a.k.a The Official 2010 Villainous Company Banned Bloggers List. In other words, bookmark these sites if you haven’t already: Another Black Conservative Patterico’s Pontifications Tigerhawk Michelle Malkin Little Miss Attila Cassy Fiano Instapundit R…

You do know that Michelle is a journalist/writer and Obama is the President right Chap?

As the leader of the free world I expect Obama to get it right especially when we’re talking about terrorism. The impact of Obama getting it wrong and Michelle getting it wrong one would hope you aren’t trying to make those two “errors” equivalent.

If so and that’s the best you got, that isn’t much of an argument.

Do we want Obama to correct course when he’s wrong? Well of course. At the same time I expect him to have a sense of context, who he is, the impact of what he says and does, the issue at hand, and when it is a critically important issue to get it right BEFORE he sets everyone including our enemy off.

In other words I expect a certain level of maturity and leadership. However we do know already that neither is present in his administration.

Rookies and self serving junior highers.

His rush to blame the CIA as evidence of his mindset and his administration’s mindset.

On January 3rd, 2010 at 8:06 pm, WarEagle82 said:

It’s not about invading and occupying anyone. It’s about keeping their leaders afraid and on the move while punishing any state that helps them. What you say about killing “a lot of bad guys (and other people). And the moment we leave the vacuum returns and the cycle repeats.” is basically true but so what? “The process” results in many of their leaders dying while keeping them preoccupied with running for their lives which keeps them disorganized. It also makes them easier to find and kill. No one can keep replenishing its ranks when the expected lifespan of leaders is counted in months. It’s never ending hell as the ever less charismatic new leadership finds it harder and harder to find reliable recruits.

Muslims are people too. They aren’t super beings. They are weak and getting weaker.

And I don’t care about what the leftists are inclined to do. Obama is already feeling it from his own party about how the perception of being asleep at the wheel on national security will doom the party for a generation as sure as Carter’s weakness did a generation before. Party matters much less than you think. It’s okay to talk rhetorically but don’t think that way.

The US can go in to Yemen and kill a lot of bad guys (and other people). And the moment we leave the vacuum returns and the cycle repeats.

Like I said, do you want a repeat of Somalia again? Or do you want to invade Yemen and withdraw every six to 12 months for the next 3 years? Do you think Obama has the backbone to do that? Do you think he has the backbone to invade and occupy Yemen for 3 years? Do you think he would do so without UN support? Do you think he could get it?

More likely, the bad guys will flee like cockroaches to other remote places and start operations there since they would have a pretty good idea of what was going on at the UN. Sudan, Somalia, Iran, etc. come to mind. Do you want to chase them around with 50,000 troops for the next 3 years? Is that the most effective use of military power?

There are things that could be done in Yemen and other places to minimize the terrorist threat but Obama doesn’t have the backbone to do any of them. None of the leftists have that kind of resolve when it comes to national security.

On January 3rd, 2010 at 7:34 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Pasadena Phil,

The fact that Yemen is a failed state does not mean Obama can’t make things worse.

The fact that Yemen is a failed state means that “decisive military action” would be hard to define

Let me turn that right back at you. How does Yemen being a failed state work in favor of the terrorists? It doesn’t change the reality that the end of “war” will never be marked by a distinct event like a surrender or the outright defeat of a country. It will eventually be depleted of men and resources. By being a failed country, we can now do pretty much what we please in Yemen without clearing it with the worse than useless government nor worry about niceties like collateral casualties. If these people aren’t already willing to fight for their freedom, they will inevitably be road kill to somebody. Sad but it is their choice. Freedom isn’t handed it out. It is earned.

Sure, there are a lot of poor people crossing from tribal areas of Pakistan into Afghanistan to fight us but they aren’t jumping on commercial aircraft on one-way tickets to kill us…

In Obama’s world, “poverty” is the cause of every imagined problem even when it is the wealthiest people in these nations engaging in terrorism. Obama is simply out of his element and repeating old leftist mantras. And he is going to get a lot of people killed by doing so.

The fact that Yemen is a failed state does not mean Obama can’t make things worse.

The fact that Yemen is a failed state means that “decisive military action” would be hard to define. Think Somalia in the late 80s. How in the world might we have made a decisive change in Somalia? Granted Yemen is smaller and less populous than Somalia but that doesn’t mean there is a simple military solution to the many problems Yemen presents.

Do you really think Obama will initiate actions in Yemen of similar scope and nature to that taken in Iraq under Bush?

Do you really think he would do so without international consent? Do you think he could get international consent to invade Yemen with 50,000 to 100,000 troops and occupy it for several years enduring the kind of guerilla war we faced in Iraq? We don’t have that many troops to spare! It would make combat deployments to Afghanistan far longer than the current deployments and put a real strain on our Armed Forces.

We might go in and kill a lot of people and blow up a lot of things but that doesn’t necessarily solve the Yemen problem. In fact it might make our global security situation less secure.

How else might Obama do engage in “broad” military action against Yemen short of invading and occupying the hell-hole?

On January 3rd, 2010 at 4:40 pm, chapoutier said:

“We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty…”

Basically the same stuff Obama wrote in the Hyde Park paper on Sep 18, 2001 and the introduction to ‘Dreams of My Father.’

Mark R. Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny,” an anti-Obama cri de coeur, held on ­longest at No. 1 (11 weeks)

cri de coeur? anti-Obama? Did these people ever read Levin’s book?

On January 3rd, 2010 at 7:00 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

SPOT ON!

That was the argument in 1998 during the “wag the dog” episode. I look back at that and find that it was the Republicans who were risking national security by denying the president permission to destroy a tyrant when we could.

In what way the Clinton denied?

Bombing from 15,000 feet or having a political NATO commander whose war plan thoroughly sucked? Please explain how you think the Republicans, who I have little respect for also, contributed?

Did you watch MM on C-Span today? She went on in some length about how she may initially say something that turns out to be wrong. She makes an effort to go back and provide the correct information. Isn’t that what Obama is doing now?

Chap is on record: Michelle Malkin would make just as fine a Commander in Chief as Obama!

They are incapable of escalating their war to the level that would bring down the modern world. They simply cannot execute a broad and sustained attack. The world is not a castle to be weakened by a prolonged siege before being brought down by a massive assault by waves of sword-wielding Muslims. They may be in a state of perpetual outrage but that is a big reason why they can’t win.