Obama Out Of Step With Military

The President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and of the militia when it is called into federal service. It is an important marriage of the concept of civilian control of the military and was designed by our Founders to keep the military in check because the Founders were suspicious of standing armies.

Samuel Adams put it this way in 1768:

“Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it”

And Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, stated:

“standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”

The Founders established a Constitution that gave all three branches of government some portion of control over the military so that no one branch could use the military for its own agenda. For example, the Legislative raises and supports the Army and Navy and provides its funds and rules. It also has the authority to declare war.

The Executive enforces the rules established by the Legislative and has control over how they are used; the Commander in Chief commands them. These checks are supposed to keep us from rash decisions about war and quick use of our armed forces.

This has played out recently with the Syrian chemical agent use issue.

The US effectively has a standing Army though the Constitution requires appropriations of monies not to last for more than two years (to provide the ability to dismantle the raised army). This is why the appropriations are supposed to happen every other year. As is the case with most things government, the process is a tangled mess that distorts the original intent of the Founders.

The Syrian issue has shown more than the Constitutional conflict. The crisis has also shown an uneasy relationship between Obama and the nation’s military leaders.

The military, while declaring it is prepared to execute any order given (I assume they mean any lawful order), has also expressed displeasure at a strike that would allegedly be punitive and have no clear goals. There is worry that things could escalate and require a larger response or the movement of troops into the area.

The article points out that there is a feeling among the leaders that the military has been burned with half measures. There is disgust over the way Iraq has been handled and there is concern over Afghanistan.

The military, in other words, has lost faith in its civilian leader.

This should come as no surprise as Obama (who appoints many people who feel as he does) is not a fan of the military. He is a typical liberal and has a dislike and a distrust of the men and women in uniform. He has never served and he has never been a leader.

There is weakness at the top and the military can see it.

It must have frosted many of our leaders to see Putin wax Obama’s ass over Syria. The military does not like to see a foreign leader’s footprint on its Commander’s ass.

While many people looked to Obama to lead them out of the desert and into the Promised Land they are now seeing that Obama cannot lead.

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future.” ~ George S. Patton Jr.

George Bush once said that history would make its decision about him.

Members of the military seem to bringing that sentiment home as many report that, unlike Obama, “…Bush had his stuff together.” They report that when he made a call, whether good or bad, at least he was making it.

History seems to have arrived sooner than one might have thought.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Obama took charge of people who did not want him to begin with and he has done nothing to boost their confidence in him.

They probably feel like I do. Obama sees the military as his pawns.

And they don’t think he knows how to play the game.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


The Dems Said Fox Was Dishonest?

Not to long ago the Democratic candidates all decided to cancel a debate sponsored by Fox. They made their claim that Fox was biased to the right and that they would not conduct a fair and open debate. The Democrats were more comfortable with the 70% left leaning “unbiased” MSM so that is the route they went. Republicans have not canceled any debates based upon distrust of a network though it appears they should have.

CNN hosted last night’s debate and I wrote a post informing that the gay general who asked the question about gays in the military was affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and had endorsed her. Now it seems that this guy was not the only “undecided” voter who already supported a Democratic candidate. At least three other people who asked questions have endorsed a Democrat. Two of them for Edwards and one for Obama. The abortion girl Journey even posted a video about her response to the answers to her question while she was wearing her John Edwards T Shirt. The mom with the lead paint toy question is a union manager for a union that has endorsed Edwards and her video is displayed on the union’s website.

So somebody tell me again why the Democrats were worried about Fox but not concerned about CNN. Oh, because CNN seems to be in the tank for the left. There is no way that someone at CNN could not have known about these people. Perhaps they figured they would not get caught.

The Democrats canceled the Fox debate because they wanted fair. How fair is it that the gay general got more time to speak than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter? For that matter, he got longer than any candidate for a single response. They were limited to 90 seconds and 30 seconds for a follow up. The gay general got 2 minutes to talk about his lifestyle.

Michelle Malkin has quite a bit of detail.