I’ve decided to put myself out on a limb and make some predictions about what’s likely to happen after President Obama leaves office.

First, I think he will be a one-term president.

Second, after he leaves office he will not be able to keep his mouth shut about the policies and actions of his successor, whoever it is, Democrat or Republican. He does not have the class to leave the stage to the next man (or woman). And if the next president is a Republican, Obama will simply not be able to contain himself.

Obama is the only president I can recall who directly attacked specific media outlets, such as Fox News, and there is little doubt that he will continue to do so from the seemingly unassailable perch of a “former president.”

Based on Obama’s performance to date, it appears that a great many fixes will be necessary to right America’s ship of state after he leaves office. The obvious premise of this commentary is that many of the actions taken by his administration are bad for America and the next president will see the need to change, correct or just plain reverse them when Obama is no longer in charge. Consider the following, among many others (in no particular order):

Foreign Policy: Israel, Iran, China and Russia. The United States will have been put into a position of strategic weakness by Obama’s policies that will probably linger for some time to come. We are already seeing adverse consequences in the conduct of North Korea, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Russia, among others. The recent incident in Israel of the attempt to break the blockade of arms intended for Hamas in Gaza is a glaring example. The primary reason for the increased strength of America’s enemies has been the weakness demonstrated by Obama and his administration. Without him in control, that will probably be changed. Unfortunately, Iran will have “the bomb” by then and it will be increasingly difficult to counter their aggressive meddling in the Middle East. And, if they attack Israel, all bets will be off.

Health Care: Recent polls indicate that over 60% of the public now favor repealing Obamacare. That can’t happen while he is still in office, even if the Republicans regain control of Congress in November, unless they win a veto proof majority. Unfortunately, however, chances are that won’t happen after he is out of office either, because the new bureaucratic structure created by the president’s health care bill will have been put in place and will probably be too difficult to completely reverse or eliminate.

The Courts: Obama has consistently appointed liberal judges to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Given the young ages of his appointees, we will probably be forced to live with his choices of liberals for an entire generation. But, perhaps of greater importance are his appointments to the federal judiciary in general, where dozens of lifetime appointments of liberal judges have also been made to lower courts.

The War on Terror: Whether Obama’s successor is a Republican or perhaps a more conservative Democrat, America’s response to terrorists will likely be more aggressive and the term “terrorist” will be probably be restored to common parlance to describe the nature of the struggle.

Homeland Security: After Obama and Janet Napolitano depart the scene, if the next president is a Republican, we are likely to see a stronger policy for protecting our borders. 60% of Americans in general and over 70% of Arizona residents support the state’s recent bill regarding illegal immigrants. However, passing comprehensive immigration reform is likely to continue to elude Congress and the next administration for some time to come.

Guantanamo Bay and Enemy Combatants: If Obama has not closed Guantanamo by the time he leaves office, it may not be closed at all. He has been unable to implement his decision to close the facility and, at this point, many if not all the remaining prisoners will be hard core terrorists that other countries will probably not be willing to accept. The new administration will likely proceed to try them in military tribunals, and those who are not acquitted or executed will be imprisoned for life in federal facilities.

Expansion of Government: Obama’s intrusion into the free market has been unprecedented. In spite of having taken control of the banking industry, General Motors, Chrysler, and AIG, along with much of the health care industry (by virtue of Obamacare), I believe much of the president’s quasi-nationalization of industry will be reversed.

Energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear): If the next administration is Republican, look for some loosening of restrictions on the development of all sources of energy, including oil, in spite of the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Politically Correct Policies: Political correctness will continue to hamstring our society for many years to come and will probably not be changed to any great degree by the next administration, Republican or Democrat.

Taxes: A Republican administration will cut taxes, although not as much as many people would like, and the tax cuts are likely to be targeted to stimulate economic growth, rather than straight across-the-board reductions in rates. If a Democrat succeeds Obama in office, a VAT tax will probably be adopted.

Deficit Spending: A Republican administration will not necessarily curtail the out-of-control spending that has been the hallmark of Obama’s program, but the chances for some reductions in spending will be better.

Inflation: Due to the cumulative excessive spending of prior administrations plus the out-of-control spending of the current administration, there will be a continued risk of high rates of inflation for a number of years, regardless of which party gains control of Congress and the White House.

Just for fun, you might try making some of your own predictions.

© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

Are we fighting a war or not? Sometimes I wonder. Wars are generally all-out efforts to kill the enemy and destroy their ability to fight. The goal is to win, and to do that it’s necessary to kill people and break things.

However, there are some rules, although not everyone observes them. The most widely accepted are The Geneva Conventions, which Wikipedia describes as follows:

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty. The language is extensive, with articles defining the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict, establishing protections for the wounded, and addressing protections for civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Unfortunately, as terrorism has appeared on the scene, the generally accepted standards of The Geneva Conventions have fallen by the wayside. Terrorist combatants wear no uniforms, represent no specific nation and observe no rules, including attacking and killing women and children, even those in their own societies.

Furthermore, the forces of Political Correctness have influenced our military mindset to the point that the United States has exceeded the basic standards of The Geneva Conventions by imposing extraordinary Rules of Engagement (ROE) on our military, which can jeopardize their safety in combat zones.

Based on individual soldier accounts, WorldNetDaily reports that current ROE restrictions include:

• No night of surprise searches.
• Villagers are to be warned prior to searches.
• Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police must accompany U.S. units or searches.
• U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first.
• U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present.
• Only women can search women.
• Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if they walk away from where the explosives are.

In addition, the ROE often require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken.

One company commander has been quoted as saying, “We can’t do anything if we don’t have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police]… We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules…Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It’s not easy for anyone out here.”

Imposing restrictive ROE’s is not just some theoretical exercise in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans, that they have caused the loss of life is well documented. For example, in one case, four U.S. Marines (fighting in Kunar Province) twice radioed for artillery support during a combat action, which was refused. As a result, they were killed. Who knows why those in command would not or could not give their authorization?

So, while we are supposed to fight with one hand tied behind our backs by observing PC Rules of Engagement, our enemies are free to engage in the most heinous actions, torturing and beheading people, hiding among the local population, using them as shields, committing the most violent acts against both our military forces and civilians alike.

Under the circumstances, my conclusion is that we should be less concerned about the constraints of The Geneva Conventions than taking the fight to the terrorists without hesitation. The idea that we can fight a war in which we hamstring our military because of some PC notion that we are morally superior to our enemies is counterproductive. My sense is that they also believe they are better than their enemy, us, which permits them to win by any means possible, no matter how despicable.

© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com