Another Reason Obama is the Wrong Choice for CiC
July 16th, 2008 by Admin
Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to be president of the United States. As such, he will also carry an equally important title – Commander In Chief. Just as the President should understand economics, immigration, foreign policy, etc., a Commander In Chief should understand simple things like chain of command.
Today, CNN’s Situation Room showed Obama discussing his plan for ending the Iraq war, saying he would "call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in
Iraq to a close."
Here's the thing: the Joints Chiefs of Staff aren't combatant commanders!! The person he needs to give a new mission is Admiral Fallon, who reports directly to (not through the JCS) his boss, the Commander in Chief. To put it in layman's terms, and I ask that the JCS forgive me, the JCS are like big time staff pukes. They are responsible for keeping the military manned, paid, equipped, etc. They are the President's and civilian Secretaries' advisors to their respective services. It's very rare that you will ever see a man like General Petraeus sitting on the JCS. He's a combatant commander. He's the CENTCOM commander and if the President wants to shape policy in Iraq, he would go to Petraeus, not Fallon. He would go to Fallon if he wanted to know if there were enough troops to start a war with Iran or add another Division.
Obama has NO clue about foreign policy. You know, in my life I've also traveled the world. I've lived in Japan and I've been to Iraq, Kuwait, and various places I can't comment on in South and Central America but that doesn't make me Presidential material. I wouldn't even make a good Ambassador to Japan because I lived there as a youth, much like Obama's overseas time!! He has no military experience at all to lead and guide our military to protect this nation and its interests. He can't even figure out who's responsible for fighting the war on terror!!
Posted in Military Perspective
Dang, someone needs to sit down with Obama and teach him the chain of command. He needs it badly!! Ha!
It continually astonishes me that he knows so little about so much. What's more disgusting is the voters who think he knows everything. Doesn't say much for the education nor common sense in our country that so many people fall for the superficial. I guess it's the Anna Nicole Smith syndrome…
Mabey this is one of the changes he is talking about, the new chain of command.
CiC
JCOS
PVT Boots-on-the-ground.
It would be alot easier to remeber then the current setup.
Bush just announced he is going to send a diplomatic mission to Iran. When Obama said he would have talks with the Iranians the right wing was all over him. It seems that Obama's foreign policy is good enough for Bush.
Dagamore, let me make sure I have this correct: Obama can't meet the standard so we should lower it to make it easy for him?
CJ
No the standard should never be lowered so that more can meet the standard. More should be trained harder so that more can meet the old/higher standard. But that might be the CoC as seen by Obama. I dont know. he is a total retard when it comes to military issues.
You wrote, "Obama has NO clue about foreign policy."
When Obama said he would meet with the Iranians Bush called it, "the false comfort of appeasement". Now Bush is making diplomatic overtures to Iran. So either Obama does have a clue about foreign policy or Bush is guilty of appeasement.
Again, Steve, do I have to keep correcting you? Obama said he would meet with the Iranians "UNCONDITIONALLY". Keep trying. Your hatred of Bush is bound to get you somewhere one day.
And the condition Bush set was for them to halt all nuclear research and enrichment. The Iranians haven't agreed to that yet Bush is now willing to talk with them. Flip Flop.
CJ:
Mincing words, today? Steve is spot on re talks with Iran. Neo-cons came unglued at the hinge by the mere mention of talks with Iran – unconditionally (whatever that means) or not.
The fact that Bush now appears willing to engage in precisely such talks is telling – either Bush is growing a brain or he has shaken his advice-givers of the past seven years or both.
Bush is the Neville Chamberlain of our times! I hope he doesn't give away the Czech Republic.
Steve,
Umm, Chamverlain refused to take action and things were the shits, Bush took action and YOU are safe and free. How are there similar?
Steve.
You are right i dont know why i failed to see this before, just like Neville Chamberlain, Bush did nothing, and allowed Germany to take over country, or parts of countries and allowed the entire world to fall in to the flames of a massive world war, that caused the death of 100's of MILLIONS of people.
Oh wait the President GWB is nothing like Chamberlain. But dont let the facts stand in your way, its ok, keep up the memo about how all the problems in the world are President GWB fault, and we all lived in a land of Milk and honey and everyone made 350K per year, everyone drove Mercedes, and everyone was a college grad, and no one was ever sick and no one ever died.
Dumbass.
How soon we forget such a recent event. Recently, Obama said he would engage in talks with the Iranians. The right wing and Bush in particular claimed that meeting with the Iranians without first having them meet some arbitrary requirements was tantamount to appeasement.
Now Bush has sent his envoy to talks with Iran. Yet, they have not satisfied the requirements established by Bush for these talks. If Obama would have been an appeaser for meeting without established conditions being met. What does that make Bush?
Steve,
I think what they mean is that Obama would bend over to appease the Hadjis but Bush did not yield to their crap.
"If Obama would have been an appeaser for meeting without established conditions being met. What does that make Bush?"
Steve,
Such a wonderful bit of clouded reality you seem to regard as a triumphant barb. I will be delighted to respond to your assertions, even though your complete disregard for accuracy augmented by your BDS will likely tend to render such disposition futile.
For rejoinder I would simply state that while Bush is on record stating that, %u201Cit would send the wrong signal to people around the world if the president of the United States meets with tyrants,%u201D as well as, "Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, 'Look at me. I am now recognized by the President of the United States,'%u201D (I site the following link: voanews.com/e...KEN=42006091), a position which is utterly correct, he has not at anytime disallowed every form of diplomacy. What Bush has done is to refuse Presidential audience with tyrants as well as insist that any diplomacy is conditional.
In contrast the %u201CLeft Wing Messiah%u201D Obama has repeated stated that he would meet with leaders of rouge nations such as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba, with no pre-conditions. In Democratic debates, Obama%u2019s statements such as, "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous," are calculated mischaracterizations of the current administration%u2019s policy. Furthermore, Obama%u2019s submission that %u201CHe%u201D will be able to promulgate international security through unconditional reasoned dialog with such individuals is not only arrogant, but radiantly imprudent. He has the %u201Caudacity,%u201D (Oh yeah, there%u2019s that word again), to equate himself to JFK or Reagan in terms of dealing with meeting aggression with dialog.
Now, if you care to read a fairly conscientious attempt at illuminating the administration%u2019s guarded policy shift, I would guide you to the July 17th, WAPO article, Iran and U.S. Signaling Chance of Deal, by Glenn Kessler. Surprisingly, it manages to refrain from veering unequivocally into left field.
washingtonpos...1602550.html
I hope Obama does meet with Iran and they kill him.