Obama fiddles while troops die

Legend has it that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The fiddling in Nero's case may be euphemistic – but in the case of Obama's imperial dismissiveness of the critical straits our military personnel find themselves in, his lack of action is both feckless and lurdane.

In March 2009, the Boston Globe reported that Obama "[planned] to unveil his long-awaited new strategy for Afghanistan." ("Obama plans more Afghanistan reinforcements"; March 26, 2009; Boston.com; Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender) And so it was that, on Sept. 21, Obama finally revealed his true plan, but I will get to that.

In his highly vaunted Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) speech in March, he "announced a goal of 216,000 Afghan security force members by 2011 – which fell well short of assessments by the U.S. military that a security force of 400,000 is needed to secure Afghanistan." ("Yon: Obama plan for Afghanistan, Pakistan short of bold"; Michael Yon; April 2, 2009; Washington Times)

So, was the speech-giver-in-chief disingenuous then, or is he now showing complete disregard for the peril our troops face in Afghanistan today? I say both – he was disingenuous then and he is showing a disregard for our troops now.

Discover the truth about the intimidation tactics used by today's White House in Whistleblower magazine's "MOB RULE: Under Obama, Chicago-style bullying and intimidation go nationwide"

TRENDING: Voters blame Biden for border crisis, ready to punish Democrats, poll says

Sept. 21, it was reported that Gen. Stanley McChrystal "warned of possible mission failure unless NATO forces are deployed immediately and new tactics are adopted to win local support. … [F]ailure to provide adequate resources … risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and, ultimately, a critical loss of political support. … [A]ny of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure. … Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible. … [P]reoccupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us – physically and psychologically – from the people we seek to protect. … The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily, but we can defeat ourselves." ("White House says no decision on more troops for Afghanistan"; David Nashaw and Peter Walker; Guardian.co.uk)

Perhaps Obama has been too busy playing basketball or trying to alienate Fox News, but whatever the case, Americans are dying as Obama is yucking it up on the David Letterman show.

Obama has an obligation, indeed, he swore an oath, to defend and protect the Constitution and America. To his discredit he has done neither. Accepting a heart-shaped potato from a member of Letterman's audience and discussing his daughter's summer vacation, while White House spokesman Robert Gibbs slanders Fox News, is neither presidential nor is it leadership.

He can blame former President Bush for whatever he chooses – but the bottom line is that Bush is no longer president – he is. As such, it is now his responsibility to act. The issues are now his to resolve or, at the very least, it is for him to do a better job than he is doing.

But here again, he is too busy trying to con the public into believing we need universal health-care reform that will ultimately result in the government controlling a person from the womb to the grave.

And before you say that cannot happen, consider the opinion of Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. In Sunstein's 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness," co-authored with Richard Thaler, he advocates doing away with marriage. Sunstein would ensure "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic-partnership agreement between any two people." ("Sunstein urges: Abolish marriage"; Aaron Klein; WorldNetDaily.com; Oct. 23, 2009)

In the same book, "Sunstein defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission."

Forty-six American troops have given their lives in Afghanistan since Sept. 20, and that doesn't include the 14 who were killed last weekend in separate helicopter crashes. Obama has much to be held accountable for, and nothing more so than his "dithering" and playing politics while our troops are dying.

If Obama wants to send some sort of twisted message to Gen. McChrystal for going public with the troop situation, let him not do it at the expense of our troops' lives.