Is This Why Obama Could Lose?
This is not about which party had the better nominating convention. It’s not about budget deficits or the national debt. It’s not about Social Security or Medicare. It’s not about who built American businesses. It’s not about unemployment or “fair” taxation. It’s not about Obamacare.
It’s about an American president’s response to the death of Americans.
Rule No. 1 of war is “Young Men Die”; Rule No. 2 is “You Cannot Change Rule No. 1”. Therefore, Americans expect US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they do not expect US allies to purposely attack US troops.
On Aug. 10, Afghan “friendlies” killed 6 Americans in one day in two separate attacks. In one, a police commander shot 3 Marines he invited to a meal, then reportedly joined the Taliban. In the second, a civilian opened fire at a NATO base. These were hardly isolated incidents. Attacks on, and deaths of, American troops have increased in frequency, with more occurring this year than in 2011.
However, the Commander-in-Chief’s response is more disturbing than the attacks. When US troops mistakenly burned copies of the Koran, President Obama sent a 3-page letter of apology to the Afghan president, who replied on Afghan television, “we call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.” Obama complied, though stopping short of criminal charges for an error that injured or killed no one. However, Obama demanded no apology when Afghani “allies” killed US troops.
Apparently, American blood is fair compensation for the loss of paper and ink.
On Aug. 20, Obama vowed to do more to protect American troops. He would talk with Afghan president Karzai, and he called on American troops to be more careful about who they trust. On Aug. 27, an Afghan “colleague” killed 2 more American soldiers .
In contrast, when Manuel Noriega’s Panamanian Defense forces opened fire on 4 unarmed US military officers in December 1989, killing Marine First Lieutenant Robert Paz, President George H. W. Bush invaded Panama, removed Noriega from his country and from power, and put him in prison. That action demonstrated a president who values the lifeblood of his military. Perhaps this president does not regard that same blood as highly.
After Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, Obama said, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” His desire: “that everybody pulls together…to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.” Undoubtedly, a better response than what he gave to US troop deaths in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, whether Obama sought calm or political advantage is unclear. If Obama wanted calm, then why not reprimand Spike Lee for his tweets, condemned the New Black Panther Party for offering a seven-figure bounty on a man convicted of no crime, or discussed the tone of pro-Trayvon rallies with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
Obama shied away from those stands, leaving perhaps an innocent man to twist in the wind after telling the nation that the boy George Zimmerman killed might have been Obama’s son.
Perhaps Obama’s seeming lack of concern for the lives of Americans half a world away is excusable, though military families will disagree. Obama’s awkward show of concern for the death of one young man stateside may be no big deal, though it resembled pandering or political posturing. But something closer to home, the president’s home, is impossible to either excuse or ignore.
In 2008, nearly half of Chicago’s more than 400 gun homicide victims were aged 10 to 25. During the 2008 – 2009 school year, as the one-time Chicago community organizer was ascending to and assuming the presidency, guns killed at least 36 Chicago public school children. In 2009, Chicago had more black children shot to death than soldiers dying in Iraq. The year 2010 saw Chicago with weekends in which 29 and 54 people were shot.
In 2008, 405 homicides were by gunshot wounds. In 2009, there were 379 gunshot homicides. 2010 saw 364 killed by guns. In 2011, it was 375. Finally, in 2012, there are 307 gun homicides through Aug. 29. Since 2008, 1,830 people, most of them black, have died from gunshot wounds in Chicago.
As an American, a black man, and a Chicagoan, this should deeply concern President Obama. So, what is his response to the carnage?
When police stopped a convicted felon outside then Senator and presidential candidate Obama’s home with a .40-caliber handgun and a bulletproof vest in 2008, Obama had no comment.
This is not to imply Obama is silent on all gun violence. When a gunman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and killed 6 others in January 2011, the president took to the podium, calling it “an unspeakable act”; he also released a statement. When a deranged man opened fire in an Aurora, CO, theater, killing 12 and wounding 58 others, the president issued a statement saying how he and the First Lady were “shocked and saddened”. He spoke to the incident at a campaign event in Florida.
It is difficult to give the president high marks for compassion in these cases. It is more likely that, as president, duty compelled him to respond to the shooting of a House member. Since he was already before a campaign event crowd ignoring or downplaying the Colorado shooting to deliver a stump speech, would have been bad form.
However, those who live and suffer in the city Obama calls home still wait for their hometown-boy-who-made-good to empathize with them. So far, he has not.
Compassion for fallen Americans does not come naturally to this president. When he is silent as nearly 2,000 are gunned down on his hometown streets, when he apologizes to a foreign ally that murders US troops, something is wrong.
Many wonder if this president cares about Americans struggling in the current economy. Given his demonstrated concern for dead countrymen, that remains a fair question. Should enough people decide he does not care, then, no matter the nation’s challenges, and no matter his November opponent, America will likely choose to face the future with a different president.
Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com