Obama

On the way to work today, I caught some live Q&A thing with Obama on the radio. I was a happy to listen to the President because I've been pretty disappointed with him so far and thought to myself - gosh - maybe I've been too tough on the guy and should listen to him more than just his critics, etc, etc. It didn't last. When he got into talking about the KSM trial and other trials of Guantanamo inmates, I just about lost it.

The question posed: why haven't we tried KSM yet? Do you still believe he ought to be tried in civilian court? Why haven't we closed Guantanamo?

His roundabout answer sounded something like this: the US shouldn't be "afraid" of trying KSM in civilian court. He said he had "faith" in the US justice system that we could convict this murderer of 3,000 Americans. My reaction - Huh? Is this guy totally clueless? Then he goes on to say that there are Al Queda members we picked up in Afghanistan still in Guantanamo who are terrorists and guilty, but for whom we don't have a proper trail of evidence for a civilian court and for whom a military tribunal court is more appropriate.

So I'm sitting here thinking - Obama's premise is that we should put on trial in civilian courts the people for whom we have enough evidence to convict and put into military court those people who we don't have enough evidence to convict. I can't think of a less principled stance to take. He both undermines the civilian AND military tribunal process by taking this approach.

The question of KSM does not boil down to whether we are "afraid" to try him in civilian court. The question is whether 9/11 was an act of war or an act of mass murder. I believe it was an act of war. The Bush administration understood it as an act of war. Therefore, the perpetrators ought to be tried in a military court of justice. It has nothing to do with "faith" in the American justice system. These people aren't Americans. They problem we are facing with Islamic Terrorism is not an issue of crime. It is an issue of a transnational group who doesn't believe in the sovereignty of states and who openly declared war on US civilians. Why they ought to be treated to the evidentiary standards of US Citizens who commit crimes like murder or bank robbery is totally beyond me. War is different than crime.

Obama keeps claiming to be a game-changer and to be playing the long-game. Maybe he sees something I don't. But as far as I can tell, the biggest issue of his presidency thus far is the economy and we're 2 years into the worst recession of my lifetime. The best argument for his policies thus far is that "things aren't worse" and "it isn't my fault." He has introduced MORE uncertainty into the business environment with inconsistent government meddling in forms of regulation and stimulus along with the ambitious healthcare proposal. It seems to me he mis-prioritized healthcare and spent all his political capital on an issue that became relatively less important once the economic crisis hit. He was making big old Ford Sedans when everyone needed a Honda. And I think he backed himself into an awkward position in the War on Terror by campaigning on the premise that he would fight a smarter WOT and disengage from Iraq and ramp up Afghanistan. He is sending more troops into a war that has little consequence to our security or strategic importance. He is taking credit for an Iraq drawdown that he largely inherited from Bush. On the flipside, he blames Bush for the economic crisis he inherited. The whole thing is strange.

I like Obama's positions on education and I like how he is coming around to some new ideas about stimulating the economy. But I think he is slow. I think he is off on a lot of things. I think he misunderstands and mischaracterizes conservative arguments against his policies. I don't think he is tough - he takes criticisms personally and he overcompensates in strange ways. I don't think he is sending the country into the shitter, but I do think he is delaying the fixes necessary to economic prosperity and pursuing unwise foreign policy steps - ie Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestine peace talks. I have a feeling he'll be getting better as President, but ultimately won't be viewed as very effective.

RE: Israel-Palestine. The elephant in the room here is that the Palestinian Authority only really represents half of Palestinians anymore. Hamas isn't even involved, so even if some type of "peace" is achieved, it doesn't represent peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.