Here is a curious thing. I scanned the whitehouse.gov website for Defense, which at this early date remains a lightly edited version of 'change.gov', the official web site of the Office of the President Elect, which was itself a lightly edited version the website of the Obama campaign. As an aside, this is one more data-point leading to the conclusion that we have entered the era of the perpetual campaign; something that at other times, in reference to other national governments was call propaganda. But I digress...
I searched the website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/defense/) for the word, "defense". I expected it to occur fairly frequently as a noun; as in, "President Obama is committed to a strong military to ensure the defense of the American people and their National Interests." Nope. That line isn't there. Not counting the 3 occurrences in sitemaps and 3 in headings, the word, "defense" appears 3 times and only once as a noun: "missile defense", while promising that any missile defense program that might survive "does not divert resources from other national security priorities" like universal healthcare. The other 3 times, the word is used as an adjective. President Obama promises "a review of each major defense program" The last time any similar undertaking resulted in a stronger Military was 1980. And finally, as a bit of red meat thrown to the Bush-haters, he alludes to "corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting." Corruption and cost overruns in other departments will have to wait until his 3rd or 4th term...
Well, well. Certainly you want to avoid over-use of a word. No need to be repetitive. That must be why the word, "defend" doesn't exist at all on the web page. Wouldn't want to belabor the point that the primary mission of the Military and the most important responsibility of the president is to defend the Nation against attacks and threats of attack or that defending National Interests is something the Military may have to do.
I suppose a president committed to changing the World's opinion of America may want to avoid sounding too belligerent. We are, I'm told, entering an era of 'soft power'. So, we don't want to belabor the point that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines might occasionally be called upon to WIN WARS. No such thing: "We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces can succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations." The only other use of the word, 'war': "oversight for war funds." I don't think we have to worry about scaring anyone with our belligerence.
The only thing Obama-Biden intend to win is hearts and minds: "Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need: The Obama-Biden Administration will expand humanitarian activities that build friendships and attract allies at the regional and local level (such as during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia), and win hearts and minds in the process."
The one-time community organizer wants to be the Global Organizer in Chief. Buying friends in Chicago politics doesn't work. I don't know why he thinks it will work in global politics. People only stay bought until a better deal comes along. Ask Blago. Ask Carter, Clinton and Bush.
We (who take such things seriously) know that there will always be wars and rumors of wars, and that we will always have enemies until the Second Coming. Certainly, Obama-Biden are committed to defeating our enemies when building friendships fails, right? Well, would you believe: "maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed." and "preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors"
I see Obama-Biden are committed, more or less, to maintaining an advantage over 'threats' and to defeating 'competitors'. No mention anywhere on the site of the words, 'enemy' or 'enemies'.
I sure hope they have success with the "hearts and minds" thing...
No comments:
Post a Comment