First, there was Benghazi. Two retired Navy SEALs put in a Medal of Honor-caliber performance; an Ambassador called desperately for help; when Gen. Carter Ham tried to do his part to send in the help–as a military man, he understands the “leave no man behind” ethos–he was forcibly relieved of duty. Four men died. They trusted a President, and that President turned his back on them.
Now, President Obama and his sidekick–John Pierre Kerry–have announced a “deal” with Iran, supposedly limiting their development of nuclear weaponry.
While the strengths of that “deal” are dubious, the fact remains that this “deal” was reached without securing the release of American Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and retired FBI agent Bob Levinson.
I cannot imagine President Carter negotiating a deal with another country that did not include the release of any Americans being held under suspicious circumstances. And yet Obama/Kerry left both an American pastor and a retired FBI agent hanging out to dry.
As Jon Stewart would say, there is no good way to spin that turd.
Carter, for all his faults, was trying to “do no harm”. His policies were often wrong, but no one can say he was corrupt, or that he willfully turned his back on the American people.
For Obama to pass on an opportunity like this–probably the best he was going to get–to free two Americans who are being unjustly held–is a betrayal of good faith. It would have been a simple matter to include the release of both the pastor–and the FBI agent–as a condition of any deal.
For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t care what your religion is. If you’re an American and you are overseas, you should have a reasonable expectation that your State Department–and the Executive Branch–is going to contend for your best interests if another country harasses you or, worse, throws you in jail on some BS charge.
The President is supposed to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. As such, he should be expected to understand the “Leave no man behind” ethos. In military circles, that is HUGE. Officers have had their careers ended for violating that.
While the President–like myself–is not of a military background, a President who leaves Americans hanging out to dry–when he had a chance to free them in a very simple diplomatic move–is beyond disgraceful.
If you’re an American and you are overseas, you should have a reasonable expectation that your State Department–and the Executive Branch–is going to contend for your best interests if another country harasses you or, worse, throws you in jail on some BS charge
Why? Where in the Constitution does the US govt derive the power to send a Naval escort with every American tourist?
Let’s face it. Some countries are dangerous. It isn’t a secret which ones those are. Part of being a Pastor, free to spread the Gospel to countries that DO NOT WANT IT, and against the US State Dept advice to avoid that country is being able to tell the US Govt to “Bite me” and go anyway… And then to rot in an Iranian prison. Bad choices have bad consequences. It’s not as if these guys was taken off a ship at sea or abducted in Paris.
Here’s an Idea: Stay away from dangerous places like Iran.
I don’t expect my government to provide a Navy escort for any tourist.
At the same time, when you have negotiations going on with another country–even a hostile one–it’s reasonable to expect that they’ll include the release of any Americans being held on dubious charges as part of a deal.
This would have been a simple diplomatic move that required next to zero effort.
The Obama administration is trying to spin this in terms of “these discussions were solely about nukes”. That’s intellectually dishonest. It would have been a very simple matter to get the two Americans released as part of that deal.
Given how little we got out of the deal to begin with, their release would have been a minor concession on the part of the Iranians.
Given how little we got out of the deal to begin with, their release would have been a minor concession on the part of the Iranians
I disagree. The Iranians knew they were negotiating with Kerry and Obama. So they knew that the “Americans” NEEDED to get a deal, ANY deal. The Iranians DON”T need to get a deal to keep doing what they are doing. So, for the Iranians to give up ANY thing, even something they don’t want, would make them look foolish. They can then trade the captives later for something useful like cold hard cash or F-14 parts.
Americans didn’t “need” a deal with Iran. It was something Obama wanted for bragging rights, but we “needed” that as much as Dolly Parton needed a third boob.
In fact, we had a greater position of strengths in that Iran needs breaks from the sanctions. That was our golden opportunity to throw in the release of Americans as a contingency for any “deal”.
Releasing some of the Iranian assets we froze in the wake of the hostage crisis would have incentivized the deal: we give the Iranians assets that are theirs–but were frozen–while we get our people back.
In that case, Obama would come out looking sterling and the Iranians would get everything they want while coming out looking good.
The problem here is that Obama left them behind when he didn’t have to do so.
I didn’t say we or Americans needed it. I said “Americans” needed it. Obama and Kerry are nominally Americans and like it or not they speak for us abroad and THEY needed it.
LOL…that’s a twisted understanding of “need” on their part.
I can’t recall a President in a position of “need”–real or otherwise–who negotiated such a deal that left Americans behind who were being held on dubious grounds.
Either this is the most incompetent administration of all time–and this is very possible–or they just don’t care about the interests of the American people.
Oh. And the “leave no man behind” ethos was born out of a peacetime Army when it was at least possible most of the time to easily do that. We had no such doctrine during any of our real wars, ever. If we ever fight another war with a peer competitor that foolish policy will be shown for the empty words that it is. It is not a deeply ingrained ethos that cannot be easily changed 180 degrees.
The fact is, in war, everyone is expendable and the only reason to behave otherwise is economy and efficiency.
back in the heyday of the British empire, European merchants would hang the union jack on a camel at the lead of their camel train trudging about in some ‘stan, because whether it was true of them or not, it was known that ‘er Majesties Jollies might come calling if harm fell to a British subject.
That only works is some survive to tell the tale.
Yep. And as is often the case in some of these remote places, what happens there often ends up staying there.