Presidential Failures

Let he who says a President is merely a figurehead, think again. Presidents are significant, even when we don't wish them to be.

We're back in Somalia. Again. Two weeks ago, the U.S. led an airstrike on a group of terrorists, and we did so again yesterday. This is the way we should conduct our war against the terrorists, IMHO. I don't believe in using ground troops unless it's absolutely necessary. If we do use ground troops, we need to flood the area with troops as far as the eye can see (as General Haig suggests). Because whenever America does anything half-hearted, we pay for it.

Examples abound: The current Iraqi and Afghanistan wars (under President Bush) and Somalia (under President Clinton) are the most recent ones. Lately we've been conducting wars as if they're an expensive hobby, instead of solving the problem and getting out again.

Of course there are reasons that wars are now being conducted this way. When it's less draining on the average American citizen, they don't complain. Most of us go on with our lives, shopping, socializing, partying, and gadding about. The WWII generation would be ashamed of us, and rightly so. But our own leaders don't demand any more; in fact, we are essentially leaderless. So, we drift about like a ship without a captain.

Politicians have learned that if you leave the average American alone, they will leave the politicians alone to pursue whatever is most profitable or enjoyable.

Despite the reports that Bush sheds an occasional tear over a fallen soldier (and I've seen the footage), he is pursuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for reasons that trump the soldiers' lives. The pain isn't intense enough to cause him to stop. This reminds me of the addict that says "I would stop if I could! Do you think I like doing this?" The answer, of course, is yes! The addict enjoys the addiction! If an addict had projectile vomiting every time he sucked on a crack pipe, the market for crack would dry up. It's amazing what immediate disincentives can do for you. Like a crack addict, Bush feels that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

But just as I am honest in my analysis of President Bush, I am also honest in my analysis of President Clinton. The reason that we're in Somalia again is Clinton's fault. He never took the opportunity to clean out the nest of vipers to begin with. When some troops were killed, viciously skinned, and put on display, Clinton grew scared of a drop in ratings, and immediately called for a cease to the hostilities. There were additional problems, of course. But in the case of Clinton, he was always too worried about his ratings. Bush isn't worried enough!

But the most crippling blow of all was a decision that President Ford made in 1976. Then President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination: 5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations, because no one wants to be perceived as a blood-thirsty warmonger. Assassinations are seen as "too extreme". Instead, we sacrifice thousands of troops to overtake a country and try to bend it to civilization.

We need a President who has the guts to cut the head off the snake without needlessly sacrificing the lives of our troops. The message we get from President Bush is a shrug and a sheepish grin: "This is all we can do - it's all that anyone can do," he seems to say. But, we know better. And he knows better: The airstrikes in Somalia prove that there are other means to the same end.