Yes, the news is all about how there is a major terrorist threat afoot. And from Al Queada no less - even though Mr. obama has said they are on the run so the "war on terror" is over don't cha know. No details to be had because, I guess, having an informed populace on the lookout is somehow worse in the eyes of a government that has left it's foundations than people left in ignorance and unable to assist ourselves in providing for our own.
No details are forthcoming about this huge, looming threat, but we must close our embassies in Islamic nations anyway.
My question is why?
We have the best military in the world - or so I've always been told. (And at least until the feds decided to use them for social experimentation rather than keeping to the ethical uses of an all volunteer military.) We have the IRS and the NSA spying on every bit of electronic communication out there - regardless of the legality and ethics of doing so. We are providing millions, if not billions of dollars of aid and comfort to our enemies in those same Islamic nations and yet, here we are closing our embassies in response to a terrorist threat.
Given our serious advantages over our enemies, I have a real problem with this. It is not our place to cower before such a threat, but rather to make sure those embassies are backed up militarily and diplomatically to such an extent that no terrorist group would dare to graffiti the walls of our sovereign soil, much less harm another ambassador.
I've seen a lot of theories flying around - everything from "this is it they plan to bring down the grid and blame it on terrorists" to "this is obama celebrating his birthday and the day of strength in ramadan simultaneously". My own conspiracy theory would be more along the lines of the idea that there is someone in those nations who is or who will shortly be looking for asylum. Someone who our own government wants to find closed doors at those embassies - if I were inclined to conspiracy theories that is.
Personally, I think the simplest explanation is often the truest and, on the face of it, the simplest explanation is this: Mr. obama is seeing that Americans don't like to see their ambassadors and other embassy personnel killed, but he thinks they probably won't mind the destruction of our embassies so much. Besides, he has no military experience and no idea what our military is capable of doing to defend OUR SOVEREIGN SOIL, so he'll make sure no people are hurt when these attacks occur as they must to appease the pride of the terrorists of these nations. (There's that worldly wisdom he campaigned on. And besides, having been raised by a muslim stepfather in a muslim nation who still knows the call to prayer by heart and thinks of it as the prettiest sound on earth, he should know all about how appeasement is viewed by terrorists of this ilk - shouldn't he? In which case the question becomes "why is he appeasing them?")
A real president(as opposed to the usurper currently occupying that office with the complicity of the legislative and judicial branches), in my opinion, would be doing something more like this:
Issue a Public statement on all networks saying that:
All embassies under threat will be immediately fortified.
All embassies will have a defensive force of our own military at their beck and call until said threats have been found and dealt with appropriately. The security forces provided by those governments to our embassies are dismissed until further notice.
All foreign aid going to these nations will be halted immediately and a percentage of that aid money re-allocated to rewards for the capture of those making such threats and or carrying out such threats.
All students from those nations or foreign nationals from those nation currently in America will be immediately deported to their nations of origin until the threat is deemed passed at the expense of their own governments.
Those seem like a far more reasonable set of actions to take than closing our embassies and hiding like scared little girls from the threat of violence. There is a lot to be said for tolerance and diplomacy, but not where it gives the appearance of weakness and where a demonstration of strength would be more effective.
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."~ 1 Tim 5:8
"Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness." ~ Psalm 52:7
Posts
