting to perform his or her official duties in good faith. As I recall, it is an anti-Klan statute, adopted to put an end to thug sheriffs and the like arresting people for such alleged crimes as "driving while black," "helping blacks" or even "just being black."

Of course, the statute does not protect only blacks against official misconduct; it is admirably colorblind.

It would be a profound irony, however, if the first black president were to sink so low that he could be called to account by a law meant to suppress the evils of the Klan.

Thought for Today

“There is a difference between leadership and management. The leader and the men who follow him represent one of the oldest, most natural and most effective of all human relationships. The manager and those he manages are a later product with neither so romantic nor so inspiring a history. Managers are necessary, leaders are essential.”

----Field Marshal the Viscount William Slim