October 19, 2021

POLITICS AND NATIONAL SECURITY

“If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War” –  George Washington

With the exception of a few fanatical supporters of Barack Obama, most pundits and politicians of both sides of the spectrum are voicing displeasure on the current administration’s foreign policy.   A couple of reasons are becoming obvious.   One is that the defense Department and the intelligence agencies are mostly ignored and micromanaged by the White House.   The second one is that the policies and public statements are motivated by politics and not the security interests of our nation.   Past administration official’s accounts, and the release of documents asked for, that were stonewalled by the executive branch but forced to do so by the judicial, have proven this.   During the last presidential campaign one of the important points made was founded on the idea that “Al Qaeda was dead”.   At the time many intelligence operatives, on and off the record, disputed that assertion.   It was also alleged that the documents discovered during the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden were proof of that fact but their examination and release was stopped by the WH because of its findings going against their at the time political rhetoric.

Now that a few of these docs have seen the light of day, the allegations were proven as they clearly show Bin Laden very much involved in the managing of the terrorist group throughout the world, and also of his having close relations with Iran and the Taliban.   Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Obama’s Defense Intelligence director, said in a soon to be aired interview that the information the WH received from his agency was the “opposite”, of what was repeated during the campaign.   Robert Gates, past Secretary of Defense during Bush and Obama’s presidency, and an undisputed patriot, has declared in multiple occasions his displeasure on political operatives interfering with his recommendations and ignoring facts for purely political expediency.   “We are basically sort of playing this day to day,” Gates said on MSNBC’s referring to a non-existing Middle East policy, “I think our interests are enduring, but I certainly don’t think we have a strategy”.   Michael Morell, deputy director and twice acting director of the CIA, also joined in the chorus of past intelligence operatives highly critical of the interference from Obama’s political operatives in the matters concerning our national security.   The truth is that Obama’s White House is just following Saul Alinsky’s recommendations from the book “Rules for radicals”.   When facts interfere with the political aspirations, delay, deny, and attack.   After the last defeat in Ramadi, when confronted with the fact that whatever plan is in effect to defeat ISIS is not working, everyone from the administration denied the obvious and, not even having the originality to use their own words, repeated from the president to his spokesperson and “talking heads” the same mantra, the defeat is only a “temporary setback”.   After that nonsense, called by experts and reporters “delusional” and “the definition of stupidity”, they attacked the critics as “having no alternative, other than war”.   This excuse repeated by all that refuse to think independently is ludicrous.   No one has espoused an all out war, only special forces, command and control, real use of air power and above all a demonstration of leadership that will make our allies know that we have their back.   In order to attempt to change the subject, another Alinsky rule, both our president and vice-president had the gall to declare in a commencement speech of our armed forces to prepare for our bigger security threat “climate change”.

This pattern of deceit was repeated after the Benghazi debacle that cost the lives of four brave Americans.   The insistence of placing the blame on an unknown video, to negate the reality of a terrorist threat, was an insult to the voter’s intelligence.   Secretary of State Clinton and the WH were informed by the corresponding agencies that the attack had been premeditated and organized by a known Benghazi terrorist group.   Even Sydney Blumenthal a political Clinton operative, who was denied a place in State because his “attack dog” tactics against Obama, communicated with her on Libya and 48 hrs. after the attack informed her of its being terrorism, and organized.   Even so, the video “talking points” continued, culminating on Susan Rice’s embarrassing performance in all major TV news programs.   In a recent batch of e-mails from the State Department, those that Clinton decided to show and not shred, there is evidence that she was aware of the dangers the Libya Ambassador and staff were confronting, and still the security they asked for was denied.  Political expedience in this occasion was more important for the administration than national security.   Instead of opening up to what really happened, guilt be dammed, they chose to delay and deny, and in typical tactic of deceit then claim that further investigation is not warranted as it is “an old story”.   Very soon we will have elections and the people will decide if they desire more of the same.

Fernando J Milanes MD

 

Share
Source: