But it occurred to me that I have noticed a series of events recently which made me remember her. I take some consolation for the friendships that ended over the years, in that each person who is no longer a friend, at least learned to recognize those traits they would not be able to tolerate in their next relationship, just as she served this purpose for me. We learn that the Jeep CJ-5 with the V-8, big tires and rag top is a lot more trouble than it is worth. We learn over the years to respect substance and view rosy promises with suspicion. We learn this not because we have been wronged, but because we better defined the difference between what we think will make us happy, and what does so over the long run.

President Obama recently promised the world that America will not use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks against us. My suspicion was aroused immediately and the really important points about this assertion are in the stated, and implied, and effective exceptions to this promise.

First, you may remember me saying that limits placed on the town council by the town council are meaningless. If the council has the authority to place a limit on itself, it has the authority to release that limit. For the President to promise not to use nukes in response to an attack on America is at least arrogant, at most naive. For such a promise to have any meaning, one would have to assume that an attack on America would be so benign that our sovereignty would not be at risk. Could anyone really believe that they could attack us with the intent of occupying this country and ANY defense would be off the table? So this promise can only have meaning to those people who would attack us, in the belief they could prevail, but were deterred from doing so for fear of nuclear retaliation, but would now reconsider. We would gain no benefit in so limiting ourselves much less stating so publicly. Would we not prefer that they postpone their attack for such a fear?

So, if this promise is not for the benefit of our reluctant but nearly emboldened enemy, then who? The theories abound as there seems to be no immediate explanation. One such theory is that this is for Iran’s benefit. The theory is that Iran would not want to be on the naughty list of countries who are not protected against US nuclear attack since they have not agreed to non-proliferation. Come over to the light side of the force and we will agree to settle our differences with conventional weapons? Again, I am skeptical. Does anyone believe that this will result in an Iran who prefers a cozy relationship with the Great Satan over their stated religious imperative of destroying it?

Again, our enemies will not be impressed. Those we hope to pressure do not view this as a carrot and it certainly cannot be interpreted as a stick. Our allies, who we are sworn to protect, certainly cannot say that the US should not use ANY method to protect them from annihilation from non-nuclear attack when conventional weapons cannot prevail. Who is left? Who is he talking to? Well, this is where the cynic in me comes out.

This leaves our reluctant allies. This leaves those who tolerate us as long as there is a mutually agreeable arrangement. Greece, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, in short, mostly middle eastern countries who do not like us being in their back yard much less the threat of nuclear attacks in their part of the world. We want to tell them that we will not attack anyone in their back yard since we can handle any skirmish in that part of the world without having to flex our muscles that hard.

The bottom line is this: we will not stop at any limit to defend ourselves. No country would expect any different and few would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if available, to defend themselves, even if they would wait until it was the last resort. Indeed, the countries that spend most of their money on social programs and also have nuclear weapons, have little options prior to nuclear escalation if the US military does not fill in the gap. The President cannot take nukes off the table because he can just as easily put them back on, without prior notice, and potential aggressors know that. The explanation that stands out to me, mostly because I recognize it from my past, is that the President wants to be liked. The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that the President is trying to say that which will be well received by someone.

The President is most certainly assuring our non-nuclear allies that we will still do anything to protect them, including nuking the bad guys, and most certainly aware that our enemies who might attack us still know that we will do anything to protect ourselves, including nuking the bad guys. So the only ones who this could be directed at are those he has enough contempt for to tell them what they want to hear and enough confidence that they will believe him.

The promises seem shallow and meaningless and I expect him to lose friends just as my friend’s crush lost hers. The world is a suspicious place, where the US is concerned in particular. Very few places have populations gullible enough to believe promises of restraint prior to an uneven or unfair fight. Protected and secure people are often the most gullible and I suspect that the President is accustomed to talking to and hearing from such people in this country. I fear that the rest of the world will react in much the same way they have to the rest of the President’s speeches suggesting that the US should be a softer presence in the world. I fear that they will applaud his words, and continue with the same principled foreign policy they had before such proclamations. I fear that the shallow promise, not based on any clear principle, will stand out in contrast to the principled foreign policies of these countries and of America past. I fear that only those who have temporarily suspended disbelief will believe our President, and that only those who would attack us or our allies will consider acting on it. I fear that advertising some arbitrary limit to our defense has only rhetorical gain, but considerable potential loss.

I may be naive, but I see the inherent flaw in his assertions and rhetoric. There is a precondition. Further, President Obama is unwilling to do what it takes to meet without this precondition.
Specifically, the “Ahmadinejads” will not sit down and talk. They do not want to give the American President, the great Satan, the prestige such a meeting would bring to President Obama, at least in fascist circles. Our President has no such reservations about offering the prestige of his office to Ahmadinejad as he believes that only by humbling himself to them will they capitulate. This is the crux of my revelation.

A dear friend of mine, a generally quiet, reserved, patient and tolerant person, posed some passionate questions about the state of science in our country. He is a true scientist in that he realizes that discoveries may or may not fit our hopes and they may or may not survive the test of time. He recently gave me a C. S. Lewis book which I am enjoying greatly. You remember, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe guy? The point of this is an observation Mr. Lewis made with which I am inclined to agree. Paraphrasing: good and evil are not battling, evil is the perversion of good, not the absence of it, an evil person believes that they are doing good for themselves and for others. In other words, some people do things just because they are the right things to do, but no one does anything because they are committed to doing the wrong thing or the evil thing. Consider those we consider evil, Hitler, Stalin, Mao; they all believed that they were fighters for the good of their people.

Ahmadinejad is doing what he thinks will save the world as a matter of deep religious belief and principle. There is nothing President Obama can eloquently say or offer to divert such motivations. Indeed, I wonder if President Obama holds any such beliefs or principles which he would not consider setting aside as a precondition to talks. I feel confident that there is no American ideal, an offering of which would get Ahmadinejad’s attention, much less his compromise. After all, he wants our lives, and after that, he would be interested in his share of our wealth, our ideals are frivolous to him.

But my theory pertains more to the other players in the region who do not hold such hatred and who do not wish my destruction. For example, the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai is being particularly uncooperative in his reaction to American demands to take up American Ideals or face President Obama’s threat to remove American troops. I don’t think that this is so much a reaction to the great Satan as it is a grasp of reality every political creature understands: I will need a loyal base to remain in power. President Obama has made it clear that he expects Karzai to be a part of Obama’s base, not the other way around. The Taliban offers to be more loyal for Karzai’s support.

But why would the local tribes side with a political hack instead of fighting for a free Afghanistan? I think that they view President Obama as untrustworthy and unworthy of allying oneself with. The reason I came to this conclusion lies in the words of Marcus Luttrell in his book, Lone Survivor. He refers to a principle the people of Hindu Kush live by, loosely translated: “Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against the other.” The other being strangers or people from other lands. Many Muslims understand this to mean evil people, some understand this to mean anyone not of their belief.

The people of Hindu Kush do not slight one another as this could lead to an entire tribe coming to bear to right the slight. If the retribution is unwarranted, or even if the slight were understandable, the family of the offending person, and likely his whole tribe, could be called upon to protect him. Wars can result and so they are very careful about accusations. Indeed, when a slight is heard which is not obviously warranted, people are duty bound to take to the streets in mob protest, lest there be any doubt that the slight is true. This explains why less than flattering images of Mohammad in a cartoon brought riots in some of the Muslim world. They were duty bound to leave no doubt where they stand.

If an accusation, of theft for example, is not met with such reaction, one can assume that the theft must have taken place. No admittance will likely come, but the retribution might be allowed, and to protect the tribe, the thief’s hands might be cut off by the offender’s family in order to head off war.

With my limited understanding of this perspective, superior to our own in some respects, I draw the conclusion that President Obama is viewed with little respect in that part of the world. He openly complains about the slights, in his opinion, his country has made against the world, and then expects the Hindu Kush to respect him for it. If one of their own did such a thing, they would exile that man if he were loved, cut out his tongue if he were mediocre, or execute him in heinous ways if this was not his first embarrassment. He acts in such an unacceptable way and we do nothing, no riots, no guns shot into the air, no straw men burned in effigy. They can only be expected to draw one conclusion, that he is lying and we all know it.

The people of that region have held these principles for a hundred times longer than the US has been a country. It is obvious that they respect the barrels of our guns as they do those of their neighbors and as we do theirs, but the ideals of freedom to decide for ourselves if our cousins are guilty and, which friends to defend, are foreign to them (as their customs are to us). The act of complaining about them publicly seems so bizarre that they do not trust President Obama’s campaign speech demanding that we must support the Afghan people and fight the just war.

How must they see us when they have defended their brothers for 4,000 years as a matter of principle and President Obama offers to trade defending them for 18 months in return for adopting his ideals?