Offense vs Defense

By allowing Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct another investigation of CIA employees involved in enhanced interrogations, President Obama is kowtowing to those on the far-left who believe that the CIA is a bigger threat to our national security than Al Qaeda. The men and women of the CIA are patriots who go to work everyday, under extremely difficult circumstances, with the goal of protecting the citizens of this country. Career civil servants will now have to spend the meager savings in order to defend themselves against the government that they have sworn to protect.

This decision, along with the moving the interrogation of high value terrorist prisoners, the worldwide apology tour and the banishment of the phrase “War on Terror” (replaced with the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operations”, which sounds like we are going overseas to rescue earth quake victims), proves that the President views the War on Terror as a law enforcement matter rather than the urgent national security that it truly is. This is a defensive, September 10th approach to our national security.

President Bush understood the need for an offensive approach to protecting our citizens. He understood the need to defeat all of those who subscribed to the Islamist ideology, whether they were nations or non-state actors. This was just how President Franklin Roosevelt understood the need to defeat all of the fascists across the globe during World War II. He vision was broader than just defeating Japan, which was the only nation that had attacked us.

As the years go by, all will be revealed. If President Obama is correct in that we are only facing a semi-complex law enforcement matter, no catastrophe will happen. If, as he claims, his approach to foreign policy will allow him to persuade many not to take up arms against us (despite the fact that he couldn’t even persuade our closest ally, the United Kingdom, not to release the Pan Am 107 bomber), everything will be fine. Sure there may be a bomb here or a bomb there. A few hostages may be taken and killed. An airliner or two may fall out of the sky. But, for the most part, the world as we know it will continue as it is.

However, if President Bush was correct and we are in the midst of a War on Terror, the future of Western civilization and our way of life is at risk. Our allies will continue to blink at the Islamist threat. The result will be mass casualty attacks against Western targets. Civilians will die and the economies of the United States and the other Western nations will be undermined.

I would rather that the President err on the side of caution. He must remember that it is better to be respected than liked. The lives of thousands of Americans may depend on it.


Anonymous said...

Here is a link you should read, by a top Army interrogator:


"I'm against torture and I know from personal experience how tempting it is when you've just watched a videotape of the guy you are interrogating cut somebody's head off with a knife. It draws up in you a primal desire for revenge. But you know it's wrong and so you don't do it. We cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him. We cannot resort to torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. I know what works because I've been there and it's not force."

Not to mention, torture IS illegal. Holder's job is to enforce the law, and that is what he is doing.

Steven L. Baerson said...

Torture is illegal, but enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture. Also, the Justice Department already looked into this 5 years ago and did prosecute one CIA contractor. What is the point of rehashing it, other than politics?

Anonymous said...

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" include waterboarding, which is torture.

Why do it? Because prosecuting one guy when the practice is widespread isn't an investigation, it is scapegoating and a coverup. Why 'rehash' the 16th St Church bombings and prosecute Bobby Frank Cherry when Robert Chambliss has already been convicted?