Time to Support Obama

As the far-left has assumed its normal, although currently somewhat subdued, opposition to war, many Republicans have begun to position themselves against the administration’s actions in Libya. Seemingly, much of this opposition on the right comes from politically- not ideologically-motivated origins. While budgetary concerns are certainly high in the minds of many Tea Party-infused congressmen, the GOP should be careful to avoid opposing a policy just because Obama initiated it.

A number of Republicans have begun speaking out against the mission. Some of this questioning is certainly appropriate. For instance, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) was correct to press Obama on the objectives of the mission in a recent letter sent to the president. However, like many Republicans, Boehner walks a fine line between assisting the war-wary president to define the United States’ goals and commitments and, on the other hand, fomenting an unwise charge against the intervention in Libya.

As outlined in the letter, there are a number of tactical considerations that must be publically clarified. Presumably some of Obama’s hesitation is due to the image of the anti-war president that he assiduously crafted as a candidate. But while questioning these tactical and even broader strategic concerns is valid, the underlying need and motivation for intervention should be off the table.

Not only would such partisan attacks smack of raw politics but they would establish a huge contradiction within Republican ideology. Republicans have spent over a decade defending the need to promote democracy across the globe. While there have arguably been missteps in the implementation of this mission, the underlying goal is sound. For a few partisan points in their political battle with Obama, it would be foolish to throw all of this away.

Instead, Republicans should jump on board with the no-fly zone, throwing their support behind the president and showing America that when the Democrats choose to do the right thing, bipartisanship can prevail. Not every policy initiated by the current administration need be opposed; fighting across the aisle is only warranted when the other side is grossly out of line, for instance as the Democrats were on Obamacare. Americans want to see this country moved in the right direction; they do not want to see consistent bickering.

The call, by some Republicans, including Utah’s congressmen, Jason Chaffetz, for congressional authorization of the no-fly zone is a prime example of this misguided policy. Relying upon Obama’s own asinine comments made to this effect while a candidate, Chaffetz argues that the president must turn to Congress for approval. This argument, though, is a straw-man, used by the opposition party for decades. Congress has not officially declared war since World War II, while numerous military actions have been initiated by presidents in the years since. The ability of the president, as commander-in-chief, to send troops into battle has been a long-settled issue. While Congress should undoubtedly be consulted prior to military action and should maintain certain controls and inputs into its execution, the current criticisms are nothing but transparent attacks on the office of the president.

Republicans should not join the far-left in this attack. That ground should be left to Dennis Kucinich and his loony friends who are mulling impeaching Obama. Instead, if the GOP feels the need to separate itself from the administration, it could look to some of the mistakes made in the implementation of the no-fly zone, in particular the long delay in its initiation. Jonah Goldberg, at National Review Online, makes the most poignant argument in this regard. While fully supporting the mission, he argues that the delay in getting it started has added some considerable difficulties. Goldberg blames this on Obama’s desire to be a multilateralist and fear of “too much unilateral hot-dogging” if the United States had taken the lead. His analysis is quite astute and correctly separates the tactical blunders made by the administration from the strategic necessity of intervention.

For Republicans who cut their teeth on opposition to this president, throwing their weight behind him will be a bitter pill to swallow. But doing right, by American interests, their principles, and the Libyan people, is far more important than partisan brownie points. Republicans need to show their principles and their mettle and support the president.

An Assault on Petraeus and Free-Speech

Recently at Georgetown University, General David Petraeus, current CENTCOM Commander, was shouted down by student protestors when attempting to give a lecture. This is relatively unsurprising as it is all too common at elite American universities for students to attempt to prevent those they disagree with from talking. A New Republican discussed a similar incident that occurred at UNC last April. Predictably, many rushed to defend the protestors in the name of free-speech. In an editorial in The Hoya, Georgetown’s school newspaper, one of the senior deans in the School of Foreign Service, James Reardon-Anderson, called the incident “one of those learning moments that makes campus life more interesting.” Such defenses trash the concept of free-speech and make a mockery of everything America and these universities are supposed to stand for.

Reardon-Anderson’s argument is simple. Freedom of speech means minority groups have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. He states, “Freedom of speech must allow for a minority to annoy and discomfort the majority….” But freedom of speech does not work this way. Freedom of speech prevents encroachment on the individual’s (or group’s) ability to speak its mind. The concept exists to prevent the quashing of dissent, to facilitate the free flow of ideas, and to promote discourse that will better the lives of all. This is the liberal principle which our nation is built upon.

The Georgetown protestors are decidedly illiberal in their approach. Their actions are not about promoting free-speech, but about silencing a perspective with which they do not agree. Reardon-Anderson tacitly acknowledges this by refusing to condemn the students’ removal. In fact, he applauds the success of the system:

Happily for those who found these interruptions improper, the system worked: The offending parties were warned to stop and — when they failed to heed the warning — they were removed from the hall or they left of their own accord. There was no threat to the health and safety of anyone. The event proceeded without further disruption.

The fact that he acknowledges that their removal was appropriate signifies that the protestors were not behaving in accordance with the concept of free-speech. If they were, any attempt to silence them should be castigated. The error that Reardon-Anderson and so many like-minded supporters make is that they confuse speech with noise. Free-speech prevents restrictions on the contribution of ideas to the community; it does not allow individuals to create noise to drown out others speech. Silencing Petraeus by talking over him is tantamount to duct-taping his mouth closed.

While it is the opinion of ANR that the constitutional right to free-speech is (or should be) only applicable to the government’s ability to limit speech and is not necessarily a restriction on private institutions ability to limit speech, we do support the voluntary commitment to this principle that institutions such as Georgetown profess. It is important to note that tyranny need not just come from the majority (if Petraeus is even part of the majority) or the government. Tyranny comes from anyone who unjustly abrogates the rights of another. Free-speech, as a principle, protects against this injustice. In this instance, the protestors are committing the highest form of tyranny by silencing another. They should have every right to present and discuss their perspectives, but only if they allow others to dialogue as well. The irony is that they are defended in the name of the very principles they cease to respect.

Not Illegal But We'll Punish Yoo (and Bybee) Anyway

The Obama administration has apparently dropped its desire to prosecute former Bush officials regarding their legal opinions of waterboarding. At a minimum they realized the political costs of such pursuits were far too high. Possibly, they also realized the moral and strategic necessity of having these tools at their disposal should they ever need to use such tactics to save American lives.

Unfortunately, the administration has not had the courage to admit that they made a mistake in going after Bush’s legal advisors. Not only has Obama not admitted to the morality and necessity of such techniques in certain instances, but his administration continues to push the issue for political reasons. While prosecution looks unlikely, the Justice Department is apparently considering recommendations of reprimands and even disbarment for the involved attorneys. (See the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124157214390990085.html and the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us/politics/06inquire.html?_r=1&hp).

Maybe my legal friends can shed some light on this, but I find reprimands and disbarment to be a nonsensical approach. If the administration truly feels something illegal was done (which it doesn’t seem they do) then a legal recourse should be taken. If they don’t then how can these lawyers justly be punished? To claim that the lawyers violated some ethical, but not legal, standards is absurd. Legitimate policies differences and interpretations of the law cannot and should not be ex post punished because one administration feels differently than the prior one.

The administration seems to be using reprimands and disbarment as a safety hatch to appease the anti-war liberal left. They boxed themselves into a corner by going after the Bush officials. Having seen the disastrous effects such criminal charges would have on domestic American sentiment and on our war on terror, the administration was forced to retreat. However, they still feel a need to pander to the short-sighted and morally simplistic left. If Holder was to drop the whole issue, the cries from Obama’s base would be deafening.

This seems to be a growing trend in the Obama administration. Obama overreached with a number of promises to the left; only to realize upon his ascent to power that despite all the vitriol, Bush’s policies were sound, moral, and necessary. His backpedaling on the Guantanamo issue is just one other example of this about-face. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165410800493933.html). However, Obama feels the need to balance the retreat from his campaign promises with the fanaticism of the anti-war movement, which forms a large portion of his base. If he loses their support he will have little to stand on. This has prevented him from admitting that he ran his campaign on false pretenses. It also prevents him from correctly portraying the morality behind such techniques (See my discussion here http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/04/whats-wrong-with-waterboarding.html). This is most unfortunate because Obama is in the best position to open a national discussion of morality. Instead he simplistically claims that we need to take a non-existent ‘moral high ground’. What he really means is that he and his cronies are far too uncomfortable discussing complex moral issues. For this he is willing to scapegoat those brave enough to protect our country.