Exclusive: Obama Unfit to Command Armed Forces

by W. THOMAS SMITH, JR. August 11, 2008


On Wednesday afternoon, a 22-year-old woman, Carly, phoned into the Rush Limbaugh radio program and expressed her dismay over the fact that far too many young people are being pegged as Obamaniacs when in fact everyone in her world, she said, views Barack Obama as nothing more than a “fad.”  I say he’s a fraud.

We must mention however that Carly is the wife of a military man, and so may be a bit biased, as am I.

”A lot of people think that the younger people are going for Obama – and like it’s the popular thing to do – and I want you to know it’s just not the case,” she said.
Polls indicate otherwise. But it would be interesting to know just how many of those polled are from military families, and whether or not the polling statistics of young people supporting Obama are reflecting a temporary – now fast-fading – enthusiasm for abstract “change” because it’s cool to do so.
Then there is the 19-year-old male member of my family – whose name and relationship to me I will not reveal for obvious reasons – a Naval ROTC midshipman (full academic scholarship at a major university, already a world traveler on his own dime, mature beyond his years, etc.) who relates to me the story of a group from his midshipman battalion on a bus trip to a nearby military base for an afternoon of training. Keep in mind this is no Junior ROTC group. These are young officer candidates for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, many of whom have served multiple combat tours overseas as enlisted sailors and Marines.

Along the way the subject comes up about the forthcoming presidential election, and as my midshipman tells me, the overwhelming consensus is that no one in his right mind who has spent any time in Iraq or Afghanistan would ever vote for Obama. In fact, there is a consensus of anger among the midshipman that Obama is even being taken seriously as a contender for the position of commander-in-chief (CIC). 
“You wouldn’t believe how concerned we [Navy and Marine officer candidates] are that Obama has gotten this far and the truth of who he is and how he views the military is being ignored by the media just so he can get elected,” my midshipman tells me. “We don’t want him to be our CIC.”
Neither does this former Marine rifleman.

From his military ineptitude to his radical anti-military associations to his disrespect toward American servicemen (and their apparent distaste for him);
Obama has proven he is unfit to be commander-in-chief.
Am I being objective in the expression of my opinion? Hardly, and I won’t pretend otherwise, because I am convinced Obama is unfit for command. Still, there is nothing you will read here, in last week’s piece, or in subsequent updates (in terms of specifics about Obama) that is not based on fact.
For example: Obama’s blatant disrespect shown to our military almost seems to run as an ongoing series and is difficult to keep track of, much of it overshadowed by the larger problem of his military ineptitude (I seriously doubt he could name even one of Clausewitz’s Principles of War), as well as the mainstream media’s campaign of keeping the lid on it.
As I mentioned last week, Obama’s disrespect is evidenced in the form of his “not meeting one-on-one with Gen. Dave Petraeus when the Army’s grand architect of the ‘surge’ traveled halfway around the world to meet with Congress; Obama’s turning down an opportunity to visit wounded American soldiers during his recent overseas trip (at least he did finally meet with Petraeus), and Obama’s refusal to meet with two-dozen Illinois veterans who went to his office in April.”
Let’s also not forget Obama’s public statement in February of this year that the then-more-than-3,000 Americans who had been killed in Iraq were lives “wasted.”
In any other presidential campaign at any other time in our history, such a statement would be political suicide. But for the MSM – hell-bent on electing this man no matter what he says – Obama’s apology several days later (after it was publicly demanded) was considered acceptable. Perhaps acceptable for the MSM and their buddies in the Leftwing blogosphere: Not the military.
It doesn’t take any deductive reasoning to understand that Obama clearly said what he meant. Obama says it was a simple gaffe and that he realized it as soon as he made it. If so, why didn’t he correct himself immediately? Instead, he let it go for days, and only after the disrespectful utterance was making the rounds?
Following are six more facts – stark evidence that Obama is not fit to be CIC – which go directly to the heart of Obama’s disrespect for the military (his condescension toward the military and his lack of trust in the military’s competency) as well as Obama’s military ineptitude:
First, Obama continues to assert that the war in Iraq was a mistake despite the fact that we have liberated that country, established a working democracy there, lured al Qaeda and its allies into a hole in which much of their assets were poured and destroyed, and defeated the enemy on nearly every front in every province. And we have accomplished these things despite all the white-flag waving by Obama and his pals on Capitol Hill.
Second, Obama has always declared that if elected president he would “immediately” begin withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two combat brigades per month, and all combat brigades would be out of Iraq within 16 months. He has since backpedaled on this declaration because <ahem> the Iraq war – which Obama’s buddy Sen. Harry Reid has often proclaimed “lost” – is actually being won.
Third, in May 2007, Obama voted against an Iraq Emergency Spending bill that would provide:

  • $1.6 billion for body armor
  • $2.4 billion to help combat improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
  • $3 billion for mine resistant-ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles

Fortunately, the bill was passed despite O’s Nay vote.
Fourth, during a Democrat presidential debate on April 22, 2008, ABC's Charles Gibson asked Obama if he would make the same “rock-hard pledge” regarding a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq “no matter what the military commanders said.” (Keep in mind, a precipitous withdrawal in the case of Iraq would be a violation of every principle and dictum of waging a successful counterinsurgency against a severely bloodied enemy with finite resources.)
Obama responded: “Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. ... Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq , and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.”
Obama likes the word “tactics.” No mention of strategy. Does he know the difference?
Fifth, Obama today refuses to admit that the surge has worked. "We don't need more spin about how the surge is succeeding,” said Obama in May.
Sixth, regarding the surge, let’s backtrack for a moment to January 2007, when Obama said: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
When pressed about this comment last month on Meet the Press, Obama said: “I mean, I know that there's that little snippet that you [Tom Brokaw] ran, but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence.”
Again, we are only scratching the surface. Much more to come.
Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. online at uswriter.com.

blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary