Last Friday, FoxNews’s Special Report with Brett Baier asked viewers which scandal is more damaging to the Obama administration, Solyndra, LightSquared or Fast & Furious.  You no doubt recall that Solyndra involves the reckless waste of taxpayer money; LightSquared involves the coercing of Congressional witnesses for financial gain; and Fast & Furious is the Obama’s misguided attempt to argue for more gun control track gun runners by selling them guns and giving them get out of jail free cards.

So the question is, (to FoxNews viewers) which is more believable about Obama: wasteful spending; corruption or lax and incompetent criminal justice policies.  The results were:  71% said Solyndra; 23% said Fast & Furious and only 6% said LightSquared.  The take home point here, is that Fox viewers believe Obama can be wasteful and even incompetent, but corrupt doesn’t ring as true.

To me, this is surprising, given the Chicago political swamp in which Obama rose.  To be fair (to the Fox viewers), LightSquared only broke on Friday, and may not have resonated with them yet.  With the recent allegations of a misogynistic atmosphere in the White House, it would be fascinating to see which of these scandals resonate most with voters.  In any event, Allan Lichtman may need to revisit his Key to the White House prediction.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

At the time, the Spanish empire was crumbling and the United States had just purchased its newest territory, Florida.  Adams was arguing that America should not be involved in the wars for independence, and should instead remain a passive example of hope and democracy.  In the almost 200 years that have passed since Adams’s speech to Congress, a lot has changed.

It is true that stomping around the world, looking for monsters can draw unwanted attention, and can even create new monsters.  One could argue that al Qaeda would not have attacked the United States, had we not kept a base in Saudi Arabia.  Osama bin Laden’s 1996 and 1998 fatwas certainly support that view.  But leaving Saudi Arabia alone in the 1990′s would have meant empowering Saddam Hussein, the only leader ever to order the use of nerve gas.

Just as leaving England would have meant allowing Adolf Hitler to grow in power, or leaving Germany would have strengthened the Soviets and leaving Japan would have meant ceding the Pacific to China; allowing despots and dictators to grow to regional powers allows the monster to feed, to fester and to search abroad to satisfy its power lust.  Our strength does not feed tyrants–our weakness does. “None of the four wars in [the twentieth century] came about because we were too strong. It’s weakness that invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken judgments.”

An environment that allows despots and tyrants free reign over their people or a region may have be tolerable when oceans served as moats, and men flew only in poetry.  Today’s monsters may still live abroad, but their reach has grown.

In 1821, the force required to raze a city would have been carried by ships–plural.

Only two years before Adams made his remarks, the first steamship to cross the Atlantic did so in 18 days.  Today, you can fly from LA to Singapore in 18 hours.  Correspondence that once was done by letters delivered on horseback, by train, by sail or steamboat, over the course of weeks or months, can now be done via satellite video conference in an instant.

Trips that would take a lifetime to plan and a fortune to finance can now be booked casually as a week-long holiday.  There is no place on Earth that cannot be reached from any other within 24 hours.  But the same technology that lets us relax in another hemisphere can also be used to kill thousands without warning on a clear, Tuesday morning.

In 1821, the force required to raze a city would have been carried by ships–plural.  It’s hard even for the federal government to miss an armada, and they don’t even have to grope coeds in the airport.  In 1821, Governments waged wars. Guerilla warfare was in its fledgling stages, and major conflicts were fought between standing armies.

Today, religious fanatics slaughter civilians indiscriminately.  One fanatic can kill hundreds. 19 fanatics can kill thousands.  The power to destroy a city can be carried in a suitcase, or in a plastic bag, wrapped in newspaper.  There are weapons that can wipe out entire cities in a blinding flash, infect millions with horrible disease or set an economy back for decades.   All that is needed is for one guard to miss a clue as the Ryder truck drives past; one TSA agent to be distracted; one metal detector to click when it should beep.

The monster may still walk abroad, but it can slip through our defenses without warning, act quickly, and leave nothing but tattered steel and broken bodies.  Do we trust our lives and our safety to our untrained citizens to see something and say something?  Do we rely on the TSA to succeed 100% of the time? Or do we ask SEAL Team 6, Army Rangers and the 10th Mountain Division to hunt the bastards down where they live?  I know who I trust more to get the job done.

To keep our lives and our liberty, rough men must slip into its cave at night and slit its beastly throat.

The first, and most important function of government is to protect its citizens from harm.  It is the primary purpose of the social contract–we join together to hold off the Hun.  In today’s world, protecting ourselves here, means slaying the monster abroad.  It cannot be allowed to grow, to breed, or to fester.  To keep our lives and our liberty, rough men must slip into its cave at night and slit its beastly throat.

Isolationism, whether out of economic conservatism or a laissez faire diplomacy, is institutional negligence.  If our government is to meet its primary responsibility, it must go abroad in search of monsters to slay.  To do otherwise is to invite the monster here–and it has no reservations about slaying us.

What America thinks of the debt talks in a word cloud.

Obama’s FedEx moment is turning out to be ordering the SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden.  Obama is out singing his praises, noting how risky it was to send in the SEALs.  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that it was the right call, and I have the highest regard for our special forces operators.

But, as President, was that really a gutsy call?  What really is the risk here?  Obviously, the other option was an aerial attack, either by stealth or predator.

So, let’s list out the pros and cons of each:

Aerial Attack

Pros:

• Quick, not much planning.
• Little or no risk of American servicemen being captured.

Cons:

• Little, if any certainty of Osama’s death.
• Collateral damage.
• The “Asprin Factory” risk of getting it wrong.
• Little to no chance of getting additional intel from the house.
• Pakistan gets its panties in a bunch over the breach of its sovereignty.

SEAL Team 6

Pros:

• Certainty of getting Osama (or knowing that you didn’t).
• High likelihood of gathering additional intel.
• Little or no risk of collateral damage.
• No Aspirin Factory Risk.

Cons:

• Low, but non-zero risk of casualties.
• Pakistan gets its panties in a bunch over the breach of its sovereignty.

So, either way, the Pakistanis would be upset, but sending in the SEALs meant certainty of getting the objective and little collateral damage, if any.  Of course, sending men into battle is not a decision to take lightly, but making the choice between (1) sending in the most ruthlessly efficient, highly trained and competent commandos; (2) lobbing in bombs from 30,000 feet or (3) letting the world’s worst terrorist slip through our grasp again–how is this a tough call?  Why does it take 16 hours to make this call?