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.
No comments:
Post a Comment