If Hamlet were to be incarnated in the twenty first century,
and if he became President of the United States of America , his name
will have to be Bamlet, reckons Ralph Peters who is a strategic analyst at Fox
News and sometimes contributor to the New York Post.
This is why Peters came to write “China takes over the sea and
'Bamlet' dithers – again,” an article that was published on November 1, 2015 in
the NY Post. To illustrate his point, Peters came up with the metaphor of a
neighbor's house catching fire. Instead of calling the fire department which
you and everyone else would do, he says, “President Obama's approach is to
delay then attempt to negotiate with the blaze … If forced to act, he responds
to wildfires with a water pistol.”
The wildfire he is talking about is China constructing “seven artificial islands
atop reefs far from the mainland, in waters [South China
Sea ] on which other countries have claims.” These would be the Philippines , Vietnam ,
Malaysia , Brunei and Taiwan . Forced to act by the
repeated provocations, Obama's water pistol response has been to allow only one
US
Navy destroyer to enter the disputed waters – whines our esteemed author.
He says that freedom of navigation is what's at stake in
that part of the world; these being sea-lanes where a good chunk of the world
trade passes. And yet, the only motivation prompting President Obama to act was
the preservation of his trade agenda – he goes on to lament. But wait a minute;
hold it here, mister.
What was that again, Ralph Peters? You say that President
Obama is missing something because what is at stake in that part of the world
is freedom of navigation, then complain that he only thought of his trade
agenda? Who was it that taught you logic? Consider going to them and asking for
your money back.
Or it could be there is a hidden logic to the reasoning of
Ralph Peters we are missing. If so, it should show up in what else he says.
Here is one possible clue; after mentioning that the Chinese are solidly
entrenched on those islands, he opines this: “only military action could
dislodge them now.” But this will not be done he goes on to say, because Obama
is pursuing what he calls “strategic disarmament.” And Peters explains what
that is. He says it is: “the refusal to use military force in a timely,
effective manner.”
Apparently, he believes this would be a good time to have a
shooting war with China
but that Obama will not pursue such course of action. Well, it must be said
that Peters has a right to his beliefs but does he, at least, see why Obama
finds it reasonable to negotiate with China as long as the sea-lanes are
open, rather than start a war and risk closing them … thus disrupt world
commerce?
No. Peters doesn't see that because he is blinded by an
all-consuming vision. It is one which rests on the principle that it doesn't
matter having the finest military power in the world if it is not used by a
reluctant commander in chief. And here is the vision that consumes him: “The
greatest immorality isn't a strike on a dubious hospital used as a headquarters
by barbarian enemies. The greatest immorality is to lose.”
That being a reference to the bombing by the US Air Force of
the hospital that was run by 'Doctors without Borders,' you must wonder if the
barbarians are the foreign doctors and their Afghan patients – like says Ralph
Peters – or it is the armchair American warrior whose morality would shame even
a flesh-eating wild dog of the desert that's munching on a human corpse.
Not only would Peters bomb an enemy hospital or a neutral
one again and again, he let it be known he would retaliate against China 's cyberattacks; would have bombed Syria 's chemical installations; would have
occupied Libya , would now
arm the Ukrainians, and would not have negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran .
But that's what Obama has practiced or failed to practice,
says Ralph Peters, which is why he views Obama as being self-absorbed,
self-deluded, feckless and coward. This makes him the flesh and blood
manifestation of Shakespeare's character, Hamlet who has continually failed to
take action when action was required.