Obama-Unfit For Command?

"It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on."-Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Obama and the Democrats in Command

In the event that Senator Obama wins the presidential election he will become Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. What are Obama's qualifications for command? What is his record in regard to military operations? Will Senator Obama be an effective leader of our military?

Qualifications for Command

By U. S. law, the commander in chief's sole qualification is that he or she is elected to the presidency. So in this sense, if Obama wins then he is qualified. The real question is whether he should be elected based on his education, experience, and policy statements.

"There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:

2-By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army." Sun Tzu, Art of War

Unlike all of our presidents since World War 2,except Bill Clinton, Senator Obama has never served in the military. Like Bill Clinton, Obama has admitted to drug use (cocaine) though unlike Clinton he has not made the disingenuous claim of not inhailing.

Military leaders undergo rigorous education and training which Senator Obama has never experienced. In the Army, an officer will complete Officer's Basic and Advanced courses, Command and General Staff College (1 year), and the Army War College (ten months earning a Master's Degree) prior to consideration for promotion to general. Senator Obama has not had the benefit of any of this education. In the absence of his election to president, Obama would not be qualified to command a platoon.

Obama and the War on Terror

Senator Obama and Senator Biden both represent the anti-war left wing of the political spectrum. All Americans would probably agree that war is bad and that war should be avoided if at all possible. There are however circumstances that may justify war. The questions that must be asked are: Is the War on Terror justified? Was the invasion of Iraq justified? Do Senator Obama's policy statements give reason to believe that he will lead us to victory?

The War on Terror is a defensive war fought in response to the unprovoked destruction of the World Trade Centers in New York City. As such, the War on Terror is just. The War on Terror has been effective as proven by the fact that there have been no further successful attacks on the U.S. The fact is that the enemy, Al Qaida, has sought to bring down Western civilization, spread Islam, and establish an Islamic Caliphate. Standing by and doing nothing in response to 9/11 was not an option.

The invasion of Iraq was justified as part of the War on Terror. Iraq had been on the list of State Sponsors of Terror maintained by the U. S. State Department since 1990 for hosting at least four separate terror organizations. In addition, Iraq had made war against its own people including the use of chemical weapons (a recognized form of weapons of mass destruction). Iraq had previously been attacked at least twice under the Clinton administration (Operation Desert Strike 1996 and Operation Desert Fox 1998). Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq was approved by the U.S. Congress. It is important to recall that 297 Representatives (including 82 Democrats) and 77 Senators (including 27 Democrats) voted in favor of the Invasion of Iraq.

In October 2002 Obama was addressing anti-war rallies in opposition to the just (bipartisan- approved) war. With a track record of opposing just, defensive war, can we have any confidence that Obama will effectively defend us?

As with all wars mistakes were made in the prosecution of the war. The resolution and plans of the enemy were underestimated. This is far from a unique occurance in U. S. history. Recall Pearl Harbor, the initial days of the Battle of the Bulge, the Chinese intervention in Korea, and the Tet Offensive for similar examples.

"He who can modify his tactics in relationship to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning may be called a heaven born captain". Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

The reinforcement and combat operations of 2007, now known as The Surge, have dramatically improved conditions on the ground in Iraq. Senator Obama steadfastly opposed The Surge, instead advocating a "strategy" of withdrawal (i.e. surrender) on a fixed timetable. Obama has in fact never had a strategy for victory. He would rather cut and run. It is unclear why this is so. It is tempting to speculate that Obama is selling out the interests of the country in an attempt to pander to his anti-war core constituency. What is clear is that if Obama had his way there would have been no surge, no chance for victory, and today there would be more violence and civilian deaths in Iraq.

In an effort to appear tough on terror Obama advocates committing more forces to Afghanistan. Is this feasible? Would it help? The fact is that Afghanistan is a different campaign. The logistics of supplying more forces are a nightmare as any supplies must be flown in or shipped to Pakistan and then trucked in. Whether more forces are necessary or beneficial is open to question given the tribalism, corruption, and heroin based economy as well as Pakistan's lukewarm support.

It is hard to believe that Obama will be an effective leader of the troops when he accuses them on "aerating Afghan villages and killing civilians". I wouldn't want to serve under such a man.

Obama and Foreign Policy-Jimmy Carter redux?

"Society is produced by our wants and government by wickedness...government even in its best state is but a necessary evil."-Thomas Paine

Foreign Policy

If Senator Barack Obama is elected president he will assume control over the foreign policy of the United States. Senator Obama has no foreign policy experience so he will have to rely on the advice of members of the Democratic Party. What lessons can we draw from the performance of past Democratic administrations?

Kennedy

While he is remembered for his moving words in Berlin, we tend to forget that Kennedy's foreign policy was marked by major failures. Soon after taking office Kennedy presided over the Bay of Pigs debacle in Cuba. Later, Kennedy stood eye to eye with the Russians in the Cuban Missile Crisis. While we tend to think of this as a success for America, the fact is that the end result was a hostile Cuba supported by the Soviet Union located in our very backyard. Does anyone recall the Monroe Doctrine? And often forgotten is the fact that Kennedy committed significant resources to Vietnam setting the stage for that painful episode in American history.

Johnson

Can anyone remember anything good about LBJ's foreign policy? The Johnson years were dominated by the Vietnam War. Indeed the Vietnam War is axiomatic for everything that can be done wrong by a government in a time of war-underestimating the enemy, misleading our own population, micromanaging the professional military, non-sensical rules of engagement that effectively "tied one arm behind our back". In fact Johnson's foreign policy was such a disaster that Johnson refused to run for a second term.

Carter

Remember the "Rose Garden" strategy where Jimmy Carter wouldn't leave the White House until the Iran hostages came home? Carter followed a naive and poorly thought out policy of confronting friend and foe alike over human rights. The net result was to undermine our allies. Carter's administration misread the risks in Iran with the resulting revolution and foundation of a terrorist-supporting islamic republic. To this day we are reaping the rewards of Carter's unfortunate foreign policy.

Clinton

On the surface Clinton doesn't appear to be quite as much of a disaster as his Democratic predecessors. But wait! Clinton involved us in the conflict in Kosovo where we maintain troops to this day. Clinton cut and ran from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident, thereby dooming that miserable land to chaos and misery as well as ensuring that the lives lost by the brave Rangers were in fact wasted. And most importantly, Clinton failed to seize the opportunity to capture or Kill Bin Laden when we had the opportunity.

Obama?

Will Obama break the pattern or will he be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with his inept Democratic breathren? Time will tell but the signs don't look promising. Obama has already stated he would meet with anti-American foreign leaders such as Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Yet he gives us no clues as to what he would say to them. He has accused our airmen and soldiers of "aerating Afghan villages" and killing civilians thus undermining the very men and women he would lead with his own words. And Obama's "strategy" for Iraq is to oppose what works (e.g. The Surge) and follow Clinton's Somali example of "cut and run".

A Call For Common Sense

"I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense"-Thomas Paine

The arguments against Senator Barack Obama fall into four broad categories: Financial, Character, Leadership, and Media.

Financial

Senator Obama repeatedly claims that he will lower taxes for 95% of working Americans. In fact, 30-40% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Obama's plan envisions sending a check to those who don't pay taxes. The end result is to punish those who are successful by raising taxes and to reward those who are less successful by giving them money.

Think about your children. Would you take away from the allowance of a child who brought home a report card with straight A's to give extra money to a child with C's and D's? This is what Obama is proposing.

In my urban medical practice there are many patients who don't work but waste their resources on cigarettes, alcohol, and cocaine. Sending these people a check will merely subsidize these harmful behaviors.

Senator Obama has proposed raising capital gains taxes and criticized his opponent for wanting to lower corporate taxes. The net result will be to discourage investment by individuals as well as to drive corporations to lower tax environments in other countries (i.e. promote outsourcing). Increasing social security taxes as planned will raise costs for employers as well as raising taxes for employees who make over $100,000 a year. Note that Obama's claim not to raise taxes for people making less than $250,000 per year ignores his plan to extend social security taxes beyond the current cap.

Senator Obama's plan will create entitlements and a dependency on the government that will never go away. In the book "The Millionaire Next Door" the authors argued that one of the biggest drags on wealth accumulation was dependent adult children. Likewise, the creation of dependent citizens will be a drag on the growth of the economy. The meltdown of the mortgage and financial industries is as much a result of Democratic policies as it is the result of Republican policies (see the link at the end of this essay).

" If you give a hungry man a fish he will be hungry the next day. If you teach a hungry man how to fish he will never again be hungry."

Character

A man is known by the company he keeps. The company Senator Obama has kept over the years has included his spiritual mentor Black Liberation theologian Jeremiah Wright, admitted terrorist Bill Ayers, and convicted felon financier Tony Rezko. In addition as an attorney Senator Obama has represented ACORN which is being investigated for voter fraud in 14 states.

Reverend Wright's hate-filled sermons are well known. The question is when did Senator Obama know about them and was Senator Obama infected by Wright's vitriol? That Obama heard at least some of Wright's sermons is proven by the fact that the title of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" was inspired by a Wright sermon. The fact that Obama knew Wright to be controversial is proven by Obama's decision to dis-invite Wirght to deliver the invocation at the announcement of Obama's presidential campaign. Inspite of the dis-invitation, Senator Obama still prayed with Wright at the announcement of the campaign (allbeit in the basement!) which proves that Wright's participation and approval were still important to Obama.

In 1984 Senator Obama's future spiritual mentor Wright traveled to Libya with anti-semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to meet COL Qaddaffi.

Senator Obama's relationship with former Weather Underground Terrorist Bill Ayers was more than casual. In 1995 An event was held at Ayers house that helped to launch Senator Obama's first political campaign. Obama's only executive experience was working for Ayers group distributing grant money from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. From 2000-2002 Ayers and Obama served together on the board of the Woods Fund.

Senator Obama has an association with convicted felon Tony Rezko. Rezko made the first ever political contribution to Obama in 1995. In 2003 Rezko was on Obama's US Senate campaign finance committee. Obama's various campaigns have received over $250,000 form Rezko's organizations. And Obama's house was purchased in a somewhat questionable deal with Rezko's wife.

Senator Obama has ties to ACORN. He represented ACORN as an attorney. His campaign has contributed to ACORN. ACORN employees have previously been convicted of vote fraud. ACORN is currently under investigation for voter fraud on 14 states.

Leadership

Senator Obama has no experience whatsoever in the military. It is hard to imagine someone who is less qualified to be the Commander in Chief.

Senator Obama has virtually no executive experience. Obama's leadership abilities are totally unknown as he has never actually had to lead anything.

Senator Obama has no foreign policy experience. He has naively proclaimed his willingness to talk to adversaries without precondition.

If your son or daughter were serving in the military wouldn't you want the Commander in Chief to be qualified?

Media

The media coverage of this campaign has been severely biased. Examples include the unspoken agreement to avoid using Obama's middle name. The eagerness of interviewers to try and trip up Governor Palin was disgraceful. MSNBC's coverage has been so outrageous that two of their anchormen were shunted aside after the Democratic convention. And why hasn't Senator Obama's reference to "my muslim faith" during his interview with George Stephanopolos been played with the same intensity as Governor Palin's comments during the Katie Couric interview?

The real harm caused by the media bias is the failure to critically examine the shortcomings of Senator Obama. Imagine a white Senator, with a racist spiritual mentor, who had served on a board with and held a campaign event at the house of David Duke, and who had represented the KKK as an attorney. Needless to say the media coverage of such a character would be merciless. Why hasn't the media attention to Senator Obama been just as merciless?

Links

Regarding Bill Ayers:

www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1147
www.wikipedia.org search for Bill Ayers

Regarding Democratic policies that led to the financial crisis, New York Times article from 9/30/99:

www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1137

Regarding Obama's tax proposals see "Fleeced" by Dick Morris

www.dickmorris.com