testsite_tjohara – Page 9

OBAMACARE: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 14, 2013 – Obamacare has become the cornerstone of the largely unrelated budget crisis that has led to the Government Shutdown as well as the debt ceiling crisis that purportedly threatens default. As the healthcare industry in the United States represents approximately one-sixth of our Nation’s economy, tampering with it raises risks and rewards that can impact the lives of every American citizen. Let’s examine the good, the bad, and the ugly elements of the controversial law’s journey.

The Good

Healthcare costs have been rising disproportionately relative to inflation for several decades. This inevitably translates into less affordable and less accessible healthcare for a growing segment of society. Most people would agree that addressing the issues of cost and accessibility would be a good thing to do. Obamacare attempts to do that.

Meanwhile, there is a debate over the quality of healthcare in the United States. Has it remained the best in the world, or has it deteriorated over time?

According to the World Health Organization, our country now ranks 33rd in life expectancy and 38th in overall healthcare effectiveness. Some will argue that these rankings are skewed. They do not adjust life expectancy for non-healthcare-related causes of death such as homicides and automobile accidents. If those adjustments were made, they would embarrassingly improve our ratings. However, rather than celebrating our propensity for murder and reckless driving, trying to improve the quality of healthcare in the United States would seem to be a good path to follow. Obamacare attempts to do that.

In effect, Obamacare’s ostensible purpose complies with its more formal name: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It attempts to maintain and improve the quality of healthcare (“Patient Protection”) while expanding accessibility and lowering the cost of healthcare (“Affordable Care”).

Obamacare theoretically provides a variety of positive outcomes:

Most people would agree that these objectives would improve the current state of healthcare in the United States if they were able to be implemented in an efficient and effective manner. Therein lies the challenge.

The Bad

There are serious structural issues related to Obamacare that are difficult to ignore. Some are associated with the political way in which it has been driven; others reside within its practical application.

The Obama Administration succeeded where the Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton Administrations failed. It used brute force political maneuvering to secure passage of the legislation.

Presidents Roosevelt and Truman backed away from executing the universal healthcare component of the New Deal because they recognized that the strong opposition to the program was being driven by a representative element of Government. The Obama Administration simply chose to vilify similar opposition to overcome it.

Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter all pushed for variations of universal healthcare only to fail because of the same roadblock: Senator Edward Kennedy. While homage was paid to Sen. Kennedy (who had recently passed away) when Obamacare was written into law, it was the Senator himself who blocked it from passing during the 1970s. His public commitment to healthcare reform was exceeded only by his inveterate demand to make it conform exactly to his requirements. His efforts against Nixon and Ford were further fueled by a partisan need to prevent such reform from being attributed to a Republican Administration.

The Clinton Administration failed as well. One week after his 1993 inauguration, President Clinton announced the formation of the President’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform and appointed his wife, Hillary Clinton, as its chairperson. We were told that the Task Force would deliver a proposal to Congress within 100 days. While the direction and composition of the Task Force were well thought out, the time frame and other salient elements were not.

As a side note, every one of these prior Administrations shared one thing in common with the Obama Administration: it had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

Let’s examine another presidential reference that parallels the complexity of healthcare reform and offers interesting contrasts to the current Administration’s approach.

On May 52, 1961, President Kennedy said, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” On January 25, 2007, then-Senator Obama made a declaration of similar magnitude: “The time has come for universal healthcare in America.”

President Kennedy went on to say, “I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment … because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful.”

Similar to President Kennedy’s statement, Senator Obama repeatedly made promises during his 2008 Presidential campaign that echoed a similar awareness of the importance of Congressional support and the participation of the American people.

With respect to Congress, he vowed to “turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington” and to create “the most transparent Presidential Administration ever.”

With respect to the American people, he promised that “These (healthcare) negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made … We will work on this process publicly. It’ll be on C-SPAN. It’ll be streaming on the Internet.” His campaign website even boasted: “As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

President Kennedy honored his words. You may reach your own conclusion with regard to President Obama.

Another point of differentiation lies within whom the two Presidents tasked with crafting a solution.

President Kennedy (and Johnson after him) sought Congressional approval and appropriations for the development of the Mercury and Apollo projects. However, NASA and its rocket scientists were charged with the responsibility of actually designing and executing the projects.

Under President Obama’s leadership, Congress was chosen to reform our healthcare system. Try to imagine the level of success the Space Program would have achieved had President Kennedy appointed Congress as its architect.

In fairness, Congress delegated the responsibility. Senator Baucus, Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, announced that his Chief Health Policy Counsel, Elizabeth Fowler, was the actual architect of the bill.

Before serving in this capacity, Ms. Fowler worked for WellPoint (our nation’s largest insurance provider) and informally lobbied on its behalf. After drafting Obamacare, she was rewarded for her efforts with a White House appointment to implement the law. However, she quickly left that role to work in a senior government affairs position to lobby on behalf of Johnson & Johnson.

Coincidently, Ms. Fowler’s pre- and post-Obamacare positions are tied to the two industries that are considered to be the big “winners” in healthcare reform: insurance and pharmaceuticals.

Beyond the methodology that was used to draft Obamacare, the process by which it passed into law also merits discussion.

The final bill was not particularly well-vetted. As then-Speaker Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

It was voted upon by a House comprised of 253 Democrats and only 178 Republicans (with 218 votes being required to pass). Yet, it only passed by a vote of 219-212 (with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it). Similarly, the Senate voted upon straight Party lines (60-40).

This marked the first time in history that landmark legislation passed without being able to attract a single crossover vote in its favor. Does this reflect the recalcitrance of the Republican Party, the inability or disinterest of the Democratic Party to reach a true consensus, or both? Think about that when you evaluate who’s at fault for the current budget and debt crises the Parties have been able to create.

From a pragmatic basis, it is difficult to conceive how a 2,700-page bill that created 159 new boards and committees, which have since added over 20,000 new pages of regulations, can reduce costs.

The infrastructure associated with 159 new boards and committees creates a cost;
The entire healthcare system needs to assimilate major change to comply with the evolving regulations, and such change inherently adds cost; and
The private sector has to absorb the costs of determining the impact of the new regulations and conforming to them.

“Affordability” may be more of an issue than the Administration anticipated.

Even “Patient Protection” may be at risk since there isn’t a provision to address the supply-and-demand healthcare provider issue that inherently will arise with a surge of 30 million new “patients.” The preventative services and essential health benefits elements of Obamacare create new income streams for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, but they only serve to strain the already thin network of healthcare providers. Obamacare doesn’t provide any direction with respect to what can be done to bridge this gap.

The Ugly

The Parties have drawn lines in the sand to battle over “all things Obama,” so the colloquial name of the law only raises the ugliest aspects of partisan politics.

Republicans claim that Obamacare will destroy our economy and our country unless it is totally repealed or defunded. Democrats accuse Republicans of hating women and the poor and wanting to deny them healthcare. Both positions are absurd. They are intentional misrepresentations used to build fear among the Parties’ respective bases for the purpose of raising money and locking in votes for the 2014 mid-term election.

Think about it.

Have you ever received a white paper from either of the Parties that clearly articulated its position without claiming that the Earth is about to be thrown off its axis and life as we know it will cease to exist? More importantly: Have you ever received a communication from either Party that did not solicit a donation?

Here’s the discussion we need to have.

With Respect to the Republican Party:

You introduced legislation to repeal or defund Obamacare 42 times since March 21, 2010. In case you haven’t noticed, Majority Leader Reid is prone to block such bills from ever reaching the Senate floor; you don’t have the votes in the Senate; and the President is on record as having said he would block any such bill if it were to reach his desk.

Before even your most zealous supporters recognize that you are either “slow” or inept, why don’t you change tack?

You have had ample time to dissect the law and offer amendments that would remove or improve poorly constructed elements of the law without eliminating the positive elements that it contains. Try that for a change. If Majority Leader Reid chooses to block such bills from reaching the Senate floor, you could position his abuse of power in a manner that may allow you to reclaim the Senate in 2014.

If you are truly as concerned about the President’s policies as you suggest, retaining a majority in the House and claiming a majority in the Senate should be your highest priority. Instead, you have attached your latest attempt to deal with Obamacare to the only two issues that currently occupy the minds of the American people who are paying even modest attention (i.e., the budget and debt), and the course you have chosen has burdened (or at least annoyed) the general public.

When will you recognize that Obamacare is so structurally flawed that portions will collapse under their own weight if you can muster the intelligence to get out of the way?

With Respect to the Democratic Party:

Stop embarrassing yourself. Republicans don’t wake up in the morning hating women and the poor. They wake up hating themselves for their inability to successfully articulate their message.

You are absolutely correct when you smugly state that Obamacare is “the law of the land” and that Republicans should respect it. However, keep in mind how you acquired the necessary votes to pass the legislation.

You had to secure the necessary votes in the House, which you controlled, by leading the bill with “pork” (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback”). That raises two questions: Were the best interests of the People served by the political gimmickry; and would Obamacare have passed without the political favors?

The latter question is particularly interesting given the rhetoric of “extortion” and “blackmail” that has been woven into your criticism of the Republican’s use of the budget and debt ceiling issues as a fulcrum to address their opposition to Obamacare. Were it not for political “extortion” and “blackmail,” the bill may never have passed.

It is also somewhat entertaining when you place great weight on the fact that Obamacare has been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. So was Citizens United.

Correspondingly, SCOTUS had to ignore Congressional intent to save the law for you. You swore that the fines included in the legislation were penalties rather than taxes. If Chief Justice Roberts had thought you were telling the truth, Obamacare would have been held to be unconstitutional.

You also would be well-served to stop pretending that Obamacare is a well-structured law that can be implemented in a clean manner. It already has required a significant number of waivers, and about half the States have opted out of the federally run exchanges.

Perhaps most embarrassingly: Having had a disproportionately large budget and three-and-a-half years to prepare for the October 1, 2013, launch of the Obamacare website, it suffered from what you call “glitches.” Is this akin to the “bumps in the road” that the deaths in Benghazi represented? Please spare the excuses and fix the problem.

Obamacare was sold to the American people based on false promises. Once it is fully implemented, there will be no place to hide.

It will touch every citizen in the United States in some way. Some Americans will benefit from the law, some will be inconvenienced, and others will be devastated. Why not join with Republicans to proactively address the known defects? In a rare turnabout, honesty may be the only way you can retain the Senate for the President’s final two years.

Solution

What would you do to bridge the divide between the Parties?

As Speaker Boehner recently said, “This isn’t a … game.” We are tampering with one-sixth of the United States economy (about $2.7 trillion per year) in a way that will impact the lives of every American.

Article I provides bicameral chambers for debate. Article II provides a singular position to preserve unity. Maybe if the President were to focus on the latter element and serve as a mediator rather than a partisan, we could begin to make progress.

Within the Legislative Branch, both sides need to find common ground. One suggestion would be to recommit to their Oath of Office, which commands them to “support and defend the Constitution.” That document clearly places the best interests of the People ahead of the best interests of the Parties.

Why not work together toward common goals that comply with that premise?

Perhaps it isn’t “rocket science” after all.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

LEADERSHIP VACCUM: Parties prevail over the People

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 7, 2013 – As we enter Week Two of the most recent Government shutdown, one fact should be clear: there is an absence of leadership in Washington, D.C. The lines have been drawn between the two Parties, and they are willing to sacrifice any shred of intelligence and integrity that might still be associated with them for a meaningless political victory. While everyone is defending their position, no one is leading.

Leadership brings people together to accomplish a goal that would otherwise be beyond their reach. It requires the ability to build trust, and trust cannot be established when one’s actions are incongruent with one’s words.

These are concepts that appear to be foreign to those who are in positions of leadership in our Federal Government. Instead, the President, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader seem hopelessly intertwined in a web of political fanaticism.

George Santayana once said, “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

That is exactly what we are seeing in Washington, D.C. as our “leaders” try to solve the budget and debt puzzle they created. Unfortunately, the aforementioned political triumvirate has chosen to attempt this feat without two of the most critical pieces: their responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the People as opposed to the best interests of their respective Parties; and their responsibility to negotiate in good faith.

Let’s examine these two pieces within the context of leadership in general and the current debate.

“Trust” has left the building. Both Parties have created an irrefutable history of trading false promises for money and votes. If this were not true, we would be observing transparent negotiations driven by bipartisan accord when an actual crisis arose, and most crises would be averted by that same conduct. Only partisan fanatics will argue that their Party isn’t complicit in this regard or try to feign debate by asserting there is a false equivalence.

By abandoning trust as a criterion of leadership, the President, Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader have been set free to engage in partisan politics at the expense of the People. We apparently are considered to be nothing more than “collateral damage.”

Who caused the problem?

The correct answer is, “Who cares? Fix it!”

Instead, our “leadership” will spend an enormous amount of time, energy, and resources trying to convince the American people that the other Party is to blame. This has little to do with reaching an agreement on a fiscally responsible budget and addressing our debt obligations. Conversely, it has everything to do with the 2014 election cycle, control of the Legislative Branch of our Government, and raising massive sums of money in the interim.

The Parties have ramped up the rhetoric to leverage the negative emotions of fear, greed, and guilt. Both sides of the aisle are heavily soliciting their respective bases for donations to fight the political extremism of the other Party. It is a disgusting display of “divide and conquer” politics. The concept of a united Republic seems to be lost upon our leadership.

Perhaps most disappointing is the vocabulary the President, Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and their partisan contemporaries are using. Are they really that insensitive to their choice of words, or are they just conditioned to deliver whatever sound bites their Parties have prepared for them?

January 8, 2011, isn’t ancient history. Representative Gabby Gifford was shot on that day. The Parties immediately began assigning contributory blame to the “hate speech” of their counterpart. Four days later, the President stepped forth at a memorial service and read the following words:

“… at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

The President, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, and every citizen should be asking themselves why those words should be any less true and relevant today.

Yet, what we hear are phrases like the following:

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest”
“…we can’t (negotiate) with the gun held to the head of the American people”
“…jammed this jobs-killing, deficit-increasing monstrosity through Congress”
“…poisonous to our way of life”
“…Banana Republic mindset”
“It’s like Gunfight at the O.K. Corral”
“…they’ve lost their minds”
“…have shut down the government over an ideological crusade”
“…hold the entire economy hostage”
“…they’re actually willing to plunge America into default” and
“We’re not going to submit to this kind of total irresponsibility,” etc.

Of course, such phrases have been further reinforced by descriptive nouns like “anarchists,” “arsonists,” “blackmailers,” “extremists,” “hostage-takers,” “political terrorists,” and “suicide-bombers.”

The question you should ask yourself is: Does this serve the best interest of the People, or does it simply magnify the divide between the Parties to enflame emotions among core constituents in a concerted effort to separate them from their money and condition them to vote as they’re told in 2014?

Perhaps under George Santayana’s definition, our leaders are not fanatics. They simply have remained focused on the only issues that concern their Parties: campaign contributions, controlled votes, and the maintenance or expansion of power. The cultivation of partisan fanatics among the electorate is simply required to deliver upon those three objectives.

How do you fit into that equation?

The refusal to negotiate in good faith is simply a tactic that heightens the debate. While Majority Leader Reid and the President (at least until recently) have stated that they will not negotiate with Republicans, the Republicans have been equally truculent if in a somewhat more veiled way.

Republicans are demanding concessions on the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which they prefer to call Obamacare to make it more frightening to their base. It should be noted that some Democrats may actually prefer the name Obamacare because it allows them to play the race card when they run out of factual arguments to support their position.

Meanwhile, Democrats are refusing to concede anything when it comes to the ACA. It is their political Holy Grail.

If neither Party budges, parts of the Government will remain “shut down,” and ultimately, the United States will default on its debt for the first time in history.

Is any of this necessary? No.

Could it have been avoided by responsible behavior and compliance with Federal laws that are already in place? Yes.

Can the current dilemma be resolved? Absolutely, if our leaders stop wasting time marking their territories and, instead, re-focus on their Oaths of Office. The single driving force behind entering into good faith negotiations needs to be an agreement to reach a solution that represents the best interests of the People.

It is disheartening to have reached this point. It is even more discouraging to witness the price the Parties are willing to extract from the American people.

Both during the initial stages of sequestration and the Government shutdown, a premium has been placed on creating discernible public pain. Critical services have been constrained to create a sense of inconvenience and trepidation.

In addition, taxpayer funds have been frivolously wasted to dramatize the political conflict. Money has been spent to “close” monuments and cemeteries that are the property of the citizens of the United States and have little to no expense associated with remaining open. Even cash flow-positive events have been canceled to sensationalize the shutdown.

As an example, the 58th Miramar Air Show was scheduled to be held in San Diego on October 4th and 5th. It was canceled due to the shutdown. This decision came after the food had been purchased and all the infrastructure investments had been made (i.e., the erection of stands, vendor chalets, etc.). It’s worth noting that the Air Show typically attracts 500,000 people and contributes approximately $17 million to the local economy. It also returns a profit to the Government. This year, because of the politically motivated decision, everyone will suffer … including the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill for the investments that had already been made.

This should be an embarrassment for our elected officials. Instead, they view it as “fair game” in the high-stakes poker they are playing with our country as the bet.

While some have argued that “under God” should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance, there are few who would suggest it be altered in a way that requires one to pledge allegiance to a political Party rather than the United States of America. Yet, that seems to be how our elected officials interpret it.

It’s time to take our country back. It’s time to demand that our elected officials put the People’s best interests ahead of those of their respective Parties. Since they either won’t or can’t find a solution on their own:

What would you suggest be done to solve the problem they have created?
What is a reasonable time within which they must reach a consensus?
What interim steps can be taken to mitigate the impact on the People?
What rational concession can be offered?
What steps should be taken to preclude these issues from arising again in the future?
How will you hold the Parties responsible for their respective behavior?

Nature abhors a vacuum, and there is clearly a leadership vacuum in our Federal Government. The question remains: Who will fill it?

Let’s end with one more quote.

Eldridge Cleaver once said, “You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem.” Both Parties have chosen to be part of the problem. Will you join them, or will you be part of the solution? Keep that in mind when they solicit you for a donation or take your vote for granted in 2014.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

SHOWDOWN SHUTDOWN: Kanye vs. Kimmel – House vs. Senate

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 30, 2013 – With our Nation spiraling toward a Government shutdown and possible credit default that supposedly will catapult the world into economic chaos, we seem to be more concerned about the “feud” between Kanye West and Jimmy Kimmel than we are about the politically appalling behavior of our elected representatives. Our priorities appear to be misplaced. Then again, perhaps that explains how many of our elected officials became our elected officials. Not enough people are paying attention.

Our elected officials only know how to delay rather than to decide. The current budget “crisis” is an example. It’s a game in which we are all being played as pawns.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “crisis” as “an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially: one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome.” What the definition doesn’t address is the root cause of the instability, what drove the decision to a crucial time, and whether it could have easily been anticipated and avoided.

The budget “crisis” is completely manufactured. Our elected officials have simply ignored the importance of operating within the limits of a budget; something that any responsible person would consider unconscionable. In the business world, such behavior would be deemed grossly negligent. In the management of one’s personal affairs, it would be regarded as reckless. In the world of politics, it is apparently viewed as a standard operating procedure.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states that “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” Congress and the President evidently believe that the phrase “from time to time” should be interpreted to mean “when we believe we can derive some political benefit from it.”

Then, there’s the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which requires the President to submit a budget to Congress each year no later than the first Monday in February. No prior President ever missed a submittal date two years in a row; President Obama has managed to miss it four out of five years. However, it really hasn’t mattered since the budgets the President submitted in 2011 and 2012 were rejected by the Democratically controlled Senate by votes of 97-0 and 99-0, respectively.

Who said the Parties couldn’t find something upon which they could agree?

Finally, this year, the Senate approved the President’s late submittal by a vote of 50-49. Surely, there are those who will claim the margin of victory represents a veritable “mandate of the People.”

In the interim, the Senate has exhibited its own version of leadership by example. From April 29, 2009, until May 25th of this year, it hadn’t found it necessary to pass a formal budget proposal even though the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 calls for an annual adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget no later than April 15th. While the rest of us are expected to meet certain obligations on that same day, our elected officials were unable to fulfill their duties for more than four years.

So, how has our country managed to “keep its doors open?”

Congress has resolved each fabricated “crisis” by adopting a Continuing Resolution (“CR”). A CR is a type of appropriations legislation that allows Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year, which ends at midnight on September 30.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. In fact, Congress has only passed a timely budget six times in the last 39 years. Essentially, the abuse of CRs allows the Parties to play political games rather than behave in a conscientious manner.

Has the political self-flagellation ever gone too far? Yes.

Our Federal Government has been shut down on 17 occasions. However, this one might be different.

Prior to the longest (and most recent) Government shutdown during the Clinton Administration, important appropriations bills had already been passed that allowed Departments like Defense and Agriculture to continue operating without inconvenience. Our current Congress hasn’t had the same level of foresight.
Our Government has spent somewhere in the vicinity of $11 trillion dollars since it last passed a formal budget. It may have lost touch with the concept of fiscal responsibility.
According to the Federal Reserve (as of August 2, 2013), our public debt as a percent of GDP is approximately 101.6 percent. In layman’s terms: our Government has figured out a way to spend more than the market value of all the goods and services produced within the United States (i.e., it spends more than our economy can produce).
At the same time, the Federal Reserve has been purchasing about $85 billion a month in treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, which cushions the reserves of the banking system but does little to stimulate the economy.
On the upside: The Fed’s action inflates the appearance of Wall Street’s recovery and has helped the rich get richer (as the President acknowledged when he recently concurred with a University of California, Berkley study that found that 95% of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top 1% of the earning population).
On the downside: At some point, the Fed’s action will drive a different type of inflation that will have a negative impact on the economy.

While some of the elements mentioned above are actually part of the debt “crisis” as opposed to the budget “crisis,” they represent related evidence of our leadership’s lack of a fiscal plan. Additionally, the debt “crisis” will undoubtedly replace the budget “crisis” in importance within the next few weeks.

We have sequestration because the President and Congress couldn’t resolve the last debt “crisis” in 2011 and their Super Committee fumbled the punt. The Super Committee and the concept of sequestration occurred because Congress was going on vacation and the President had a campaign fundraiser scheduled on his birthday (read: The debt ceiling war: Cut, Cap, Balance vs. Cut, Tax, Spend – July 20, 2011, and Debt ceiling negotiations: Pelosi, Boehner, Obama & Reid Liar’s Poker – July 12, 2011, for a satirical rendering of Act One of this play).

Then, we had the fiscal cliff “crisis” that was also orchestrated for its political value (read: Replace the fiscal cliff with a political one – December 20, 2012). When will we learn?

Hollywood recently announced a sequel to the movie Dumb and Dumber. In effect, it’s already playing in Washington, D.C.

The current budget crisis has little to do with the budget. It is driven by the Republican Party’s unwillingness to see any benefit in the Affordable Care Act and the Democratic Party’s unwillingness to admit to the existence of any of the ACA’s glaring deficiencies. It is further exacerbated by the false characterizations they have made of each other over the years that have become so engrained that even they now believe them.

The Republicans would rather waste time fruitlessly trying to repeal the ACA (42 times) than spend time trying to identify its weaknesses and improve it. The Democrats would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it’s a credibly drafted law. The Republicans would prefer to act as if the Democrats were the only profligate spenders in Washington, D.C., while the Democrats continue to promote the fantasy that Republicans hate poor people and just want to deny them healthcare.

Much as with Kanye and Kimmel, the battle in Congress is more about publicity than it is about substance. It’s about positioning for an advantage in the 2014 mid-term election. Sadly, it seems to be beyond either Party’s desire or ability to drop the shameless name-calling and accusations. Their entire existence is now built upon the exercise of demonizing each other rather than distinguishing themselves on the basis of merit.

Yet, the fault is ours. We elected these people. It will be interesting to see if we ever awaken from the political stupor into which we’ve fallen.

The President and Congress will receive a 75 percent subsidy of their insurance costs under the Affordable Care Act. You won’t. The subsidy wasn’t part of the legislation that we have been told ad infinitum is “constitutional.” Instead, it’s a special exception that was granted by Executive Edict (oops, that should have read “Executive Order”).

If the Government shuts down, only “essential” workers will remain on the job. The President and members of Congress are considered to be “essential.” While other “essential” workers will have to perform their roles without pay, there are special rules that apply to the President and Congress that require them to be paid. To emphasize how essential they are, the President chose to play golf on Sunday while the Senate chose to take a vacation day. Meanwhile, the clock continues to tick.

By the time you read this article, it is possible that the budget “crisis” will have been averted or the Government will have been shut down. In either regard, you may rest assured that both Parties will spend far more energy on fixing the blame than they have spent trying to fix the problem.

If you find this behavior to be a “crisis” of insolence, what would you recommend doing to change it?

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

The President, Congress, and Political Schizophrenia

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 24, 2013 – Political schizophrenia is an egotistical disorder that makes it hard to tell the difference between what is real and what is not real, and President Obama and Congress are poster children of the syndrome. They collectively demonstrate the classic symptoms of partisan paranoia coupled with delusional and disorganized thinking. We need to stop pretending that they’re normal, so they can recognize their need to seek help.

Congress has grown dysfunctional because of the disorder. Too many members of the House and Senate, on both sides of the aisle, have been reduced to little more than delivery mechanisms for their respective Parties’ bullet points. Keep in mind: These bullet points are scripted by unelected individuals who are only focused on maintaining or expanding their particular Party’s power. For the most part, they couldn’t care less about “forming a more perfect Union.”

As a result, we see an autonomic function of the two Chambers; involuntarily responding to their dominant Party’s position without the need for forethought. Their Members cast aspersions much better than they cast votes.

The current battleground is the Affordable Care Act (i.e., “Obamacare”). While the formal name has proven to be somewhat of a misnomer, the colloquial name has brought personalities into the argument.

The Republican Party is committed to disfavoring “all things Obama,” so the name itself leads to a vigorous attack from the more zealous elements of the Conservative movement.

Conversely, the Democratic Party has a messianic view of anything even remotely associated with the President much less a bill named after him. They seem to have a difficult time recognizing that the President himself has been forced to circumvent the law on several occasions through the use of Executive Orders and granted exemptions because apparently it was passed before anyone read it.

While both sides of the aisle posture to blame the other for the looming potential shutdown of the Government, one has to wonder how long it would take us to notice that the Government had, in fact, shut down. Given the fact that we are at least a third consecutive term into legislative mismanagement by an irrationally impaired Congress, we would be hard-pressed to recognize its absence were it not for the collateral damage that would be experienced relative to the necessary programs some of our Departments and Agencies administer.

Let’s use the Republican-led House’s recent vote to reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; i.e., food stamps) by $39 billion dollars over the next ten years as an example.

First, it should be noted that this bill was passed by only seven votes without a single Democrat casting a vote in its favor. The absence of any bipartisan support demonstrates how partisan this action was and how flagrantly it disregarded any balanced representation of the will of the People.

This same Republican-led Chamber has tried to repeal Obamacare over 40 times since 2010 and, most recently, took the tactical initiative to try to defund it by tying it to a bill that would otherwise prevent a Government shutdown.

Of course, Obamacare itself was only passed by seven votes without a single Republican casting a vote in its favor. The absence of any bipartisan support demonstrates how partisan this action was and how flagrantly it disregarded any balanced representation of the will of the People.

Are you beginning to recognize the problem?

Meanwhile, our Nation’s food stamp program does suffer from a measurable level of fraud. Did the House address that in an effective manner by structuring a contingent funding-mechanism that was tied to resolving that issue directly? No. Could this be done? Yes. Would it be a more responsible way to address the issue? You decide … preferably in November of 2014.

Of course, the Democrat-led Senate will ignore the fraud, kill (or modify) the bill, and blame the shameless Republicans in the House rather than addressing the issue. Will this resolve the issue of fraud? No. Could this be done? Yes. Would it be a more responsible way to address the issue? You decide … preferably in November of 2014.

Instead of solving the problem, you will hear Democratic Senators claim that Republicans hate poor people and just want to fund a tax cut for the rich. Then, you’ll witness prominent Democrats boarding planes for political junkets to foreign lands that have nothing to do with their jobs or boarding their private jet for yet another exotic vacation funded by tax-payer money that could otherwise be used to feed a lot of hungry people.

Speaking of the President, it would be nice to introduce him to a young Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. That political prodigy offered “hope and change” to the country rather than the “choke and blame” approach that is favored by the President.

As the keynote speaker at the Congressional Black Caucus’ 43rd Annual Legislative Conference on September 21, 2013, President Obama’s rhetoric once again grabbed Republicans by the throat and condemned them for their profligate ways. In criticizing the Republicans’ agenda, he said:

“Now, I think — this is an interesting thing to ponder, that your top agenda is making sure 20 million people don’t have health insurance. And you’d be willing to shut down the government and potentially default for the first time in United States history because it bothers you so much that we’re actually going to make sure that everybody has affordable health care.”

Conversely, on March 16, 2006, Senator Barack Obama spoke eloquently on the subject of our Nation’s debt when the Bush Administration was petitioning to have the ceiling raised from $9 trillion. The good Senator said:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘trillion’ with a ‘T.’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.”

Senator Obama seemed to understand as he continued:

“… the cost of our debt is one of the fastest-growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.”

While our massive debt continues to inflict the same damage, President Obama appears to have changed his position on that form of “robbery” and chosen to ignore the counsel of that young Senator; a Senator who also advised us in that same speech that:

“Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years … (and) the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.”

Senator Obama was right again (no pun intended). Then, he concluded by saying:

“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘’the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

It’s too bad that President Obama wasn’t paying attention at the time. Perhaps someone else wrote the speech for him and he was simply reading it as he does today. Then again, maybe he was being literal when he said, “The buck stops here.” That would explain his reluctance to ever take any personal responsibility for the economic decisions that have transpired since that date.

Needless to say, the foreign debt incurred by the Obama Administration makes the Bush Administration appear to have been resistant to borrowing (with the current Administration having amassed nearly double the foreign debt attributable to our all prior Presidents combined, including our fiscally irresponsible 43rd one). One has to wonder how Senator Obama would have assailed our 44th President’s fiscal leadership given that our Nation’s real debt includes about another $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities (and yes, Mr. President, “that is ‘trillion’ with a ‘T’”).

For those who would like to examine a more extensive list of the President’s symptoms, please read the text of his speech as a Senator on March 18, 2008. In that speech, he described our Nation’s challenges and the need for unity to overcome them. He spoke with hope for change:

“We have a choice … We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism … (or) we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’”

It’s too bad that Senator Obama never became President. Perhaps we would already be living in a political environment characterized by the transparency, bipartisan accord, and fiscal responsibility that is necessary to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Instead, we are trapped in a paradigm driven by political schizophrenia in which we have to live in the real world while our elected officials get to live in an alternate universe unencumbered by responsible behavior.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

THE CONSTITUTION: Often Ignored; Never Irrelevant

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 17, 2013 – Today marks the 226th anniversary of the Constitution of the United States, and with each passing year, we seem to become more ignorant of its contents and intent. The fact that the subject of Civics has given way to more “politically correct” subjects in our public school curricula may be one of the root causes of the problem, but there is no excuse for our 537 federally elected officials to be unfamiliar with its substance.

Perhaps it’s time to provide a refresher course for those who need it.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s concentrate on the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Notice that it begins with the words “We the People” … not “We the Democrats” or “We the Republicans;” not “We the Men” or “We the Women” or “We the Gays” or “We the Straights” or We the Blacks, the Whites, the Hispanics, the Asians, the Native Americans” or any other category used to separate individuals for political purposes on a basis of otherwise irrelevant characteristics. It begins with the words “We the People” because it is meant to represent all citizens “of the United States;” not just those who donate to a political campaign or represent a special interest group that can deliver votes to a particular Party.

The Preamble also clarifies that the “People” are “of the United States” to distinguish its formal citizens from those whose allegiance may be affiliated with other countries.

Now, let’s examine the purpose of the Constitution as it is defined by the Preamble.

The Constitution was ordained and established “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The first purpose suggests a comparative responsibility. Specifically, “to form a more perfect Union” than the one that existed at the time. Imagine what could be achieved if we were to assume this as the ongoing responsibility of every citizen and, in particular, the responsibility of our elected officials.

What could we achieve if our focus was on the constant improvement of the Union rather than trying to realize increasingly divisive political victories for one Party or another? What if we applied all the time, money and resources that are squandered on maintaining and expanding political power and, instead, redirected them at preserving individual liberties, expanding opportunities, and constructing a society that would serve as a role model for the rest of the world in efficient, effective and representative government?

The Preamble also calls upon us to “establish Justice.” How well are we doing in that regard?

We seem to struggle with the concept of justice particularly since the notion of political correctness entered into the equation. There was a point in our Nation’s history during which the Judicial Branch meted out “tough love” with respect to preserving fundamental rights even when the application was manifestly unpopular. Now, judicial temperament has seemingly given way to what’s “trending.”

A more linear interpretation of the Bill of Rights would help to once again “establish Justice.”

For example: The First Amendment would have more meaning if it weren’t as politically flaccid. The major Parties often argue in favor of one element within the First Amendment while ignoring another.

Case in point: When there was a discussion about the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero, many Conservatives, who normally cite the importance of freedom of religion, temporarily abandoned that position to condemn the mosque. Meanwhile, Progressives, who typically are the champions of free speech, attacked the right of Conservatives to express their point of view.

Just to emphasize the problem, here are a few additional examples.

Consider how your privacy under the Fourth Amendment is permitted to be breached today in the name of protecting the country or enforcing its laws. Your personal correspondence is now subject to governmental examination though little evidence exists to suggest that the magnitude of the exception is necessary to support the associated objective.

Then, somewhat ironically, there’s the fact that the IRS may provide special scrutiny of your tax status if you dare to use the word “Constitution” in your organization’s title or bylaws.

The right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment is almost a thing of the past. Perhaps it’s because we rank as the number one country in the world with respect to per capita prison population, or maybe it’s because our laws have become so complex that almost everyone is technically in violation of some element of the criminal code.

Correspondingly, don’t even bother to read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It seems that nearly anything can be justified as being delegated to our federal government at this point.

Now, let’s move on to our responsibility to “insure domestic tranquility.”

Rather than to “insure domestic tranquility”, we seem more destined to disrupt it. With increasing regularity, our Nation has promoted an emotional environment that can best be described as an attempt to create The Divided States of America. The major Parties use stereotypes to foster a sense of oppression and a “We versus They” mentality for the singular purpose of gaining political advantage.

As an example: Our justice system imposes a higher level of punishment for violent assaults against members of specific categories of our society by identifying those acts as “hate crimes.” Yet, that same justice system often argues that punishment has limited value as a deterrent. Trying to rationalize a legal distinction predicated upon victim characteristics rather than the nature of the crime seems specious at best.

To paraphrase former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (testifying about the murders in Benghazi): Does it really matter? Isn’t the consequence of the assault the same to the victim, or is it somehow less relevant if it’s perpetrated upon an 87-year-old man who had served his country in WWII and earned a Purple Heart as opposed to a person of color or a person with a non-traditional sexual orientation?

Correspondingly, who can forget how well the first post-racial Presidency has been going? While the rhetoric to maintain the politically advantageous racial divide remains in place, (e.g., the Henry Gates incident, the Trayvon Martin incident, etc.), the education, safety, and economic disparities for minorities have actually gotten significantly worse during the President’s time in office.

Domestic tranquility has not only been overlooked in recent years, it’s also been negatively impacted.

Next, let’s consider our obligation to “provide for the common defence.”

While the spelling of “defense” has changed over the years, the core concept hasn’t. Our federal government has a clear responsibility to protect the Union (i.e., the United States). In that regard, it has done an exceptional job.

However, with increasing regularity, our elected officials have broadened that obligation to one that more correctly might be described as providing for the common defense of the world; a position for which the Constitution provides little to no reinforcement.

Most recently, the Executive Branch of our government spent nearly a month campaigning for a “limited military action” that would “send a strong signal” to Syria, which hasn’t directly or indirectly threatened the United States (raising a Constitutional issue itself). Millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours were invested in repositioning our naval resources, petitioning Congress, and appealing to the general public to support the President’s edict in response to a “red line” he had drawn in an impromptu comment over a year before.

Since then, we’ve been informed that the lobbying was part of an elaborate charade to force a diplomatic resolution. In essence, we have been asked to believe that our Secretary of State’s sarcastic answer to a hypothetical question at a press conference was intentionally delivered to outwit our adversaries. Of course, one would have to believe that our Secretary of State knew in advance that the question would be asked. Barring any evidence of that, we are expected to accept the Administration’s word that this was simply the execution of a brilliantly subtle strategy rather than blind luck.

As a result, while our defense capabilities remain strong, the depth of the strategic leadership directing them is somewhat debatable.

On the fiscal side of the issue, Conservatives are aghast that sequestration is forcing cuts in military spending. However, given that the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, it is difficult to argue that our nearly-$1 trillion defense budget could not sustain rational cuts; that is, unless we intend to continue occupying other sovereign nations in an attempt to spread “democracy” through the modern, political version of the Crusades known as “nation building.”

Next, the Preamble calls upon us to “promote the general Welfare.”

Of course, “Welfare” doesn’t mean “welfare” in the sense of giveaway programs designed to maintain economic dependence or special favors contrived to placate a political constituency in return for its unwitting support. As is emphasized in Article I, Section 8, the federal government’s responsibility is to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States;” in effect, to address those issue that pertain to the well-being of all citizens.

The right to provide for the welfare of citizens on a non-equal basis is reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment and to individuals (in the form of charity, etc.) under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (assuming anyone still pays attention to those provisions). It does not reside within the federal government.

The Preamble then states one final purpose behind the Constitution: to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

This suggests that the Constitution and its Amendments were perceived to be necessary to protect and preserve Liberty. It also reminds us that we have an obligation to not only focus on the present but on the future as well. We have a fiduciary responsibility to consider the impact of our decisions on generations to come.

This applies to fiscal decisions we make, the political system we nurture, the educational and work opportunities we provide, and the natural environment we leave behind. The Founders did not intend for us to selfishly consume the resources we have been afforded. They did not intend for us to escape a monarchy only to yield our sovereign rights as individuals to a new iteration of a ruling elite; one that not only has created the concept of “Too Big to Fail” but also the apparent corollary of “Too Big to Jail.”

The Founders also recognized that the Constitution would be an imperfect charter for the future. That is why they incorporated Article V to allow the core principles to be amended as needed.

Our elected officials complain that the standard for amendment is too high (even though it’s been successfully invoked 27 times). So, they circumvent it altogether by usurping rights from the citizens and the States by egotistically broadening federal power, signing Executive Orders, and bypassing the representatives of the People by permitting agencies to regulate change without legislative authority. Welcome to the new version of an oligarchy in which bloodlines are defined by Party affiliation.

While it is hoped that this Preamble-based primer will remind us of the grand experiment our Republic represents on this special day, our federally elected officials should not need it. They share a common thread otherwise known as their Oaths of Office.

The President has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every Senator and Member of the House of Representatives has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Here’s a simple request on this 226th anniversary of that esteemed document: “We the People” would like you to honor your Oaths.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

9/11 and BENGHAZI: Lessons Learned for Syria?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 11, 2013 – Let us first take a moment to remember the 2,977 innocent victims who lost their lives on this date in 2001 as well as the four brave Americans who lost their lives one year ago today in Benghazi. We should also remember what led to those events and examine how our Nation responded. As we sit on the precipice of a political decision that could fuel the same type of extremist hatred that led to those murderous attacks, it would seem judicious to examine the trajectory we are on with respect to Syria.

September 11, 2001, was a wake-up call. Until that time, our Nation had never suffered a foreign terrorist attack on its soil of any comparable scale. We were living in a utopic world in which we only read about terrorist events happening elsewhere and never expected them to occur here. Here’s a timeline of what transpired:

Already fighting through a recession fueled by the collapse of the Internet Bubble, the stock market is closed because of the attack until September 17th only to reopen to the worst day and week in its history.
In response to the attack, the Administration asserts that President Bush has the unilateral right to make war.
Opponents challenge that assertion and characterize it as an unconstitutional power grab.
In October, with a limited Congressional resolution in hand, President Bush begins a “War against Terror” against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Also in October, the Patriot Act is passed.
Opponents of the Patriot Act characterize it as a stripping of individual rights (think: NSA and IRS for a more contemporary perspective).
The use of enhanced interrogation techniques is authorized.
Opponents claim that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques is a war crime.
The Bush Administration authorizes a massive expansion of the Government by creating the Department of Homeland Security.
The war effort and much of the government expansion are funded by debt.
Two years later (2003), the intelligence community presents compelling evidence that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that might fall into the hands of terrorists.
The United States enters into another war (this time in Iraq) to prevent the spread of WMDs.
As the cost of the two wars rises and our Government continues to expand, President Bush calls upon Congress to raise the Nation’s debt limit.
Opponents characterize the raising of the debt ceiling as being indicative of the Government’s “reckless fiscal policies…its debt problem, and a failure of leadership.”

Fast-forward to 2009 – 2011. Our Nation exits the Bush years and embraces the “Hope and Change” brought forth by its new President, Barack Obama. Here’s a timeline of what transpired:

President Obama inherits a massive recession driven by the cost of the two wars, associated government expansion, etc.
The President responds by increasing debt and pushing for additional government expansion.
Twelve days into office, he is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “multi-lateral diplomacy … emphasis on the role that the United Nations … can play … (and belief that) dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.”
Opponents criticize the award as being “premature.”
The President calls for the closing of Guantanamo within one year because its mere existence incites extremists and puts the United States at risk.
He also denounces and discontinues enhanced interrogation techniques.
President Obama declares that there is no “War on Terror” and the phrase loses traction.
He escalates the non-existent war by approving 17,000 additional troops in Afghanistan.
In 2010, he sends another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
In 2011, President Obama begins to fulfill one of his campaign promises by winding down the War in Iraq.
In response to civil unrest in Libya, the President calls for Muammar al-Gaddafi to step down.
The Administration asserts that President Obama has the unilateral right to take military action in Libya without the authorization of Congress.
Opponents challenge that assertion and characterize it as an unconstitutional power grab.
As Guantanamo remains open, the President escalates the use of drones without acknowledging any potential impact on extremists.
Opponents claim that the use of drones constitutes a war crime and, in some cases, a violation of due process.
He also capitalizes upon information previously derived from enhanced interrogation techniques to locate and kill Osama bin Laden, which also apparently does not offend extremists.
With the cost of the two wars started by President Bush along with the accelerated expansion of government under the Obama Administration, the President calls upon Congress to raise the Nation’s debt limit.
Opponents characterize the raising of the debt ceiling as being indicative of the government’s reckless fiscal policies, its debt problem, and a failure of leadership.
The Libyan revolution ends shortly after the death of Muammar al-Gaddafi and an interim government is put in place.

Are you detecting the irony yet?

Entering into 2012:

As might be expected after a coup in the Middle East, Libya can best be characterized by its instability and bloodshed.
There is an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador, which leads to the closure of the British consulate in Benghazi in June.
The Tunisian consulate is attacked as well.
In August, the International Red Cross withdraws from Benghazi because of escalating violence.
In an unrelated matter, President Obama makes a comment during a press conference that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross his “red line.”
Returning to Libya, animosity is particularly strong against the United States, which experiences approximately 50 security incidents in Benghazi alone.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens requests additional security throughout the summer, but his requests are rejected.
Ambassador Stevens expresses his concerns about al-Qaeda’s expanding presence in the area.

September 11, 2012: We were asleep at the switch. The world had changed, and we were aware of it. Yet, we managed to ignore an eroding security scenario in an unstable country. Here’s a timeline of what transpired:

Security guards at the consulate observe a man in a Libyan police uniform photographing the compound from the roof of a building across the street.
125-150 gunmen begin an assault on the consulate at 9:40 PM using rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), automatic weapons, mortars, and machine guns mounted on trucks.
Washington and the embassy in Tripoli are notified that the consulate is under attack.
The Benghazi CIA annex is notified as well.
The Global Response Staff (GRS) from the annex decides to attempt a rescue operation.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is informed of the attack about 50 minutes into the event.
A drone is dispatched and arrives over the site at 11:10 PM.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks with CIA Director David Petraeus in D.C. about the incident about two hours into the event.
President Obama is briefed on the attack.
No military assistance is authorized to respond to the attack (in fact, some units are told to stand down).
Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith are dead.
GRS is forced to disengage at 11:50 PM.
Approximately ten minutes later, the CIA annex is attacked with mortar rounds, rockets, and machine gun fire.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed.
Fighting at the annex continues until morning.
Personnel in the annex are evacuated.
President Obama condemns the attack as “outrageous” and promises that the responsible parties will be brought to justice.
Secretary Clinton describes it as perpetrated by “heavily armed militants.”
Four days later, Libyan President Magariaf describes the assault as a terrorist attack.
On the same day, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five major news programs and states that our best intelligence indicates that the attack was “spontaneously inspired” by the protest of an anti-Islamic film that had aired on the Internet.
President Obama mentions the film multiple times in a speech to the U.N.
The President and Secretary Clinton make a commercial to air in Pakistan that references the appalling film.
It is an election year.
The filmmaker is arrested on unrelated charges.
When the “film” explanation is no longer plausible, Secretary Clinton explains that the mistaken intelligence was due to the “fog of war.”
A year later, the responsible parties remain at large.

Fast-forward to August 21, 2013: A civil war is raging in Syria. The United States isn’t involved nor are any of its citizens threatened. A chemical weapons attack occurs and over 1,000 Syrians are killed. Note: Over 100,000 Syrians have been killed by conventional weapons since the revolution began in April 2011, but that apparently doesn’t spin anyone’s moral compass.

Both President Obama and the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, have said that there have been multiple chemical weapons attacks since the President made his “red line” comment a year prior. Perhaps this one stands out because it was caught on tape. Another possibility is that it merits a response because of its scale; except that would suggest that the use of chemical weapons is only horrific if orchestrated on a grand scale.

Should the use of chemical weapons in Syria come as a surprise?

Syria is one of only five Members of the United Nations that had not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was introduced 21 years ago. No one saw fit to pressure Syria to sign and ratify the CWC during that timeframe.

Syria has been known have the capacity to manufacture and store chemical weapons for decades. The United States intelligence community offered compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime was transporting chemical weapons to Syria prior to the War in Iraq to evade U.N. inspections. This is the same intelligence community that assured the world that other WMDs were still in Iraq before that war started.

Now, that same intelligence community has offered compelling evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. It has also been deduced that the deployment of such weapons must have occurred under the direction of the Assad regime.

Given this information and his “red line” comment, President Obama has decided that the United States should launch a military attack on Syria. However, as recently as September 10, 2012, the President had also stated that there is no immediate or impending threat to the United States or its allies. Still, a man’s word is his bond … and apparently his country’s as well.

Luckily, Secretary Kerry’s recent attempt at sarcasm stimulated Russia’s leaders to capitalize on the statement and craft a possible diplomatic solution (i.e., securing Syria’s chemical weapons to preclude their use and either destroying them or submitting them to the control of the U.N.). This would obviate the need to launch a limited military attack that would almost certainly kill innocent people to preserve “international norms” and the “moral high ground.”

To reprise Secretary Kerry’s recent “We know” speech based upon the lessons of the first 9/11 attack and the last year’s attack in Benghazi:

We know that the latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was perpetrated by the Assad regime based upon the assessment of the intelligence community that has been tracking WMD activity in the region since prior to the Iraq War.
How comfortable are you that the assessment is correct (i.e., comfortable enough to accept the fact that the action will likely kill innocent victims)?
We know that terrorist organizations and hostile countries resent U.S. occupation of their land and interference in the governance of their countries. Do you think the impact of launching a limited military attack (but one that’s bigger than a “pin prick”) would incite extremists at least as much as Guantanamo?
We know that the Assad regime is a ruthless dictatorship just as we knew the Mubarak regime was a ruthless dictatorship in Egypt. We also know that factions within the Syrian rebel forces have a propensity for decapitating Christians, executing government forces, and committing other acts of despicable violence. Who would you rather have in power?
We know that the President’s “red line” is the world’s “red line.” Yet, we know the world isn’t lining up to support us as we consider enforcing it. Why?
We know that other cultures, particularly some of those that are indigenous to the Middle East, are remarkably different than ours particularly when it comes to the value they place on human life (including distinctions they may make between men, women, and children). Is it possible that their view may be less inclined to differentiate between the means used to kill a person than we do?
We know that we accept the euphemism of “collateral damage” to describe civilian deaths that occur during drone strikes, etc. Is it possible that Syrians embrace that same concept without our concern for minimizing it?
We know that the original attack on 9/11 spawned more attempts in the United States and abroad based upon jihad and contributed to the attack in Benghazi.
Is a limited military attack on Syria more likely or less likely to reinforce jihad against the United States among extremists?

The list could go on, but this should be sufficient to suggest that our leaders need to have fully vetted the adverse consequences that could be associated with any military action that is unilaterally orchestrated by the United States. To quote George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” One final question: What have we learned from the events of both 9/11 attacks that we can use to live more safely going forward?

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

PRESIDENTIAL CHEMISTRY: UN-wind the Syrian crisis

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., Monday, September 9, 2013 – President Obama is scheduled to do six television interviews as well as to address the Nation to reinforce his call for a “limited military action” against Syria that will “send a strong signal” both to the Assad regime and to the world. He will state that the attack is necessary to establish that the United States stands behind what it says and that it will be to defend “international norms” lest those norms be disregarded. He will be wrong on both counts.

A President’s ill-chosen words during a press conference should not be elevated to the status of speaking for the United States. To err is human, even if you haven’t typically been held accountable by the media or electorate in that regard. The United States is bound by that which it commits to do in writing.

Correspondingly, the United States is a sovereign nation that does not have the responsibility or authority to act on behalf of the world. One would think the President would recall his own description of our country’s past “arrogance” and would err on the side of avoiding it. To suggest that the United States should supplant the United Nations with respect to the enforcement of “international norms” would seem to touch upon other terms he used in that speech such as “dismissive” and “derisive.”

The issue can and should be resolved by the United Nations rather than the United States.

First among The Purposes of the United Nations is: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” (Chapter I, Article 1, Section 1.)

Therefore, it is the U.N.’s charter to determine and enforce “international norms.”

Chapter I, Article 2 continues: “The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. (1)The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. (2) All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. (3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. (4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Therefore, as a Member, the United States has agreed to be bound by the U.N. Charter.

The Articles of Chapters VI and VII provide the structure within which negotiated resolutions and military intervention may be pursued. They specify a rational approach of escalation that is directed at preserving world peace while enforcing “international norms.” Chapter VII, Article 51 further provides that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence (sic) if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

Therefore, there is a process in place by which the international community may pursue enforcement of its “norms” unless a Member nation is compelled to take action to defend itself.

During a recent Q&A, President Obama said, “I put this (the limited military action against Syria) before Congress because I could not honestly claim that … (chemical weapons) posed an imminent direct threat to the United States… I could not say that it was immediately, directly going to affect our allies.” This not only rules out an Article 51 exception from a U.N. perspective but also any reasonable interpretation of an application of the War Powers Act under U.S. law.

So, other than ego, why is the President ignoring international agreements and domestic law to pursue an attack on Syria?

One legitimate reason may be the veto power of the five permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council. These Members include China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Each of these countries possessed the ability to block any resolution that must be approved by the Security Council before it can be considered by the General Assembly. It is commonly believed that China and Russia will block any resolution presented to the Security Council with regard to consideration of military action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

Additionally, Syria is one of only five Members that have failed to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention (with Angola, Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan being the other Members that have not signed, while Burma and Israel have signed but not ratified the CWC). Had Syria signed and ratified the CWC, any Security Council resolution would have had a far higher probability of overcoming the threat of veto.

Does that mean that the United States must “go it alone” and use conventional weapons to kill innocent people to preserve the moral high ground of international norms? Of course not.

The U.N. has the ability to amend its Charter, and perhaps this is the time to pressure it to do so. As a great orator and the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama certainly has the gravitas to nearly command such change if only someone would write the speech for him. In that regard, here is the approach he could pursue.

In 2001, the United Nations entered into a cooperative relationship agreement with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is charged with the administration of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Similarly, the U.N. has pursued initiatives to proscribe other weapons of mass destruction including biological and nuclear weapons. The U.N. also has the ability to amend its Charter.

Why not propose that the U.N. amend its Charter as follows?

Mandate that all Members be required to sign, ratify, and comply with any international conventions that are adopted with respect to weapons of mass destruction as a condition of membership. (Human rights issues could be addressed at a later date.)
Failure to sign, ratify, and comply with such conventions would lead to a suspension of rights and protections under the U.N. Charter that may otherwise be afforded a Member.
An ongoing failure to sign, ratify, and comply with such conventions may lead to an expulsion from the U.N.
Vetoes afforded to the five permanent Members of the Security Council would be null and void with respect to any votes taken with respect to resolutions specifically addressing alleged violations involving Chapters VI and VII by non-Members or suspended Members.

This would allow the international community to establish, monitor, and enforce its “norms” without unduly burdening a nation like the United States with having to serve as the world’s arbiter and police force. It would also preclude a major power from acting unilaterally in the interpretation and enforcement of such norms.

This approach would reinforce the Charter of the United Nations, which the organization occasionally appears to have forgotten. It would eliminate the inevitable impasse between certain Members of the Security Council in this single area that has the potential to threaten mankind. Furthermore, it would eliminate the sense of protection certain nations have (such as Syria) that emboldens them to ignore international norms without fear of reprisal (i.e., because the veto power of allies that might reside on the Security Council would not be applicable).

If the United Nations ignores the request for amendment, it should be privately reminded that the United States has graciously hosted the U.N. since its inception and funds about 22% and 27% of its general and peacekeeping budgets, respectively. Diplomatically speaking, the current headquarters would make an excellent museum to the memory of the League of Nations … and the United Nations as well.

Open Letter to the President

Mr. President:

On September 6, 2013, you stated the following at your press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia: “My military assured me that we could act today, tomorrow, a month from now, that we could do so proportionally, but meaningfully.” Then, Mr. President, please take the time to pursue every available alternative you have before you select the one that inherently will take the lives of those who did not order the use of chemical weapons or execute such orders. Those individuals are human beings, not political pawns.

Have other Presidents acted without international approval? Yes. One need look no further than President Bush in Iraq or President Clinton in Kosovo. Should you rely on such precedents when you have so vigorously condemned them in the past? Should that be the standard to which you hold yourself? We pray that your answer is, “No.”

When you first ran for President of the United States, you offered “Hope and Change” and the entire world embraced it.

To quote the Norwegian Nobel Committee, you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for your “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples … (you) as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms (and, presumably, chemical weapons as well) has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.”

The Committee continued: “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as (you) captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. (Your) diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population. For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which (you are) now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses (your) appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’”

We hope the Committee was correct in its assessment of your emphasis on the role of the United Nations. We also hope you meant what you said in the final quote that the Nobel Committee chose to include in its proclamation. Please do not surrender to the temptation to pursue a more readily available option in lieu of securing the more difficult one: “a global response to global challenges,” to use your words.

We live in a world in which other cultures may not respond to “shock and awe” as we might expect. We cannot control their response, nor can we control against whom it might be directed. If you are uncertain of the risks to which we may be exposed by your final decision, please proceed with the utmost caution.

We also know that complex issues like these can be challenging. If you need inspiration, please remember your Oath of Office; the second half of which requires you to use your best efforts to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Before you make your final decision, consider how it might help us “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If you choose the solution that best serves those purposes, you will have chosen wisely, and we will be less fearful of the consequences.

Respectfully,

The America People

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Syria is only a symptom of a failed foreign policy

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 3, 2013 – In the absence of a coherent foreign policy, we can only speculate as to what direction President Obama will take in response to an international crisis. The phrase “politically opportunistic” appears to define the Administration’s core strategy, while the three words “ineffective, inefficient, and inconsistent” seem to describe its performance. Syria is only the most recent symptom.

To establish some context: The Syrian civil war began on March 15, 2011, with protests that soon became violent. Libya was already deeply embroiled in its own rebellion. Several thousand people had already been killed in that country before it became obvious that Muammar al-Gaddafi’s regime was destined to fall.

Coming fresh on the heels of what passes for a political victory these days (i.e., forcing Hosni Mubarak to accelerate the resignation he had already tendered as President of Egypt), President Obama then called for Gaddafi to step down and set the stage for establishing a No-Fly zone in Libya by stating:

“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Clearly, the President put the world on notice that the United States will not stand by while thousands of people are killed in a civil uprising on foreign soil (even though his Administration had previously ignored similar rebellions in other countries with lower global profiles). Since he delivered that statement, Syria suffered over 100,000 deaths, which is 20 times more than occurred in the entire Libyan revolution.

While the Obama Administration has clandestinely provided small arms to Syrian rebels for some time, its only other action has come in the form of more speeches. So, let’s dissect some of the rhetoric.

On August 20, 2012, when rumors about a possible chemical weapons attack in Syria circulated, President Obama announced: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”

Obviously, the President’s statement drew a proverbial “line in the sand” (no pun intended) over any use or even movement of chemical weapons in Syria. The message was balanced in that it did not assign blame to a particular party. It also declared that the Administration had already “put together a range of contingency plans.”

Given that last fact, one might assume that the United States would be in a position to respond immediately should a movement or use of chemical weapons be detected. Its response might include a series of steps: confirm that such movement or use has in fact taken place; determine beyond reasonable doubt who directed the movement or use of such weapons; present the facts to the United Nations and begin to build a global coalition; present the facts to the League of Arab States (since the regional conflict most directly impacts its members); identify the short and long-term goals of any response; explore the full range of options; examine the adverse consequences of each option as well as its probability of success; and select and execute the most appropriate option. It would appear this hasn’t happened.

On March 19, 2013, another chemical weapons incident was reported prompting President Obama to execute his most prevalent contingency plan: He gave another speech. In this one, he said: “We know the Syrian government has the capacity to carry out chemical weapon attacks. We know that there are those are in the Syrian government who have expressed a willingness to use chemical weapons if necessary to protect themselves. I am deeply skeptical of any claim that in fact it was the opposition that used chemical weapons. Everybody who knows the facts of the chemical weapons stockpiles inside of Syria as well as the Syrian government capabilities, I think, would question those claims. Once we establish the facts, I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game changer.”

While the President seemed to be “picking sides” this time, it is interesting that he suggested that the Syrian government had “expressed a willingness to use chemical weapons if necessary to protect themselves.” For someone who appears to be so careful about selecting his words, why did he choose to make that distinction?

The President also stated the obvious when he suggested that “the chemical weapons stockpiles inside of Syria as well as the Syrian government capabilities” were widely known. This is clearly the case.

In 1992, the United Nations approved the Chemical Weapons Convention (the CWC). Of the 196 countries that are recognized by the U.N., only five failed to sign the CWC: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan … and Syria.

The world has also known for some time that Syria has the capability to produce chemical weapons and has continued to store such agents. Before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, it was even suggested that Iraq’s government had been transporting chemical weapons (WMDs) to Syria for storage to evade detection by U.N. weapons inspectors.

With such advanced knowledge of Syria’s capabilities and potential propensity to deploy chemical weapons, one would again expect “a range of contingency plans” to be in place. Yet, no action was taken in March. Why?

Russia has suggested that the March chemical weapons attack was perpetrated by rebel forces (based upon forensic evidence analyzed by an allegedly independent laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which oversees the CWC). If both sides are proven to be using chemical weapons, how might that alter the United States’ response?

Then, on August 21, 2013, someone in Syria celebrated the anniversary of President Obama’s “red line” speech by launching a larger-scale chemical weapons attack.

The United Nations immediately convened an emergency session of the Security Council to condemn the attack (sans newly appointed U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, who was on a personal trip to Ireland), and it sent a team of weapons inspectors to Syria to test the site.

That same day, Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest called a press conference to speak on behalf of the Obama Administration. He assured the world that the United States strongly condemned “any and all use” of chemical weapons and that those who are responsible would be held accountable.

Then, it was disclosed that the President believed that the Syrian government had orchestrated the most recent attack and that he intended to take military action to “send a strong signal” to the Assad regime.

On August 24, 2013, President Obama held a meeting with senior officials in the White House and also spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron. The apparent consensus was that he needed to respond in a manner reflective of his “red line” comment or he would look weak. He also needed to build a global coalition so he would have the moral authority to act and he would be insulated from the harsh criticism he had leveled against the Bush Administration in that same regard.

Then, on August 29, 2013, the British Parliament dealt President Obama a severe blow when, in an unprecedented action, it voted “no” with respect to a motion to support his military attack on Syria. In response, Secretary of State John Kerry referred to “Our oldest ally, the French” in his press conference on August 30, 2013.

Perhaps Sec. Kerry spoke too soon. French President Francois Hollande originally paralleled President Obama’s approach. President Hollande said that he was prepared to unilaterally order a limited French military response without involving his Parliament. Then, on September 2nd, he recanted his position and scheduled the issue for Parliamentary debate on September 4th partly because of the British Parliament’s bold action and partly after learning that President Obama had shifted his position as well.

President Obama and his spokespersons had consistently declared that he had unilateral authority to take limited military action against the Syrian regime since August 21st … until August 31st. Then, perhaps sensing political blowback, the President reversed course and said, “While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

Other past statements have also come back to haunt the President’s position.

In 2007, then-Senator Obama wrote a response to questions from the Boston Globe that stated, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” This is somewhat problematic because there is nothing to suggest that the crisis in Syria poses “an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Correspondingly, then-Senator Biden stated in an interview on MSNBC (that same year) that, “The President has no constitutional authority to take this country to war … unless we’re attacked, or unless there’s proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him.” Perhaps he will be able to find an exception for his current boss.

When Congress returns from recess on September 9th, it will be asked to support the President’s position. Will it? No one knows.

In the interim, U.S. warships will have been in place for weeks. Add 100 to 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles that are expected to be launched in a display of raw power stand-ready. At about $1.5 million per missile, this is good news for Raytheon and Boeing Defense, Space & Security. Additionally, Syria will have been given more than adequate time to move or protect any relevant targets.

To reprise Sec. Kerry’s “We know” speech, let’s summarize what we do know and what we don’t know.

We do know there was a chemical attack in Syria on August 21, 2013.

We don’t definitively know which side committed the attack or who ordered it.

We do know that chemical weapons have been used “multiple times this year” (according to Sec. Kerry).

We don’t know why the deaths that occurred during the most recent attack merit a “humanitarian response” while the deaths resulting from the prior attacks apparently didn’t.

We do know that the President is basing his opinion on “our intelligence community (which) has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack” (according to Sec. Kerry).

We don’t know whether this information is any more accurate than the “slam dunk” intelligence we used to justify our invasion of Iraq.

We do know that the U.N. Security Council is currently structured to block such actions.

We don’t know if the United States will leverage this example to pressure the U.N. to change its dysfunctional rules.

We do know that, in the past, President Obama and Vice President Biden didn’t think the Commander in Chief had the authority to act unilaterally in similar situations without Congressional approval or without U.N. and other strong international support.

We don’t know why their position seems to have changed since taking office.

We know that a massive missile attack of limited duration is meant to “send a strong signal” that further use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

We don’t know what the next steps will be if our “strong signal” is ignored.

We know that, according to Sec. Kerry, our response “is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something.”

We don’t know whether these countries will deem that to be sufficient justification for attacking a sovereign nation and inevitably killing innocent people (particularly if our intelligence information turns out to be incorrect).

We do know (or at least have been told) that the mere existence of Guantanamo spurs the growth of terrorist organizations and the possibility of their attacks on United States citizens.

We don’t know what consequences an attack on Syria might spur in this same regard.

We do know that our actions might put Israel and other allies at risk.

We don’t know what our response would be if Syria chose to retaliate by attacking one of our allies.

We do know that other non-military options remain available (i.e., severe U.N. sanctions, placing diplomatic pressure on the League of Arab States to take direct regional action, etc.).

We don’t know what other alternatives have been explored;
We don’t know which ones have been dismissed and which ones might still be in play; and
We don’t know why the President seems to have so quickly defaulted to the “let’s go blow something up” tactic (remember: we supposedly had a “range of contingency plans” in place over a year ago).

Having run out of what we do know:

We don’t know what the short and long-term goals of any assault may be other than to “send a strong signal;”
We don’t know if all of the adverse consequences of each alternative have been vetted (particularly with respect to those associated with “limited military action”);
We don’t know what the President will do if he fails to gain Congressional authorization; and
We don’t know what the impact on our lives will be if he does.

What’s your opinion and what solutions can you offer?

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Obama & Powerless UN Security Council study Syria

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 27, 2013 – We live in a dangerously confusing world. President Obama has spoken forcefully on numerous occasions about the United States’ unique role when it comes to responding to international violations of human rights. His recently appointed Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has even written multiple books about the issue. Yet, in the absence of a coherent foreign policy, we are left to ponder how our Nation might respond to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war.

Let’s examine the President’s past pronouncements, the Ambassador’s insights and actions, and the role of the U.N. before we begin to form any conclusions.

On March 28, 2011, President Obama delivered a speech at the National Defense University about the Libyan crisis that had overtones with regard to what has since transpired in Syria. In that speech, the President stated:

Since that speech, approximately 100,000 people have been killed in Syria, which is a staggering amount in contrast to recent estimates of 4,700 killed and 2,100 missing in the entire Libyan revolution. Of course, the number pales in comparison to the 620,000 Americans who lost their lives during our Civil War, but countries were less inclined to intervene in conflicts of other sovereign nations in those days.

Less than 18 months after the President’s Libyan speech, rumors surfaced that chemical weapons may have been used in the Syrian conflict. President Obama immediately addressed the issue on August 20, 2012, at an impromptu press conference when he announced:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”

Rumors continued to circulate, and on March 19, 2013, an alleged chemical weapon attack killed 31 people in Khan al-Assal (in the province of Aleppo) and wounded over 100 more. The Syrian government blamed the rebels, and the Syrian rebels blamed the government, while both maintained that they didn’t use chemical weapons.

The next day, in a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama said:

“We know the Syrian government has the capacity to carry out chemical weapon attacks. We know that there are those are in the Syrian government who have expressed a willingness to use chemical weapons if necessary to protect themselves. I am deeply skeptical of any claim that in fact it was the opposition that used chemical weapons. Everybody who knows the facts of the chemical weapons stockpiles inside of Syria as well as the Syrian government capabilities, I think, would question those claims. Once we establish the facts, I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game changer.”

The President continued:

“When you start seeing weapons that can cause potential devastation and mass casualties and you let that genie out of the bottle, then you are looking potentially at even more horrific scenes than we’ve already seen in Syria. And the international community has to act on that additional information. We have been clear that the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people would be a serious and tragic mistake.”

Soon thereafter, the U.N. established a chemical weapons team at the request of the Syrian government to investigate the Aleppo incident, but the Syrian government balked when the U.N. wanted to expand the investigation to other sites.

In June, the Obama Administration began sending small arms to the Syrian rebel forces (who are aligned to a degree with Al-Qaeda) after U.S. intelligence agencies inferred that the Assad regime had used sarin in several smaller incidents. However, to date, the President has refused to consider any direct military involvement by the United States.

In July, Russia notified the U.N. that it had conducted tests on materials secured from the Khan al-Assal site in a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Russia asserted that the tests concluded that Syrian rebels had launched an unguided projectile filled with sarin at government forces in the area. That inference was reached because the delivery mechanism was not industrially manufactured and because it used an opening charge that is not used in standard ammunition.

Then on August 21st, exactly a year and a day after the President’s “red line” speech, the stakes were raised when a large-scale chemical weapons attack allegedly took place in towns within Ghouta, east of Damascus, and possibly in Muadhamiya to the west. This time, social media postings and unverified videos of the aftermath of the attacks were available.

Over 355 people were confirmed dead and over a thousand more were injured as a result of the attack.

Three days later (August 24th), President Obama convened his top U.S. military and national security advisors to consider the full range of responses available to the United States should it be found that the Syrian government did indeed use chemical weapons in the attack. He also conferred with British Prime Minister David Cameron, who expressed his country’s concern. As the President has stated on several occasions, his preference would be for an international response, but he has not ruled out independent action by the United States.

The United Nations chose to act immediately on August 21st (the day of the incident) by calling an emergency meeting of its Security Council. Samantha Power, the United States’ newly appointed Ambassador to the U.N., was unable to attend to represent our Nation’s interests because she was engaged in a personal trip to Ireland.

Given that the President prefers to act with international approval and that his past “red line” rhetoric may have backed the United States into a corner to respond in a definitive manner, some will argue that Ambassador Power’s decision was highly questionable. In view of her history as a staunch human rights activist, it also appeared to be uncharacteristic.

This is an individual who won the Pulitzer Prize for her book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Yet, when an emergency meeting of the Security Council was called to address a possible war crime, Ambassador Power was missing in action.

Why did this happen and what are the possible consequences?

It is entirely possible that Ambassador Power just couldn’t make it back in time. In light of the communication technologies that are available today, her physical presence may not even have been necessary. Why those same technologies haven’t been used to obviate the need for a large number of the President’s interminable speaking tours remains a topic for discussion at a later date.

The Ambassador’s absence also may not have been significant from a pragmatic perspective.

Russia sits on the U.N. Security Council. It is tightly aligned with the Syrian government. As a result, it is likely to have exercised its veto against any resolution for which the United States might have built a consensus.

Additionally, there is a chance that Ambassador Power would not have been sufficiently versed to serve as an effective advocate on our Nation’s behalf.

The Ambassador had only been in office for 19 days prior to the attack. Some will argue that she may not have been sufficiently familiar with the President’s thinking about Syria to represent his position.

In the past, the Ambassador has been far more “hawkish” than the President. For example, she called for an armed intervention in both the Balkans and Libya.

However, this isn’t to suggest that she would default to a military option. The Ambassador has also stated, “If you think of foreign policy as a toolbox, there are a whole range of options—you can convene allies, impose economic sanctions, expel ambassadors, jam hate radio. There is always something you can do.”

For those who have suggested that Ambassador Power may not be “seasoned” enough to stand up to members who sit on the Security Council (such as Russian Ambassador Churkin), keep in mind that she served as a senior foreign policy adviser to then-Senator Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. While she was forced to resign for referring to Hillary Clinton as “a monster,” she obviously has the courage to speak her mind.

Speaking of former Secretary of State Clinton, one can only wonder if she would see the use of chemical weapons as something that would “change (her) calculus,” or if would she view the use as inconsequential. If one were to extrapolate from her famous quote about Benghazi, one might expect her to say, “With all due respect, the fact is we have hundreds of dead Syrians. Whether it was because of conventional weapons or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Syrians with chemical weapons. What difference at this point does it make?”

Words matter. Actions matter even more.

Have the President’s pontifications about “(refusing) to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action” and how the movement or utilization of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for the United States backed us into a corner in the eyes of the world? Will we be forced to take action because of evidence of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) once again?

Keep in mind, on February 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a compelling speech before the United Nations General Assembly that described in detail how Iraq had allegedly continued its WMD programs. Powell said:

“We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.”

A strong implication was also made that the chemical weapons had been transported to Syria; one of only five countries that refused to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention of the U.N.

In the aftermath: no evidence of functional WMDs was ever found in Iraq; the Bush Administration was disgraced over the assertions; and thousands of American military personnel lost their lives, their limbs, and their emotional health as the result of the war.

Will we follow this path once again? Will we proceed with more caution? What will drive our decisions: Will we take action to preserve our Nation’s reputation, to respond to atrocities, to cement political legacies, etc.? No one really knows.

Could we intelligently leverage this situation to call for a meaningful reform of the United Nations? The single-member veto power of the U.N. Security Council represents the definition of “stalemate.” As a result, the U.N.’s primary purpose has been almost totally emasculated:

“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.”

Given that the United States serves as the home of the U.N. and provides disproportional funding for the organization’s general budget and even a higher percentage of the budget for the U.N.’s peacekeeping forces, this may be a uniquely suitable time to coerce the U.N. to do its job or go the way of its predecessor, the League of Nations.

The crisis in Syria is extremely fluid. On Sunday, August 25th, the Syrian government acceded to U.N. inspections of the areas in which chemical weapons are believed to have been used. A cease-fire has been put in place to protect the inspectors. On Monday, August 26th, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers but finally made it to the site. Their presence and testing may bring more answers, but naysayers have already speculated that critical information has already been lost in the days that have passed.

Over time, we will learn what the Administration’s response will be. Until then, what would you do?

If the chemical weapon attacks are proven to have occurred, would you assume that they had been committed by the Assad regime, or would you wait until you had definitive proof of which side had orchestrated the attacks?
How would you intervene (i.e., with international support or independently; militarily or via sanctions; if militarily, by surgically targeted strikes designed to degrade capabilities or by full assault)?
What would your response be if both sides were ultimately shown to have used chemical weapons?
Would your response change depending on which party was proven to have initiated the usage of chemical weapons?
What role, if any, should the United Nations play in the determination and sequencing of the range of responses?
What risks are involved in your strategy and what are their potential adverse consequences?
Could this issue be used to put pressure upon the U.N. to become more proactive in the execution of its core mission to preserve the peace or, in the alternative, to force it to disband because of its ineffective record?

At a more fundamental level:

Does the United States have a moral responsibility to intervene in the civil atrocities of foreign nations?
Does the United States have a legal right to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations?
Would your answer be the same if the alleged atrocities were occurring within the United States and foreign powers sought to intervene?

There are no easy answers to complex issues. Then again, being President of the United States isn’t your typical civil service job. It’s more than just giving speeches and attending fundraisers. It’s more than just arguing with the opposing Party. It’s about making critically important decisions that can impact millions of lives and the history of the world. Choose wisely.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

President Obama on Egypt: No Coup; No Strategy

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 20, 2013 – As chaos and killings return to the streets of Egypt, the aftermath of the Arab Spring has lost its political romance. Correspondingly, our Nation’s lack of a definitive foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Middle East, now stands front and center on the world stage. It’s time to explore what can be done to correct that.

President Obama has been consistent in his approach: respond rather than lead; and promote confusion rather than clarity. This may seem to be harsh criticism, but let’s examine the record.

The Mubarak Legacy

As had past Administrations (dating back to the Reagan years), President Obama’s Administration supported Egyptian President Mubarak’s regime which, for 37 years, had functioned more as a dictatorship than a democracy.

Mubarak assumed the Presidency in 1981 after the assignation of Anwar Sadat. While he was “re-elected” in 1987, 1993, and 1999, it was accomplished through referendums in which no one was allowed to run against him. Then, when the Egyptian Constitution was amended in 2005, Mubarak “won” a heavily tainted election, after which his opponent was arrested and imprisoned (ostensibly for forgery).

The United States tolerated this political masquerade because Mubarak remained loyal to its interests.

He opposed Islamic fundamentalism and favored a diplomatic relationship with Israel, which created some stability in the Middle East;
His government controlled the Suez Canal and allowed it to remain open to U.S. commerce;
The majority of the monetary assistance the United States rendered to Egypt was in the form of military aid, which inured to the benefit of America’s military-industrial complex;
Egypt provided ongoing over-flight rights to the United States;
It permitted troop pre-positioning at Cairo West Airport; and
It provided intelligence with respect to Al-Qaeda operations, etc.

Then, when the Arab Spring began to gather momentum, the Obama Administration reversed course. Once it became apparent that Mubarak would fall from power, President Obama called for him to step down.

Had the interests that made our country turn a blind eye toward Mubarak’s autocratic rule gone away? No. Did President Obama have a different plan to “provide for the common Defence (sic) and the general Welfare of the United States,” which Article I, Section 8 prescribes for one of the Executive Branch’s counterparts (i.e., the Legislative Branch)? Apparently not.

On May 19, 2011, President Obama delivered a speech at the U.S. State Department in which he praised Hillary Clinton’s work in the Middle East and provided a vague and sometimes conflicting overview of our Nation’s position with regard to Egypt.

A few pages into his speech, the President said, “The status quo is not sustainable.” Shortly thereafter, he stated, “…after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.” Those phrases suggest that change is inevitable and that the President may have a plan for the region (which is neither his responsibility nor within his authority).

The President then softened his position by saying, “…we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo—it was the people themselves who launched these movements and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests do not align perfectly with our long-term vision of the region (emphasis added). But we can—and will—speak out for a set of core principles—principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months.”

While he acknowledged that “not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy,” he then set forth core principles that sounded remarkably like those of our Nation. The President continued:

“The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.

“We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders…

“And finally, we support political and economic reform…that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.”

Then, proceeding with perhaps less humility than he earlier suggested, the President stated:

“Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today, I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions (emphasis added), and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic, and strategic tools at our disposal.

“Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy.”

Pages later, he concluded: “…repression will fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable (sic) rights. It will not be easy. There is no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.”

While it was a nice speech, can we draw a factual conclusion with respect to the position of the United States with respect to the aftermath of the Arab Spring? Will we support Egypt’s sovereign right to pursue a form of government that doesn’t reflect the core principles described by the President? Will we continue to provide economic and military assistance to Egypt during and after any transition?

It would seem that those questions, and many others, were left unanswered except for the issue of economic aid. We promised to throw money at the problem.

The President called upon the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund “to present a plan… (that would) stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt… (to) help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval and support the governments that will be elected later this year.”

Second, he stated that “we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So, we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt… (and) we will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation.”

Then, the President went on to discuss his intention of “working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt… launch(ing) a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa.”

It’s amazing how often taxpayer money can serve in the place of a well-defined strategy.

Enter the Muslim Brotherhood

The Obama Administration initially dismissed any concerns related to an Egypt governed by the Muslim Brotherhood arguing that this was not one of the militant segments of the Muslim Brotherhood and it represented too small of a percentage of the Egyptian population to win election. However, once the latter issue was overcome and Morsi became Egypt’s first democratically elected President, he and his government were extended our Nation’s customary diplomatic courtesies.

President Obama engaged with President Morsi by phone on a number of occasions and invited him to the White House. Of course, there were a few indications that Morsi’s government might not be on board with President Obama’s “core principles.”

Early in his administration, Morsi briefly granted himself unlimited powers to “protect” the people of Egypt. Then, he asserted that the United States lacked evidence to support a finding that planes flown by members of Al-Qaeda caused the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Perhaps that should have “raised a few flags.”

When Morsi’s past comments surfaced in which he called Jews and Zionists “bloodsuckers” and “the descendants of apes and pigs,” Press Secretary Jay Carney initially condemned Morsi and called his comments “deeply offensive” before politically retreating by saying that Morsi “has demonstrated in word and deed his commitment to Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel…He obviously worked with us to resolve…a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict last year. So, this is about action; it’s about deeds.” Really?

Then, Magdi Ahmad Hussein, chairman of the Islamic Labor Party, had his open-mike moment when he said, “I’m very fond of battles. With the enemies, of course – with America and Israel, but this battle must be waged with maximum judiciousness and calm. Even though this is a secret meeting, we must all take an oath not to leak anything to the media” before being informed that the meeting was being televised.

Yet, we continued to deliver an order for 200 Abrams tanks and 20 F-16s to the unstable government and continued to infuse it with taxpayer dollars. Clearly, the “core principles” the President had mentioned had given way to business as usual.

Riots in the Streets

Apparently, the Arab Spring really was about moving toward a more democratic society as opposed to replacing one dictatorship with another. Disgruntled Egyptians began once again to protest in the streets.

They had endured Morsi’s noticeably ineffective leadership. He would announce new laws only to retract them shortly thereafter. At one point, he tried to correct the downward spiral of the Egyptian economy by imposing a massive tax increase before retracting it shortly thereafter (via his Facebook page).

Under Morsi’s command, Egypt suffered rampant unemployment and inflation, gasoline and utility shortages became a chronic condition, and even its supply of potable water was threatened. Coptic Christians began to suffer persecution, opponents were beaten and jailed, and women suffered organized mass sexual assaults. As a result, tourists no longer considered Egypt to be a viable vacation destination, which further unraveled its already weakened economy.

In June 2012, Morsi attended a conference on the Syrian crisis in which radical clerics referred to Shiites as “infidels.” A few days later, a mob lynched four Egyptian Shiite men in Giza lending even greater concern to sectarian tensions.

Around this time, an opposition group started campaigning for early elections and called for mass demonstrations on June 30. When those demonstrations came, they were noticeably larger than those which led to the deposing of Mubarak. Violence broke out, people were killed, and more women were openly raped.

Then, the Egyptian army issued an ultimatum to Morsi. He was given 48 hours to resolve the crisis or be deposed.

When a Coup is not a Coup

During the ensuing 48-hour period, the Obama Administration appears to have been working to preserve the Morsi government. Nuanced statements were made by a few spokespersons of the Administration who denied that the President ever urged Morsi to call for early elections to quell the insurrection. Yet, the President himself said that he pressed Morsi to be “responsive” to the demands of the protesters, who were calling for early elections.

Other senior officials said that our Ambassador to Egypt and other State Department officials did call upon Morsi to agree to early elections. If this is true, it is unlikely that it wasn’t at the direction of the President.

The Ambassador and other State Department officials are also said to have warned the Egyptian military that the $1.3 billion in annual military aid the United States provides might also be at risk if the military were to depose Morsi. If this is true, the Administration completely changed its position shortly thereafter.

When the 48-hour period expired and the military arrested Morsi, President Obama said that he was “deeply concerned” by the move. He urged the military “to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsi and his supporters.”

Had the military followed this request, the situation in Egypt may have quickly subsided. However, the military apparently saw no reason to comply with it.

Perhaps that was because the Obama Administration immediately began going to embarrassing lengths to deny that the military overthrow of Morsi was a coup. This sent a signal that any threat associated with withholding the $1.3 billion in military aid was not real. That is because a rule of law would have come into play.

Section 7008 of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74) prohibits “any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d’état or decree or … in which the military plays a decisive role.” Even if the Egyptian military is deemed not to have orchestrated a coup, it is difficult to suggest that it didn’t at least play a “decisive role” in the ouster of Morsi’s government. However, that is the Obama Administration’s position.

Almost immediately, some members of Congress began calling for the Obama Administration to follow the Rule of Law while others argued against it. No one seemed to deny that the Rule of Law existed. It was just an argument over whether it would be in our Nation’s best interests to pretend it wasn’t there.

The Rule of Law clearly isn’t what it used to be.

Almost comically, many of the members of Congress flipped their positions just as the Administration had done. It’s as if no one had read further where the Act states that “assistance may be resumed to such government if the President determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office.” In other words, military aid, even if revoked, could be reinstated at any time.

However, when you don’t have a discernible strategy in place, short-term thinking inevitably prevails.

Today

Since the “non-coup” occurred, the military has remained in charge. It suspended Egypt’s constitution and began arresting members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood responded by fighting back. The violence has increased, hundreds have died, and thousands have been wounded.

Egypt’s economy continues to decline, resources are dwindling, and the United States’ position is still unclear.

On August 15, 2013, the President took time from his vacation to deliver several remarks about what had transpired in Egypt. On the one hand, he seemed to recognize what drove the overthrow: “While Mohammed Morsi was elected president in a democratic election, his government was not inclusive and did not respect the views of all Egyptians. We know that many Egyptians, millions of Egyptians, perhaps even a majority of Egyptians were calling for a change in course. ”

On the other, he stated, “The United States strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by Egypt’s interim government and security forces. We deplore violence against civilians. We support universal rights essential to human dignity, including the right to peaceful protest. We oppose the pursuit of martial law, which denies those rights to citizens under the principle that security trumps individual freedom or that might makes right.”

So, what decisive action did the President take to express how strongly the United States condemns the military’s non-coup? He announced, “As a result, this morning we notified the Egyptian government that we are canceling our biannual joint military exercise, which was scheduled for next month.”

Try to ignore the fact that we also canceled the last scheduled exercise of this kind because of the Arab Spring. It’s become somewhat of a tradition.

Mission Impossible

Since we clearly do not have a strategy for Egypt (much less a strategy for the Middle East or an overarching foreign policy), your job, should you choose to accept it, is to craft such a strategy as if you were the President of the United States.

It won’t be easy. Our Nation’s failure to have a strategy in place has already eroded many of your options, and anti-American sentiment is running high.

Keep in mind that there are significant advantages to maintaining a relationship with Egypt unless it falls into the hands of an unfavorable government. For example:

It is a comparatively huge neighbor of Israel and Jordan, our two closest allies in the region;
It controls the Suez Canal, which is of great importance to our country since we also lack a coherent energy policy and remain dependent upon foreign oil; and
It currently provides us with serious military advantages in the region by serving as a pre-positioning hub with over-flight rights.

What other positive aspects can you name?

Then, what would you recommend as the United States’ course of action?

Consider your recommendations carefully.

How do they impact stability in the region?
How do they potentially impact our allies?
How do they forestall other major powers from filling the void that would be left if the United States withdrew as an ally of Egypt?
Do they comply with the requirements of The Camp David Accord?

Remember: for the purposes of this exercise, you are the President of the United States. While you may be inclined to blame your predecessor, you are still constrained by the situation you have inherited. So, share your ideas and insights in the Comment Section that follows this article. Merely expressing your favor or disfavor with our current approach will not get the job done.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Author: testsite_tjohara

OBAMACARE: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

LEADERSHIP VACCUM: Parties prevail over the People

SHOWDOWN SHUTDOWN: Kanye vs. Kimmel – House vs. Senate

The President, Congress, and Political Schizophrenia

THE CONSTITUTION: Often Ignored; Never Irrelevant

9/11 and BENGHAZI: Lessons Learned for Syria?

PRESIDENTIAL CHEMISTRY: UN-wind the Syrian crisis

Syria is only a symptom of a failed foreign policy

Obama & Powerless UN Security Council study Syria

President Obama on Egypt: No Coup; No Strategy

Services

HEADQUARTERS

email CONTACT