Last week, Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations, Mr. President. No joke… Congratulations. However, if I were awarding the prize, I might have chosen another such as Wei Jingsheng, Hu Jia, or Gao Zhisheng. The following is from The Epoch Times:
Chinese dissidents nominated include Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in a Chinese labour camp for encouraging reforms of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and democracy, environmental, and AIDS activist Hu Jia, who was sentenced to 3.5 years in jail last year for “subversive activities.”
Gao Zhisheng, a prominent human rights lawyer who was kidnapped and tortured after attempting to defend Falun Gong practitioners, was also among the nominees. Hu Jia and Gao Zhisheng were also nominated for the award last year. CCP officials expressed anger about these nominations last year.
On the other hand, I might have pulled a non sequitur a la the spirit of the 1982 Time Magazine “Person of the Year” (they nominated the PC). So, my choice might even have been NASA for their phenomenal (and peaceful) work with the ISS, Hubble, the moon, and Mars.
Anywho… My choice certainly wouldn’t have been Mr. Obama. (Do you realize that he was in 1600 less than two weeks when he was nominated?)
But there are a couple of dirty little facts that our progressive world chose not to look at during this Nobel Peace Prize selection process…
The first bit of awkwardness has to do with Barack’s support of the use of drones in Afghanistan and beyond. While the technology behind unmanned aircraft is plenty slick, it still ain’t as good as human eyes. And according to at least one expert, drones consume much more than their share of civilian carnage… The following is from an interview with David Kilcullen in the Financial Times. (Mr. Kilcullen was a key strategist behind the successful US surge in Iraq and a key adviser to General Petraeus.)
The strategist also warned that US drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas aimed at hitting al-Qaeda and Taliban figures were counter-productive. “They have an undeniable benefit, because we have disrupted AQ operations and damaged AQ cells in Pakistan. But they have a negative strategic effect in that they incite Punjabi militancy, which is the biggest problem in Pakistani right now.” Mr Kilcullen said the hit rate on drone attacks was “unacceptably low”.
He said the US had killed 14 mid-level or lower level al-Qaeda leaders since 2006 but the strikes had killed 700 civilians.
“That’s a hit rate of two per cent on 98 per cent collateral. It’s not moral.”
The second uncomfortable bit of Obama non-peace has to do with his quiet support for rendition – the process of sending terrorists to counties who use interrogation techniques that are just a smidge more severe than ours. Oh, he assures us that his diplomatic oversight will assure that no human rights will be violated… Uh huh. If I’m a terrorist, I’d be thinking Gitmo looks pretty good.
Look, don’t get me wrong. I’m a conservative, and I applaud the president for supporting both hoary policies. It is a hoary world. It just seems a bit disingenuous on the liberal side to ignore these policies.
But it doesn’t matter. The world loves Barack, and he’s got a nice shiny new medal. The Left will point to the award and crow proof that he’s the man of peace and change we all wanted and needed. Besides, it’s another way to dis Dubya.