Human Events published a column by conservative columnist Sally McNamara today, entitled: “Obama Wants to Win the Next Election More than Afghanistan.” As the title implies, the author argues that President Obama is more than willing to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, if it helps him and his party win the next election.
Although I’m certainly a critic of Obama myself, and although I’m certainly not known for pulling punches either, I do not for one second believe that he’s so evil that he’s actually willing to lose a war, just so he can win a petty election. No, the real problem with Obama and his approach to the war in Afghanistan is that he’s not a pragmatist and an opportunist, but an ideologue.
If he had half the ambition his fellow Democrat Bill Clinton had, Obama would’ve announced during his first State of the Union that he understood that he had gone too far, that he had not treated critics with the respect they deserved, and that he would change his ways from then onwards.
Instead, he doubled down on his leftist agenda. This even though he and his party know full well that doing so will likely cost them the 2010 and the 2012 elections. Again, you can accuse Obama of a whole lot of (mostly bad) things, but not of being a cold-hearted opportunist, willing to sell out his country just so he can serve another term.
Conservatives have to realize what kind of a person Obama really is. After all, you can’t fight your enemy successfully if you mistake him for something he is not. What this boils down to in the debate about the war in Afghanistan and the wider war on terror, is that Obama’s statements and plans are rooted in his political ideology. McNamara is right to say that Obama isn’t dedicated to winning the war in Afghanistan. But that’s not because he’s the second coming of Bill Clinton, but because he’s a younger version of Jimmy Carter.
Like his unpopular predecessor, Obama adheres to an ideology that says that America is the number one source for evil in the world and that all wars that America declares are inherently immoral. And that’s especially the case when these wars are waged against those ‘poor indigenous peoples’ who, ideologues like Obama believe, are right to hold grudges against the United States.
I believe the president spoke the truth when he said he’d rather be a “really good one-term president” than a “mediocre two-term president.” Of course, his interpretation of both qualifications is different from mine, but the point stands; he wants to “radically transform” America. If that means he can serve only one term, so be it. That’s not a problem for him – you’re an ideologue or you are not. And Obama certainly is.