Well, I think a basic prerequisite for the Commander-In-Chief is to love your country, or at least its citizens. I believe it is arguable if Obama does either…..at the very least, he looks at his country as a failure and only he has the power to change it as he sees fit. He also has a great knack for running down citizens of this country (bitter gun-clingers, people who can’t use e-mail, suppression of speech that doesn’t agree with his,e tc)
But besides the basic instincts for the job….there are many others who see Obama’s naivety, his undermining the current administration, his inability to hear commanders on the ground, among other things as just a few of the reasons Obama is not cut out to be Commander-In-Chief.
First, a good ad from Move America Forward…pointing out how Obama says one thing to his left radical base, but doing something different behind the scenes….this is just Obama’s MO on most things. But in the case of his visit to Iraq, he said one thing in his Berlin speech and then, on the same trip, tried to convince the Iraqi government to do another, all while trying to undermine the current administration. I wrote about it here.
(H/T: The Jawa Report)
Second, Captain Pete Hegseth, and Iraq Army Veteran and National Guard member, says “Obama’s self-serving machinations in Iraq bespeak a candidate unfit to be commander-in-chief.”
You should read the entire piece by Hegseth, but here are excerpts to make the point:
It’s not just that Sen. Obama doesn’t believe in the mission in Iraq, it’s that he still doesn’t get it (to plagiarize from the senator himself). Fundamentally, he doesn’t understand the mission in Iraq, what it takes to win a war, or the ramifications of the outcome of this war for the U.S.’s enduring national security. He just doesn’t get it.
In Obama’s world, foreign-policy contorts to meet domestic politics, and commanding generals accommodate arbitrary political timelines. From his perspective, facts on a foreign battlefield exist to the extent they comport with his judgment, rather than his judgment comporting to facts on a foreign battlefield.
Despite recognizing security gains in Iraq, Sen. Obama continues to declare the surge a strategic failure because it hasn’t created necessary political progress — an assertion that has been patently false for some time now. Nonetheless, Senator Obama won’t adjust his stance before the election because, as Taheri so aptly points out, “to be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire.”
Surely Sen. Obama doesn’t want to lose in Iraq? No, he just believes winning or losing there doesn’t matter. Surely he doesn’t really believe our presence in Iraq to be “illegal”? No, he just doesn’t understand existing strategic agreements. And, as explained by Taheri, surely he doesn’t think we can withdrawal in 16 months? No he doesn’t, he just remains politically wedded to a discredited policy.
How else can you explain the actions of a senator who travels abroad and calls the commander-in-chief “weak,” and the war we are winning “illegal”? My sources tell me he made few friends among warriors and diplomats in Iraq; yet he wasn’t actually interested in hearing from them, only preaching to them. He really believes — as do many of his antiwar colleagues — that they know better than generals and Iraqi leaders. And he was hoping to have Iraq’s help in confirming that self-regard, in making him look like an expert. Alas, no longer.
and regarding Obama and the Democrats on playing politics with the war:
As a response to Lieberman-Graham, which has 33 co-sponsors as of this writing, Senate Democrats have proposed a counter-resolution (which is not yet posted, but has been reviewed by the author). As expected, Levin-Reed includes the familiar litany of reasons why the surge is a failure, why Iraqis haven’t reconciled, and why Afghanistan is the only war that matters.
Intended to be a resolution “recognizing the performance of the United States Armed Forces,” Levin-Reed quickly descends into a laundry list of problems in Iraq (financial cost, human toll, military strain) before launching into a rudimentary call for a new and “effective strategy” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
A new and effective strategy? Would that mean returning to the strategy that didn’t work before the surge? The answer is yes. At the end of their resolution, Levin and Reed reiterate their hollow belief that we can achieve “strategic success” in Iraq by redeploying (i.e., withdrawing) based on a fixed timeline. They have learned absolutely nothing from the last 20 months in Iraq, and are willing to put it in writing.
Of particular note in the Levin-Reed resolution is the fact that not oncedo they acknowledge that the new Petraeus strategy had anything to do with dramatic gains in Iraq. They talk about “increased troop numbers” and “enhanced special operations” but never talk about the new strategy. They purposefully exclude the single most important factor — presumably hoping that no one will notice. In this instance, it’s not that they don’t get it, it’s that they’re hoping voters don’t get it.
Equally disturbing, the document includes a quote from an admiral saying that we are “running out of time” in Afghanistan, yet excludes — and contradicts — statements made by a certain general, our current CENTCOM commander, that al-Qaeda is the “central front for extremists.”
Once gain, Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats continue to insist that they know better than generals. They won’t let the facts get in the way of a good political narrative. Taheri’s article is the latest crack in the facade of Sen. Obama and his fellow travelers, and signals their flip, naïve, and self-serving approach to strategic objectives on the battlefield.
McCain was spot-on when he said Obama would rather lose a war to win an election!
Filed under: 2008 Presidential election, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, George W Bush, Military Matters, Morality/Character, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives Ain't, War on Terror | Tagged: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Commander in Chief, Democrats wrong on war, Iraq War, Move on Forward, Pete Hegseth, Politics |