Obama roleplays at commander-in-chief
When I read this news about Obama’s Iraq reversal—and then his reversal of his reversal—one sentence struck me as strange, but I wasn’t exactly sure why (it’s the second one in this quote):
I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war.
It seemed to me to have an odd tone, something like a child play-acting at being commander-in-chief. It appeared as though, if Obama is trying to indicate that he would actually be flexible and responsive and would listen to his military advisers about the facts on the ground before making a decision, there’s something basically contradictory in the scenario as he describes it.
He’s missing a step: hearing what information the advisers have to offer before he makes a decision. He’s missing another: the fact that everyone, including the current president and the military officers in charge of the war, would like to end it if at all possible. If they haven’t, it’s not lack of desire. It’s judgment; it’s because they think there are good reasons not to withdraw yet, and he needs to find out what those reasons are. And it’s not just a single trip to Iraq that will tell him what he needs to know. A President Obama would be privy to information that even the most well-informed senator (and Obama is hardly that) does not have.
But now I learn there’s something else wrong with Obama’s sentence. Dean Barnett tells us what it is:
I know Obama is a student of military matters and intellectually voracious, so it is thus rather stunning that he would betray such ignorance regarding the way the military actually functions. In truth, the Joint Chiefs are not part of the chain of command. Indeed, they are specifically by statute not part of the chain of command but instead serve solely in an advisory capacity to the president.
Surely Obama knows this. Obviously he wouldn’t be seeking the role of Commander-in-Chief without knowing how the job is done….So what is to become of our poor President Obama, barking out orders to his Joint Chiefs only to learn that they don’t carry out orders but just give advice?
Obama supporters will answer by saying that of course he’ll learn; he’s a quick study—although I haven’t noticed he’s a quick study in much of anything except politics and rhetoric; certainly not history. But Barnett’s point about the meaning of Obama’s ignorance on this point is well taken:
…the guy is running for president for the specific purpose of making war time changes. As he’s been running for office for 18 months now, shouldn’t he have found some time to explore the way the president interacts with the military rather than repeat canned (not to mention erroneous) assumptions he’s probably held since his community organizing days?
Yes.
The last few weeks of watching Obama has been like watching some guy trying on new suits at the department store.
How’s this look on me?
No? How about this one? I mean if we take it in a little here and let it out a little here.
I look sharp, don’t I?
One generally doesn’t “end” a war. One either wins it or loses it.
Steven don’t you know that “War is over if you want it?”
The “end the war ” rhetoric is for the idealistic liberal mindset. It is consistent with the idea that we are the cause of the war, even though it’s thought of as a civil war, we are to be seen as the cause of that too.
The “joint chiefs ” rhetoric serves the conspiratorial mindset, Obama needs to be seen to be taking charge of the conspiracy. The joint chiefs are seen as the CEOs of the military industrial complex. The liberal listener is supposed to imagine that this meeting will do far more than end the Iraq war, it will let the military industrial complex know that there’s a new sheriff in town.
I have noticed, Neo, that you sometimes jump on some minor comment by Obama and write an entire entry on it, as though it represented some gigantic failing. Though as I’ve often said I enjoy reading your writing (you are an excellent writer, in my opinion), I have to say I find these nitpicky complaints a bit pedantic. Yes, of course the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command — but they include the highest-ranking military officer in the armed forces, and it is the principal deliberative military body advising the President. If any President wanted to end any war, it would make perfect sense for them to turn to the Joint Chiefs for advice and consultation on the matter.
Mitsu,
All these litle “nitpcks” point to bigger patterns that are profoundly disturbing. Obama makes grand pronouncements based on little knowledge and mocks those who disagree. When he changes his mind, It’s supposed to be no big deal. I did not start out hating Obama. I was curious. But Obama has given very little to satify my legitimate curiosity. In fact, he seems to take it as an affront when questions are posed. I do not want a president to treat me as a mindless victim. I want to be treated with respect.
Haha.. not knowing the JCOS are not in the CoC is a little more than a nitpick.
It’s really sad to see people defending this know-nothing facist they got as their candidate.
The reason I think this is a nitpick is simply that it’s not clear at all that Obama doesn’t know the Joint Chiefs are not in the chain of command. He could simply have meant, by the same exact words, that he would task the Joint Chiefs with the tasks of figuring out how to end the war. The JCS would be the primary deliberative military body to come up with plans to end the war. The fact that the JCS doesn’t exercise command authority is simply to preserve civilian control over the military — the highest officers in every service report to the President, so authority over the armed forces is clearly in the hands of the civilian leadership at all times, as it should be. However, the President would call in the Chairman of the JCS if he would call any military officer in to discuss how to prosecute or end any war. That’s perfectly reasonable and exactly what he should do.
What if he had said, he would just order the military to end the war without talking to the Joint Chiefs? That would be truly bizarre indeed. Obviously what any prudent president would do is work with the JCS to come up with a plan for any major military undertaking.
Here’s another way to put it. Unless the Obamessia is elected, the Joints Chiefs of Staff will be like this song suggests:
“Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of deaths construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!”
rest of words here:
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/black+sabbath/war+pigs_20019418.html
If Obama actually spent quality time with any military unit, he would find that his entire narrative growing up is a sham.
The only reason he’s held on to it for so long is that he chose one of two career paths where a progressive utopic fantasy can make a buck – liberal machine politics.
The other is higher ed, of course.
Hollywood and trial lawyering don’t make the cut because those careers do indeed require a profit every now and again.
“I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war.”
The Iraqis, especially Shias, may yet morph into crass ingrates, like their enemies the Sunni Saudis, betraying the America that gave them their freedom, and protects them at enormous cost; But at this point B.O.’s agenda appears more reminiscent of the rhetoric that preceded the betrayal of South Vietnam, even after our troops on the ground were safely gone. This coming from a junior legislator and political fraud, with zero personal military experience, who hasn’t been to Iraq in how long? When are you, the adolescent mentality (ala Mandy) that now pervades the dimocratic party, from it’s leadership to it’s grass roots, and B.O., ever going to grow up, Mitsu?
Incidentally, did somebody say 550 tons of yellowcake were moved how long later after all? It’s enough to make one genuinely paranoid about this obvious liberal left-wing/muslim conspiracy agenda….
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html
“Incidentally, did somebody say 550 tons of yellowcake were moved how long later after all?”
Ahh, but you don’t understand – this is *old* yellow cake and we knew about this beforehand. The weapons inspectors knew it was there all along and had tagged it. Sure it was in his control and he refused to give it up, but knowing he had it meant that the laws of physics had changed!
I’ve yet to figure out why this makes it “not dangerous” as old (or at least old in the sense people are using here – 15-20 billion years from now it will make sense) has no meaning on it efficacy and I’ve yet to figure out how knowing about it beforehand means it can’t be made into a bomb. But then, I guess that’s why I’m not a liberal – I know enough to figure out why that idea is stupid.
This also just goes to prove that Joseph Wilson really lied to congress but told the truth to the press (you know, his actual official report confirmed that Saddam was seeking yellowcake in Niger – not that this has slowed any liberal down on saying he debunked the British reports) – Iraq wasn’t looking for more because they already had all they wanted. It would be amusing if he had been prosecuted for perjury by using his public statement against his official congressional record – it would have been *highly* amusing watching him squirm.
I don’t think anyone got him on this one. If the joint chiefs are his advisors then he can give them assignments on what to study for him. It’s like a business world GM telling certain department heads to explore an idea / research something since he is interested in moving the company that way down the line.
Its is still silly for neo’s reason (re: they’re already thinking the same things) but not in a not understanding the chain of command way (he may not get it but you can’t prove it from the quote).
Ok. I hate to… But, I’ll admit it. I am beginning to LOVE your blog:
http://neoneocon.com/2008/07/08/obama-roleplays-at-commander-in-chief/
Today is no exception….
“…the guy is running for president for the specific purpose of making war time changes. As he’s been running for office for 18 months now, shouldn’t he have found some time to explore the way the president interacts with the military rather than repeat canned (not to mention erroneous) assumptions he’s probably held since his community organizing days?”
Brava! For telling it like it is!!
I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war.
The more I read Obama, the more I feel that this fellow happens to suffer from a Messiah Complex. True, the President is the C-in-C, but isn’t it also true that he is only the first among equals.Will Obama as president, deluded by his sense of self-importance -as it appears- be willing to take advice from his military commanders? Or will he just treat them as would tin-pot dictators that the world has rather too many examples of?
The fact that the media continues to swoon over him-except for a handful of ditherers-would make it seem like the “presumptive candidate” has already been crowned heir apparent.With few to raise objections, and still fewer to object, I don’t see a reason why Obama’s years in office, if it comes to that, would be unlike that of other ‘populist’ leaders like Hitler or Mussolini.