Making Sense Out of Nonsense

The mid-term elections are a week away. It appears as if the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives; loss of the Senate to the Republicans is not as clear. But will it make any difference?

While Pres. Obama may tout his legislative accomplishments, the truth is that even with huge majorities in Congress, he struggled with his two main domestic goals: healthcare reform and punishing the American people for climate change. It took months of rancorous debate for him to pass healthcare and then by only a wafer-thin margin. His plan to tax American business for their productivity and success, euphemistically called cap-and-trade, couldn't get out of the Senate. If, holding large majorities in Congress, he couldn't rally the nation, it's hard to see him doing worse without them.

So in the next Congress it appears now that he will lose his majority in the House, and, while retaining the Senate, he will lose his ability to shut off debate in the upper chamber on proposed legislation. Expect Democratic party discipline to go out the window after the president and speaker Pelosi lead the troops over a cliff next Tuesday. The weak in politics are killed and eaten. Pres. Obama will be a weakened president.

That leaves him with two options. The first is to continue pressing his left-leaning agenda, despite the fact that poll upon poll shows the American people thinking that this is taking the country in the wrong direction. He's already said he'd rather be a one-term president (one can only hope) than compromise his principles. So the threat of his continuing to march into hell for a heavenly cause, becoming the Harold Stassen of left-wing domestic policy,  is real.

On the other hand he could steal a play from Bill Clinton's playbook, work with the Republican and position himself, as he did during his presidential run, as a centrist. The question is whether anyone will buy that the second time around.

However, George Friedman writes today in Stratfor that there is a third choice: shift his focus from the domestic agenda and make his case for a second term in foreign policy. As Mr. Friedman points out, "The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities."

Foreign policy is another matter, with our system giving the president, in his role as commander-in-chief and head of state, pretty decent leeway without congressional interference. Ronald Reagan took advantage of this following his midterm election reversals in 1982 by basing Pershing missiles in Europe to blunt any Soviet thoughts of expansion. He also played party pooper with Libya's Colonel Ghaddafi, dropping a cruise missile in his tent in 1986. These acts energized his base and made him a stronger president.

But on this third rail Pres. Obama will also struggle, notes Friedman.  Despite plenty of opportunities to show his chops in Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and with Iran, the president's M.O. up to this point has been conciliation, not confrontation. So it's as hard to see him blowing up Ahmadinejad's nuke plants as it is to see him extending the Bush tax cuts.

Second, the American public has settled into a war weariness--nine years in Afghanistan, seven in Iraq, and almost constant deployments throughout the equitorial hot spots of the world. The American public's focus isn't abroad--it's on our ailing economy. And unless that improves nothing else matters. Like everything else in this world, it comes down to money.

Just thought you might like to know.

Stratfor Weighs in on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

Controversy continues to swirl over the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal.

Private security and intelligence service Stratfor has an interesting, nonpartisan take on the dilemma in its November 16 edition. While we all understand that KSM fits neither in the category of a military combatant nor that of your garden variety  criminal, George Friedman helps analyze the riddle in Deciphering the Mohammed Trial. 

To do so, he compares KSM, not to the German sub spies of World War II, as most analysts have, but to the franc-tireurs of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The franc-tireurs were, literally, "French snipers"--irregulars without uniforms who picked off Prussian soldiers and then melted back into the French civilian population. This resulted in civilian casualties blamed on the franc-tireurs. To be covered by the Geneva Conventions, a partisan must at least bear an insignia of his cause which neither the franc-tireurs nor KSM did.

This ambiguity captures KSM, says Friedman. He is not an enemy combatant because he fought under the banner of no country. Neither is he a criminal. Criminal punishment is handed out after the fact. But the purpose of trying and attempting to punish KSM is more preventive-to keep him from planning more terror attacks.

Friedman, however, does make two chilling observations about the Obama decision. The first involves the CIA, which has been under attack from the administration and Congress since last January. If the U.S. can claim that KSM is a common criminal because he planned the 9/11 covert attack, what is to stop some foreign government from indicting and attempting to bring to trial the Director of Central Intelligence for some covert action carried out in a foreign country.?

All nations engage in spycraft. If a spy is captured, he is not covered by the Geneva Conventions but by whatever passes for rule of law in that country. But should CIA director and Obama pal Leon Panetta be indicted by, say, Iran, would Pres. Obama, who has declared himself an international citizen, feel himself compelled to turn Director Panetta over to the mullahs? 

The second  unintended consequence of the president's decision is the specter that the federal court sets KSM free. For starters, is there any way this man can get a fair trial blocks from the site of ground zero? Are there any potential jurors who don't know anyone affected by 9/11? This is pre-trial publicity on steroids. Forget a change of venue. 

The reality is that KSM may indeed be found not guilty, despite what looks to the untrained eye as overwhelming evidence. Friedman says, "(Attorney General Eric) Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder’s duty to ensure Mohammed’s prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can."

There is no good way out of this for the United States. George Bush understood this. That's why he let KSM cool his heels by the seashore for the last three years. But this is one more example of President Obama making a decision based on abstract theory and politics, and not on the consequences of his decision or the reality of the dangerous world we live in.

Just thought you might like to know.