New Year's Resolutions?

New Year's Eve statements issued from two national governments could give some hope that there will be a change in the future actions of these governments in the new year.

The first of these potentially hopeful statements came from North Korea, which called for an end to "hostile" relations with the United States in its annual New Year's message. Part of that statement said: "The fundamental task for ensuring peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the rest of Asia is to put an end to the hostile relationship between North Korea and the U.S." This surprising message comes after a year of missile tests, shipping weapons to Iran and others, ignoring international pleas to return to negotiations on its nuclear arms program and general saber-rattling along its border with South Korea.

Why would North Korea send signals of such a change in its attitude toward the US? Could the personal letter sent by President Obama to Kim Jong Il have triggered this change in attitude? Whatever it may be, it could at least be some sign of hope.

The second statement of a potential change in attitude by a government actually was issued on the website for the White House, presumably on behalf of the US government! Under the heading of "The Same Old Washington Blame Game", White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, wrote on his blog that those criticizing the Obama administration for its reaction to the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on the Northwest Airlines flight into Detroit, including especially former Vice President Dick Cheney, are "engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer."

That sounds like a refreshing new approach of bipartisanship by the White House, after ignoring Republican ideas on major legislation, inviting only Democrats to the White House to discuss health care reform bills, meeting with only Democratic Senators in the Capitol just before the holiday recess and generally spending the year reminding Republicans that elections have consequences. But maybe the plea of " working together to find solutions" only applies to finding ways to better defeat the terrorist threat to the country. Even that request to work together would be a hopeful sign.

Unfortunately, Mr. Pfeiffer's noble request to stop the finger pointing was contradicted in his next sentence: "..... for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion - Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States". Could the reference to the "seven years after 9/11" be considered pointing fingers at the Bush administration? If that is true, this White House statement by Mr. Pfeiffer must really mean that he just does not like fingers being pointed at President Obama.

Let's take a look at what the former VP said that prompted this White House web log. Dick Cheney said that President Obama "is trying to pretend we are not at war." He then referred to recent administration actions to try the 9/11 masterminds in civilian court in New York City, giving those criminal defendants Constitutional rights of due process, closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay and other such actions that he thinks sends signals that the US does not view terrorist acts of violence as "acts of war" but rather criminal acts that need to be fought with different methods than traditionally used in war.

Cheney is not entirely correct in his statements. Obama and his appointees often say that we are at war. Whenever Obama uses the word "war", he refers to the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and his new term, as Pfeiffer pointed out, the war against al Qaeda. In his blog entry, Pfeiffer referred to a speech recently given by Obama's counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, to help explain how well the President understands that we are at war. In that speech, Brennen said: "As many have noted, the President does not describe this as a "war on terrorism." That is because "terrorism" is but a tactic—a means to an end, which in al Qaeda’s case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate." Pfeiffer repeated that explanation in his blog entry at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/30/same-old-washington-blame-game.

So it appears that Obama recognizes that we are at war, but only if it is described in words according to his world view. Cheney says that Obama does not think we are at war because Obama uses terms and takes actions that are contrary to Cheney's view of how to fight those who threaten us.

Pfeiffer, in his rant against finger pointing at the current occupants of the White House, adds this observation: "To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda..."

It appears in the end that Pfeiffer (on behalf of Obama) does not like Cheney's rhetoric and Cheney does not like Obama's rhetoric, which is emphasized in actions that speak very loudly that, whether Obama uses the word "war" or not, he views the struggle with Muslim terrorists as including symbolic gestures and law enforcement tools.

While this looks like just a "war of words" between the last administration and the current one, as an American, I would like to see more evidence of Pfeiffer's opening sentiment, which is that our leaders should work "together to find solutions to make our country safer". When we all face a common enemy, no matter how this force of evil is described, finger pointing in any direction should stop.

Let's use all the tools, experience, intelligence, weapons and American ingenuity available to win the war, whatever it is called! Sphere: Related Content