Obama:Future Commander-in-Chief Gives Advance Notice To Enemy He Will Retreat
OBAMA: FUTURE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF GIVES ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENEMY HE WILL RETREAT
Quote:
Barack Obama has committed in military strategic terms the cardinal “sin”: Giving advance notice to the enemy when America will withdraw its troops from Iraq, which is the inverse of giving advance notice to the enemy when he is going to be attacked. It’s neither surprising nor astonishing that Senator Obama committed this “hellish” mistake. Sprinkled by Saint John the Baptist with the holy waters of populism--which in present day America many politicians consider it to be the primary pass that will guarantee a presidential candidate to enter and ensconce himself into the Oval Office--the springy and eloquent senator has entered along with other Democrats the contest for the golden trophy of the candidature for the presidency. The White House however, in our dangerous times, is no longer an easy entry for the smooth and the eloquent--as it was in Clinton times--is no longer a treat for the weak. So Senator Obama even if he wins the golden trophy as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, it’s most unlikely that he will be given the chance to put his trophy on the desk of the Oval Office. It’s more likely that he will place it on the mantelpiece of his lounge room rusting as memorabilia. As G.K. Chesterton observed, "a dead thing can go with the stream...but only a living thing can go against it'. Senator Barack Obama is "a dead thing". ......
Who's on first... I mean, in charge?
Hi U 509--
One of my hobby horses is that we should never settle for a vague unity of effort IF real unity of command is available. In principle, I would generally argue for the American ambassador to be "in command" in an overseas environment - as is the normal peacetime case. (Even the military reports to the ambassador, with one exception - when there is a major military op ongoing.) In the exceptional case, I would argue that the President should designate his ambassador or his military commander as being in command of all US assets in country.
The Iraq case argues for the ambassador for 2 reasons: 1. the de jure status of Iraqi sovereignty and 2. the apparent strong positive and mutually supportive relationship between Petraeus and Crocker. In the end, who is designated "commander" may well depend on personalities.
Short summary: The principle of civilian control should generally be dominant but can be overridden in specific cases where personality is the powerful factor.
Cheers
JohnT