An Anti-Bauer in the White House?

By | December 2, 2019 | 2 Comments

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 human life. But occasionally, we see someone who comes close to being an anti-person − someone whose beliefs and actions are almost the exact opposite of another person.

The popular TV series “24” came to an end in after nine seasons. The protagonist is Jack Bauer, a counter-terrorism officer in a mythical government agency – mythical in two senses: 1) It doesn’t exist, and 2) It is highly efficient, unlike real government agencies.

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 gets results that save lives.

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

● He calls terrorism “terrorism” rather than “workplace violence” or use other deceptive weasel words.

● He does not try to deceive others about serious problems, and as a result he does not deceive himself.

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

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

● He evokes confidence in his friends and fear in his enemies, rather than the reverse.

● 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.

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

● His primary goal is to protect the lives of Americans.

Go through the list of Jack Bauer’s qualities. Now go through the list of Democratic presidential hopefuls. With the possible exception of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, tell me that they aren’t as close as possible to the anti-Bauer.

Check out their positions (if any) on national defense. Except for Gabbard, they say nothing about strengthening our defenses. On the contrary, they favor intervening in Syria, where we have no national interests at stake. They express indignation about Turkey crossing the Syrian border, but oppose securing our own border.

Recall that President Obama reversed longstanding American policy, and publicly promised 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 that if he used such weapons on our troops, we would retaliate with nuclear weapons. As a result, Saddam did not use these weapons.

After our 2003 invasion of Iraq, the liberal media trumpeted our “failure” to find weapons of mass destruction. True, we failed to find stockpiles of recently made weapons. But we did find over 550 artillery shells and rockets filled with mustard gas or nerve gas. Revealingly, this report soon vanished from the mainstream media. And there were more chemical weapons, which terrorists might be able to obtain.

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. In 2003 a Chinese worker was killed and dozens injured when they unearthed a Japanese mustard-gas canister left over from World War II – and thus at least 58 years old. Yes, there were WMDs in Iraq.

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 against themselves. But no more.

Obama’s approach was the precise opposite of 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, favored the opposite approach. He planed 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.

What reason is there to suppose that any of the Democratic candidates, again with the possible exception of Gabbard, would have a different defense policy?

Even if one could think of a reason for the policy, why announce it? 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.

Bauer works with people from other nations to achieve his goals. But when more than 50 world leaders went to Paris to join President Hollande in a huge march against terrorism, President Obama stayed home. Sometimes what one fails to do is as revealing as what one does.

At the U.N. in 2012, Obama proclaimed:

 The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Obama did not participate with other world leaders in the  march protesting the murder of cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. After all, the terrorists put into practice the principle he had enunciated.

What’s missing from this picture?

True, Jack Bauer is a fictional character. But are many politicians real? What do they really stand for? Obama 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 did. What else is on the agenda of current Democrats? In a sense, I know Jack Bauer better than I know them.

On the other hand, I know President Trump well, some might say too well. Concealing his feelings is not his strong point. Even his worst critics would agree that he bears more than a passing resemblance to Bauer.

Perhaps a psychologist could explain most leftists’ aversion to national defense. It may be an odd variety of the Stockholm syndrome. It may be the result of years of listening to leftist pastors’ anti-American sermons. It may be the result of years of absorbing the propaganda of leftist professors. It may be the result of years of office work, which taught that reality is what one fabricates on paper, not what exists in the outside world. Who knows? But who really cares?

National defense is the first duty of the government in general, and of the President in particular. National defense is not an elective. National defense is a required course, and most of the Democratic hopefuls are, so far, getting a failing grade.

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 a leftist Democrat as President. It is becoming painfully obvious that they don’t know Jack.

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.