The Anti-Bauer in the White House

David C. Stolinsky, MD
April 8, 2010

Physics tells us that for every subatomic particle, there is an anti-particle. For example, for the proton there is the antiproton, which has the same mass and charge as the proton − except that the charge is negative instead of positive.

This situation does not usually occur in personal life. But occasionally, we see someone who comes close to being an anti-person − that is, someone whose beliefs and actions are almost the exact opposite of another person.

The news carries two stories that are apparently unrelated, but in fact are closely related. The first story involves the popular TV series “24,” which is coming to an end after eight seasons. The protagonist − no, the hero − is Jack Bauer, a counter-terrorism officer in a mythical government agency. The agency is mythical in two senses: (1) it does not actually exist, and (2) regrettably, there is no government agency that is so effective and focused on the fight against terrorism.

Bauer is a flawed hero, but a hero nonetheless:

● He repeatedly risks his life and his career to do whatever is necessary to save innocent lives from terrorist attacks.

● He is subjected to harsh criticism because of his methods, but he is his own severest critic.

● He uses “rough interrogation,” but he gets results that save lives.

● If there is something unpleasant that needs to be done, he does it himself rather than sending subordinates.

● He takes responsibility rather than fobbing it off on others.

● He does not seek power, but when necessary he wields it effectively.

● He cannot always trust others, but others can always trust him.

● He knows that reality exists in the outside world, not on paper, and he is not distracted by paper-shufflers or pencil-pushers.

● He knows that the world is a dangerous place, and he is not confused by unrealistic theories or utopian notions.

● He remains focused on what he is actually doing, and he does not waste time on self-important posturing in an effort to impress people.

● At first glance he is not very impressive, but when you get to know him, you hold him in the highest regard.

● His foremost goal is to protect the lives of the American people.

Now consider the second news story that broke recently. The president will reverse longstanding American policy, and publicly promise not to employ nuclear weapons to retaliate against attacks using chemical or biological weapons. We do not possess chemical or biological weapons, so our only recourse against attacks by such weapons of mass destruction would be to use nuclear weapons − or to send our young men and women into combat with their right hands tied behind their backs.

This is not idle speculation. In the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was known to have chemical and biological weapons. Remember “Chemical Ali” and “Doctor Germ”? Saddam had used poison gas against his own people as well as against Iran. But President George H. W. Bush and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned Saddam in no uncertain terms that if he used such weapons on our troops, we would retaliate with nuclear weapons. As a result, Saddam did not use these weapons.

And after our 2003 invasion of Iraq, the liberal media trumpeted our “failure” to find weapons of mass destruction. We failed to find stockpiles of recently made weapons. But we did find 550 artillery shells and rockets filled with mustard gas or nerve gas. Revealingly, this report soon vanished from the mainstream media.

True, these weapons were left over from the first Gulf War and might not have functioned as designed. But the poison gas could have been removed and given to terrorists. Poison gas can still be lethal a half-century later, as shown by weapons left over from World War II.

The point is that during the first Gulf War, Saddam had functional chemical and biological weapons, but he did not use them for fear of nuclear retaliation. The point is that terrorists may well have been denied access to chemical or biological weapons, because the nations that produce these weapons feared nuclear retaliation. But no more.

President Obama is reversing the longstanding policy of prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican. He proposes to retaliate against attacks with chemical or biological weapons by using only conventional forces. Obama’s approach is the precise opposite of that in the film “The Untouchables,” in which Sean Connery as Officer Malone advises:

You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

This approach would be echoed by every successful military commander in history. But President Obama, the anti-Malone as well as the anti-Bauer, favors the opposite approach. He plans to counter the enemy’s force with inferior force − and what is even worse, to announce this policy publicly, so potential enemies will be sure to learn of it.

Even if one could think of a reason for the policy, why announce it? What conceivable reason could there be to encourage our enemies to launch chemical or biological attacks on our troops abroad or our civilians at home? It is one thing to leave your door unlocked at night. It is quite another to put up a sign informing everyone that it is unlocked. This goes beyond the illogical and reaches the irrational. It goes beyond the mistaken and reaches the destructive.

Go through the bullet list of Jack Bauer’s qualities. Now tell me that President Obama isn’t as close as possible to the anti-Bauer.

Yes, Jack Bauer is a fictional character. But is Barack Obama real? What does he really stand for? He didn’t campaign on promises to weaken our defenses and encourage terrorists to attack us with chemical or biological weapons. Yet that is what he is doing. What else is on his agenda? In a very real sense, I know Jack Bauer better than I know Barack Obama.

I’m not sure I would want Jack Bauer as president. He’s a little too quick on the trigger for such a responsible office. But I am quite sure I do not want Barack Obama as president. He seems to be bending every effort to encourage our enemies and discourage our friends.

Perhaps a psychologist could explain Obama’s aversion to national defense. It may be an odd variety of the Stockholm syndrome. It may be the result of 20 years of listening to Rev. Wright’s anti-American sermons. It may be the result of years in academia, absorbing the claptrap of leftist professors. It may be the result of his legal training, which taught him that reality is what you fabricate on paper, not what exists in the outside world. It may be his deep feelings of being rootless and fatherless. Who knows? But that isn’t important.

What is important is to work hard to assure that this November, as many Republicans as possible are elected to Congress. National defense is the first duty of the government in general, and of the president in particular. It is not an elective. It is a required course, and Obama is getting a failing grade.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com