May 18, 2013

"It was a lighthearted moment in the midst of a grim few days for the White House..."

But Obama's comical stylings didn't play as well this week as they have in the past. I'm reading "Obama puts Marines on umbrella duty, irking conservatives" only because I'm interested in figuring out why it's #1 on the "most popular" list in the sidebar at The Washington Post. Something cute about the headline, I thought. But reading it — and looking at that photograph of Obama intentionally clowning with the white-gloved Marine — I'm seeing something tragic. The old ways — that made us love him — don't work anymore. The gentle, slow-talking, stalling with "uhs" for Woody Allen-like timing:
"Uh I am going to go ahead and ask, folks, why don’t we get a couple of Marines — they’re going to look good next to us — just 'cause uh uh — I wanna — I’ve got a change of suits but I don’t know about uh uh uh our prime uh our prime minister. Uh there we go. That’s good. [To the reporters:] You guys, I’m sorry about but but let let let uh uh mmm uh let me uh uh uuuuhhh make sure that I answer a specific question...."
We see the rain failing on his dark suit, and maybe we think about how, yes, that's the White House in back of him and he does have his closets in there, full of suits... empty suits... skeletons in the uh uh uh... But he cares about Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who came all the way from Turkey, probably not to hear Obama grilled with uh uh uh specific questions. He's probably got another suit or 2 in his uh uh suitcase. Heh ha... suitcase... suits in suitcases... it's like gloves in the glove compartment... do you put gloves in the glove compartment... heh heh... Who puts gloves in the glove compartment? I mean... really... Gloves in the glove compartment! What an idea, am I right? Come on! That's funny,  people, come on, but but let let let uh uh mmm uh let me uh uh uuuuhhh make sure that I answer a specific question....

There's something so sad about that picture. The gloved Marine answering the call of duty from the Commander in Chief, performing the duty with crisp precision, even as Obama's outstretched hand adjusted his elbow position, even as he knows it violates Marine Corps uniform regulation for a male Marine to carry an umbrella. I know that regulation from reading the WaPo's #1 most popular article. The same rule applies in all branches of the military, and always only for males, not for females:
An attempt to change the policy in the 1990s failed, with some suggesting that there was something effeminate about umbrellas.

“They seem to be very nervous what constitutes unmanly behavior,” said Cynthia Enloe, a professor at Clark University who researched military uniform codes in the book “Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives.” 
Isn't it unmanly to be very nervous, especially about being unmanly? But who were these "some" who suggested carrying an umbrella is "effeminate"? And who were these "irked conservatives"? WaPo only cites an email from the conservative Move America Forward PAC, but that's not so much expressing irritation at misuse of the Marines for umbrella duty as it is using that umbrella-holding duty as a symbol of the failure to act during the Benghazi attack. The email read — we're told — "Rain: 'Hold My Umbrella.' Benghazi: 'Stand Down.'"

If umbrella-holding conveys a message of unmanliness, it is a vivid image of impotence. It's a symbol.

229 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229
Synova said...

"Synova--re your point. Recall Secretary Albrights's quip "what good does it do to have the best military in the world if we don't use it.""

Or Obama's women talking him into involvement in Libya.

And no end to drones.

I was in the Air Force and this notion that somehow killing people without getting our hands dirty is not-war just pisses me off. Young men and women are asked to kill like it's just... nothing.

Clinton in Bosnia... oh, we'll just BOMB them... like that's moral or something.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Roger J. said...
You clearly do not understand what the military is all about.


I wouldn't argue with this, but it is true of the vast majority of US citizens of all political stripes.

I also think much of the behavior towards veterans in the post-Vietnam war was indefensible. It was a very polarized time, one result of which is the constant questioning of the patriotism of those who are skeptical of our collective over-enthusiasm for military engagement.

sakredkow said...

I think it was during the Republican foreign policy debates they were all asked about their opinion on Iran. To a man, except maybe Huntsman and perhaps one other, they were all extremely critical of Obama on Iran and promised an even tougher stance. They completely failed to convince me their "tougher" stances, whatever new sanctions or attacks they were envisioning, were going to help the Iranian people or successfully deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions. They sounded to me like all talk without any real understanding or appreciation for the reality on the ground.

And I think the situation is similar with North Korea. I think Obama does appreciate the very difficult situation we are in regard to both NK and Iran. He appears measured, thoughtful, and a far cry from an "American exceptionalist" who wants to use brute force to fix these problems.

In short, I believe there would be less chance of a blunder with Obama than the Repub candidates.

Nobody can prove that of course, and Obama is perfectly capable of blundering in those situations no doubt. It's my belief where the odds lie though.

Cedarford said...

Roger J and Allen S -

Before, during, and after the Gulf War wrapped, I 'had' to attend some speeches.

One thread to those speeches was that the military we had was in large part based on people that had been through the Vietnam cauldron...and learned from it and reshaped the military, military strategy from it. Those people were Vietnam vets, and many senior officers and enlisteds still were evident with S Vietnam service ribbons in my day. And those speeches after the war ended credited leadership that got their start in the Vietnam Era, officer and enlisted alike, with being a key factor in quick and low casualty victory.

People in the military after your day would not have done so well without building on you guy's experience and the fixes of Vietnam Era vets who stayed in. Many who stayed in with a goal to get things better by lessons learned and convincing others to adapt from those lessons learned.

I developed further gratitude from learning of that role and influence of Vietnam Vets in making a better military and soldier. And from my own job in the AF seeing what enhancements had come to technical recon resources and analysis derived from people that understood the shortcomings of the field in Vietnam.

And people who go into the history of the almost half a century ago Vietnam Era will, like me, be impressed with how well America and American soldiers did many things back then, without taking later improvements into account.

The political problems attendent with the Vietnam Era should never have been allowed to diminish and disparaged the soldiers who did duty, and did their duty well. And later generations, if they truly knew what happened there, would say thankyou to Vets who served there, or their contemporaries that did duty just as honorable and meaningful to the nation elsewhere.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Cedarford said...
Well, you did call Bush and Cheney chickenhawks.


You are right. I remain very angry about the motivations of those who pushed so hard for the Iraq war. Like those locked into Vietnam era thinking, I should move on.

Synova said...

That's beautiful Cedarford. I'd add to Allen and Roger a "what he said."

Anonymous said...

ARM: If you are so concerned for our military, you might ask them what party they prefer. You will find that they vote reliably for Republicans. Obama got only 44% of the military vote in 2012.

Some say that's why military absentee votes somehow got lost in the shuffle in 2008 and 2012.

Then there were those hard-hitting ads by former Special Forces against Obama. In one the ex-members expressed their concern that the leaks about Bin Laden during the Obama campaign would get future troops killed. In another an ex-SEAL estimated that 95% or more of the SEALS he knew were against Obama.

Yet you have the audacity to go after conservatives on the chickenhawk canard. There are legitimate reasons to consider your motives to be hypocritical.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Synova said...
"Interesting that your concept of 'support' is strictly within a framework of helping the poor little victimized soldiers."

This is what gets me. We're supposed to be *grateful* to be condescended to. Poor little victims that we are.


Sorry, but that is not my attitude. People are responsible for their own decisions, good and bad. I think the country has a particular responsibility to care for veterans injured in combat. I don't view recognition of that responsibility as condescending but a moral obligation. Nor do I view a lack of enthusiasm for more war an attitude that is any way inherently disrespectful of the contribution of active or retired military personnel.

Baron Zemo said...

Phx squealed........
In short, I believe there would be less chance of a blunder with Obama than the Repub candidates.

What?

The Obama of Benghazi?
The Obama of the constant use of drones to rile up the Middle East?
The Obama who facilitated the radical take over by the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and Libya?
The one who let our ambassador get dragged through the streets while he went off to bed?

That Obama?

Are you drunk man?

Baron Zemo said...

I thought Barack translated as "blunder" in Arabic or something?

The dude isn't even smart enough to come out of the rain.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

creeley23 said...
ARM: If you are so concerned for our military, you might ask them what party they prefer. You will find that they vote reliably for Republicans. Obama got only 44% of the military vote in 2012.


Well, first, 44% is a lot, and second, the Democrats in the army trend young and poor and tend not to vote so this is an underestimate.

I don't think any aspect of the military should be politicized. There are legitimate debates about when, where and how military force should be used but these debates should not create polarized views about the people who serve in the military. The left has to take some responsibility here, but there is enough fault to go around.

Synova said...

"Nor do I view a lack of enthusiasm for more war an attitude that is any way inherently disrespectful of the contribution of active or retired military personnel."

No. It comes from viewing what the other side thinks as "enthusiasm for more war." I mean really, how stupid is that? Sure, yes, people can disagree about what we should have done after 9-11, if we should have even engaged in Afghanistan or if we should ever have engaged in Iraq. But this notion that Bush or anyone else who thinks that it was the right decision did so because they have a hard-on for war is a political lie that you should know better than to buy into.

sinz52 said...

AReasonableMan said:

"The reality is that many on the left feel that the military has been abused by chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney and see it as their responsibility to ensure that veterans get the best care "

Because you treat the soldier as a victim rather than as a hero.

You feel sorry for him.
You don't admire how he earns his pay.

Aridog said...

Cedarford...you have found convert in me today with your series of elegant comments, including honoring all of those who serve. As you worded it today, I think I understand what you believe about the military. Thank you for that...and no, you did not once scare quote the word we've been at odds over in the past. Your real views seem more in accord with mine, and Roger J, Poppa India, and AllenS than I'd calculated. My mistake.

I have not forgotten what I promised a few days ago about donating between $100 and $500 to a charity of you choice for ceasing the scare quote bit.

Tell me now what your choice of charity is and the amount. Your choice. If I don't hear from you here or by email by tomorrow morning, I will make a $500 donation to a veterans organization that some here will recognize:

173d Herd Foundation Wounded Warrior Fund
173d ABN BDE ASSN Foundation
PO Box 990
Flatwoods, KY 41139

Synova said...

"The reality is that many on the left feel that the military has been abused by chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney and see it as their responsibility to ensure that veterans get the best care "

"Because you treat the soldier as a victim rather than as a hero."

I should probably let it go but this is a good illustration and maybe it will make sense and I'll try to maintain a light touch.

Veterans don't deserve the best care *because* they were victims of Bush and Cheney, and yet that is what the first statement says. Nor does voting money for veterans prove that those who chose military service are admired rather than despised.

(Murtha was an excellent example of that, he'd vote the money but wouldn't defend the honor of those who served, presenting our men to the press as damaged people walking the knife edge of atrocity while using his own service to treble the weight of his slander - which is something I won't forgive him for, nor forget.)

Paco Wové said...

"Sorry, but that is not my attitude."

Ok, my misunderstanding. However, I think my interpretation of what you said – "many on the left feel that the military has been abused by chickenhawks ... and see it as their responsibility to ensure that veterans get the best care" – fits well into the "babies or baby killers" narrative that the left has frequently told about the U.S. military. Soldiers are either unfortunate souls who wind up in the military through sheer bad luck (e.g.) or depraved monsters (e.g., Abu Ghraib).

Jake said...

A lot of people in the military are seething about this. It was perceived as a direct slap in the face. It recalls Clinton's WH staff directing military members in uniform to serve platters of food and drinks at a White House function - which, along with some other slaps, poisoned military/White House relations for years.


I'm outraged! Outraged, I'll tell ya! And seeeeeeeething!

http://imgur.com/Dfa36UR

Cedarford said...

AReasonableMan said...
Cedarford said...
Well, you did call Bush and Cheney chickenhawks.

You are right. I remain very angry about the motivations of those who pushed so hard for the Iraq war. Like those locked into Vietnam era thinking, I should move on.

=================
That's fine, ARM.
You are hardly alone in anger over the Iraq fiasco or the "eternal war to bring the Noble Afghanis their freedom, democracy, and equal rights for women".

Just that those in the middle, and many traditional real conservatives (as opposed to the neocon wing of the Republican Party) - see different reasons to be angry.



Rusty said...

phx said...
I don't trust Democrats because they are so willing to use the military.

I trust Obama with North Korea. I can't think of any Republicans I would trust as well right now.

What, exactly , has he done?

Anonymous said...

Obama got only 44% of the military vote in 2012.

Well, first, 44% is a lot...


ARM: No, 44% is not a lot, not if it is your side that so clearly has the best interests of the military at heart.

Who would know best but members of the military themselves?

Yet a decisive majority of the military voted against Obama even though the population as a whole went for Obama, even with the realities of war in Iraq and Afghanistan fresh on their minds.

It's the same thing with the Iraqis who consistently supported the Iraq War in polls in spite of the suffering it caused.

I'm quite fed up with the moral preening of liberals who imagine they occupy the moral high ground in caring for various people, but can't be bothered to check what those groups consider their interests.

Anonymous said...

I don't think any aspect of the military should be politicized.

ARM: Then stop doing it.

Cedarford said...

Aridog - I missed the past offer. I respectfully decline and say you can donate to whoever you think would be best.

As for "heroes", perhaps you know where I am coming from. It is a historical and political pattern where not just militarists like the WWI Germans systematically applied hero-hood right down to Hero Wardog's canned dogfood and Heroic Whores reserving themselves only for the Heroes in Hero-Only Bordellos..(or the Japanese expected to bow deep to anyone wearing a uniform for centuries)....But used by the Left to enshrine whole cadres of workers or politicians as "heroes". All Communist party leaders were heroes unless the people had to stop adoring them because other apparachniks had them shot.
"community" organizers wanting mo' free stuff from other's wallets, all Teachers, all 'caring and nurturing social workers", all Stakhovinites at Soviet shoe factory #8 - all heroes.

And many conservatives have become worshipers of all things co por firefighter or TSA - because they have been indoctrinated all are "heroes".

To my mind, farmers, dentists and cashiers at the stores are just as important in society as EMTs, cops, Obama pals running around inner cities wanting mo' stuff and thinking themselves Heroes.

To my mind, while I admire people in various professions, even simple low skill jobs if you see they are committed to excellence in that menial job...and various jobs like soldiering, farming, mining, linemen, and logging and heavy construction and such that come with risk to life or health..

Many people say their mother is their hero..or any "role model" in their lives..
Many people say that anyone who "survived Katrina" is a hero.
Many say that simply stepping on a mine or stopping a bullet or calling 911 to report a fire - transforms that person into a Hero.

They are not heroes in my view.

Hero should be reserved only for someone of extraordinary accomplishment and/or bravery. Not whole cadres of people. Not victims.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Paco Wové said...
Ok, my misunderstanding. However, I think my interpretation – fits well into the "babies or baby killers" narrative that the left has frequently told about the U.S. military. Soldiers are either unfortunate souls who wind up in the military through sheer bad luck or depraved monsters (e.g., Abu Ghraib).


I think I understand this particular source of frustration and in general Kerry is a good example although the link you provided only shows he is stupid.

I think there is a middle ground. The majority of people who are injured or killed in combat are young and they don't have a lot of political clout. We have an unusual responsibility to those people.

On the other hand there are many people who make a lot of money out of war and whose careers benefit from more war. Collectively they have a lot of political influence.

As a country, when we decide to go to war, we should make every effort to take full account of the effects of that decision on the first group and an equal effort to minimize the influence of the second.

Aridog said...

Cedarford ... I understand what you mean, now...your elegance today made the difference.

My donation will go to the organization I cited, which is a particular unit's veteran supported portion of Wounded Warrior Project. As one person on this board knows, I once had reservations due to my cynicism...which have all been resolved by researching their actual deeds.

I'm glad you left it up to me. Thanks. I'm further glad you said it all in a way I could understand. I realize that many folks overuse the term, and the best cure for that malady is to not use it and abuse it ourselves.

chickelit said...

@ARM: Your last comment sounded reasonable.

wwww said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael McNeil said...

That's beautiful Cedarford. I'd add to Allen and Roger a “what he said.”

Cedarford has been good in this discussion, but so have you, Synova.

Rusty said...

Aridog said...
Cedarford ... I understand what you mean, now...your elegance today made the difference.

I hate it when he gets all classy;-)

Aridog said...

Cedarford ... donation as promised Copy may have lost some detail, but it is for $500 payable to:

173d Herd Foundation Wounded Warrior Fund
173d ABN BDE ASSN Foundation
PO Box 990
Flatwoods, KY 41139

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229   Newer› Newest»