Obama – The Military and National Security
By
Paul Vallely - MG US Army (ret)
Chairman – Stand Up America
October 31, 2014
Throughout the 237 years of United State history, we have seen the
military forces experience many transformations in its
roles/missions, its structure, its procedures, its reputation, its
power, technological advancement, and ultimately its application and
operation in combat. Initially the Army, Navy and Marines were
organized as an armed force of fighters and patriots against the
tyranny of England. They banded together to win a revolution and
historically became a force for securing the fledgling nation. Over
the many decades and centuries, it expanded, evolved, and eventually
became the strongest military force on Earth. These changes all
reflected the need and threats of the day and the political will of
the government and its elected officials. As my friend and colleague,
Admiral Ace Lyons, stated, “With the weakest
national security team since World War II, it is no wonder that both
our foreign and national security policies lack coherence and
direction. The Administration’s faculty-lounge logic that, in the
21st century, ‘diplomacy’ will substitute for military solutions
to international crisis, overlooks or chooses to ignore a key factor:
recognized military power that provides the essential underpinnings
to successful diplomacy. It is called Peace through Strength.”
From inception, it has, and by Constitutional mandate will always be,
controlled by a civilian, the Commander-in-Chief, the President of
the United States. As each of our Presidents has held office, the
military took its marching orders based upon the political policies,
threats to America, and the foreign policy he adopted. Many paths
were chosen and many wars, great and small were waged upon his
decisions. This writing is to analyze the relationship of President
Obama and HIS Current and Future Relationship and Control of the
Military and National Security.
President Obama and his followers have worked very hard by design to
weaken US military superiority, consciously and unconsciously to the
advantage our global enemies. In an attempt to seize control over
national security and bypass Congress, a step by the Obama
administration has already come into play. That the United States and
Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty
would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and
the Executive Branch to unilaterally cut our military capability and
nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.
Russia as we know is not a trustworthy partner in any respect other
than lessens the influence and power of the US globally. Obama is
wrecking the Defense Department, our forces and the US economy
and committing national suicide. Yes, let’s just lay down our arms,
weaken our military and give up our sovereignty to the United Nations
world super state. Peace at any cost!
Intentions and the Agenda
What were Obama’s intentions after taking office toward the
military? What impact has he had on the military to date? What will
his impact be over the next few years? At this juncture, all these
questions and more can only be answered by fact and actions. This
places the future security of America in a very precarious position;
a certain clear and present danger. To date, with all that is
occurring across the globe and at home, his actions have resulted in
a long list of failures and it appears our future will only witness
further degradation of our credibility, respect, trust and standing
in the community of nations. By design, malfeasance, or stark
ineptitude, the past is prologue. It is important to point out what
Obama and his administration goals are when it comes to the Armed
Forces of the United States.
Discussion points outlined in the pamphlet are: Matters of future
debate……..
- Diplomacy and the use of the military – The definition of the term and its various interpretations are diverse. We examine President Obama’s vision of our foreign policy and his application of diplomacy and all its ramifications including the use of force.
- Obama’s 2008 campaign and ideology – What he told America was wrong with our foreign policies, the Bush Administration’s wars, and his stance on the military and America’s place in the community of nations. This includes the ideology of the left, its past stances on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and The War on Terror.
- Obama’s first and second terms – Ending the war in Iraq, campaign promises broken, the escalation of Afghanistan and the Counter-Insurgency (COIN) Strategy, the Arab Spring, Israel, Libya, Syria and the economic structural impact on our military under his watch.
- Obama’s Military Evolution – How Obama is dismantling our status in the world through diminishing our strengths, militarily and economically.
Obama’s
Future Leadership – Discussion on the issues that face us from
Syria to Iran to Russia to China, our Israel relationship, the Muslim
Brotherhood, North Korea, ISIS and more. Why would a US president
continue to push to give billions of dollars in aid and to supply
arms to regimes that have declared that America and its ally Israel
are mortal enemies that should be destroyed? And why
would that same president who wants to arm our enemies want to disarm
American citizens?
Obama
supports and assist the Caliphate goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and
ISIS, known militant and radical Islamic groups. He supported
the election of Morsi as Egypt’s new president, even when Morsi
talked about establishing a new Muslim Caliphate with him as the
ultimate head.
Morsi
also publicly began an attack on all non-Muslim religions within his
country. His military and police joined in the persecution of
Christians who were beaten, raped, robbed and killed. Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said nothing and did nothing but
continue to support Morsi and his radical government. Destiny and
understanding the “realities” of Islamic terror brought General
El-Sisi and his patriots to the Egyptian people.
Mideast
atrocities could curtail Muslim influence in the U.S.
As
Admiral Ace Lyons points out in a recent article:
“America’s
inconsistent response to the current Islamic State atrocities
indicates that we are failing to understand, or deliberately
ignoring, the facts that drive the terrorist organization’s
ideology.
Such
misunderstanding has been facilitated by the Obama administration’s
embrace of the Muslim
Brotherhood, which is now
institutionalized in all government agencies, including the
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and the White
House. This penetration is similar to what the communists were able
to accomplish in the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s. As a result, our
warfighters and law enforcement agencies have been denied critical
information on combating the Islamic jihadists we are fighting today.
How
did this happen? In one example, 57 Muslim signatories wrote a letter
Oct. 19, 2011, to President Obama’s national security adviser for
terrorism, John. O. Brennan, now our CIA director, complaining about
“bigoted trainers and material” that was being used to describe
the threat of Islamic terrorism and the Islamic ideology that the
terrorists use to justify their acts.
As
a result, all such material and training manuals were “purged” to
remove anything that portrayed Islam as a religion of violence.
Furthermore, an advisory board that reportedly included Muslim
Brotherhood operators
was established to review and sanction all revised training material
to be used for our military, FBI and other law enforcement agencies
down to the local level. This means is that our entire national
security community has now been effectively neutralized on
understanding the threat of Islam.
The Muslim
Brotherhood penetration
goes well beyond training materials. Their influence is most likely
reflected in the restricted Rules of Engagement under which our
military is forced to fight. This has caused the unnecessary loss of
life and debilitating injuries for thousands of our military
personnel. The Muslim
Brotherhood has been so
emboldened that it now has the audacity to demand the “brainwashing”
of all our previous trainers. Mao and Stalin would be proud.
According
to an article by terrorism expert Clare Lopez, on Aug. 14, another
letter with 75 signatories was written to Lisa O. Monaco, homeland
security counterterrorism adviser to the National Security Council,
urged the Obama administration to “implement a mandatory retrainer
program” for all federal, state and local law enforcement officers
who have previously been “exposed” to anti-Muslim training. Much
like the previous letter sent to Mr. Brennan, the signatories
represent many of the leading Muslim organizations in the United
States, e.g., the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim
Public Affairs Council and the Muslim Alliance in North America. It
should be noted that many of those signatories represent
organizations that were designated in federal court as unindicted
co-conspirators from the 1998 Holy Land Foundation Hamas
terrorism-funding trial in Richardson, Texas.
What
prompted this latest letter may have been the fear that America might
wake up and connect the current Islamic State atrocities to the
ideology of Islam. The silence from the so-called moderate Muslim
Brotherhood front
organizations on these atrocities should tell you everything you need
to know. Likewise, all those hundreds of millions of so-called
moderate Muslims remain silent.
Alexis
de Tocqueville wrote in 1838, noted by Bruce Thornton on Aug. 18,
“Jihad, holy war is an obligation for all believers. The state of
war is the natural state with regard to infidels. These doctrines of
which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in
almost every word of the Koran. The violent tendencies of the Koran
are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense
could miss them.” We must face facts: Islam never was, nor can it
be, a religion of peace, regardless of what we are told by our
current and past leaders.
Islamic
ideology clearly provides the theological justifications stemming
from the time of Muhammad through 1,300 hundred years of its history
to justify the current jihadist movement and atrocities. Islam has
not been hijacked by radicals. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan said it best: “Islam is Islam.”
There
is no question that the current Islamic State movement must be
destroyed. Iran’s alleged offer to help get rid of it in Iraq,
provided we lift all sanctions, should be totally rejected (if indeed
made as reported). Pressure must be maintained on Iran to prevent it
from achieving a nuclear-weapons capability. It must never be
forgotten that there are no differences among the Islamic State, al
Qaeda, the Muslim
Brotherhood and Iran
when it comes to their objective of destroying the United States and
Israel.
The
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, could not have happened without Iran’s
support for al Qaeda.
The
Islamic State is the wealthiest terrorist organization in the world
(after the Iranian regime), and must be relentlessly pursued in Iraq
and Syria until it is effectively destroyed as a symbol of Islam’s
resurgence. This will require a sustained air campaign coordinated
with our special forces, and hopefully, our allies. We must assume
the Islamic State, al Qaeda and others have established sleeper cells
in the United States. Accordingly, our readiness posture must be
significantly increased. In that context, our military and law
enforcement agencies must be retrained so that they can effectively
recognize and defeat the threat.
Congress
must take the lead and prevent any further drawdown of our strategic
and conventional forces. They must also take the lead in purging
all Muslim
Brotherhood front
organizations from our government agencies. Regrettably, based on
past performance, we should be under no illusion that this
administration will aggressively implement these urgent actions.”
Taking
back America
Leadership that
compromises national security violates the Constitution
By
James A. Lyons -
- Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Diplomacy and the Use of the military
Before expounding on Obama and the military, it is essential to
understand the relationship and debate that has existed over the
centuries between diplomacy and the use of military force. Crucial
changes in American society, the defense of freedom and victory over
her enemies all originate with the military. Using the military
wisely implies that the military enters a war with the intent to win
the war. Within the diplomatic sphere, war is diplomacy with arms,
and in this phase war should be viewed as diplomacy at its worst,
after all other options have been explored.
Politicians from various spectrums differ in the way they use
diplomacy to achieve political and diplomatic goals. The use of
military may be used used at the end of a failed or failing
diplomatic process when an enemy threat still exists; called
pre-emption. History demonstrates and statesmen have confirmed that
war ensues when diplomacy fails. Many conservative leaning
thinkers view the military within diplomacy, whereas many leaning
toward the left (Statists) have detached the military from the
diplomatic process. Under the Obama Administration the military has
not been appropriately used to improve diplomatic relations, largely
because the military is not viewed as a mechanism to achieve
diplomatic success.
The endgame to war is Victory but is hardly in the vocabulary of the
current senior leadership in America. Military leaders have been
directed not to even use the word Victory in their dialogue with the
press and others. But the definition of victory and the path getting
there are transformed when political ambitions are revealed. For
instance, while the Bush Administration has called the post-9/11 wars
the “War on Terror” the Obama Administration changed the name to
“Overseas Contingency Operations”. The former created a paradigm
shift whereby the United States was fighting an ideology, terror,
rather than a nation-state. Retreat is now known as withdrawal or
“drawdown” and victory is now known as “nation building” or
“transition.”
However, the change in semantics by the Obama Administration creates
an interesting modification that has proceeded unnoticed by the
public. War inevitably implies boots on the ground, the involvement
of ranking officers and geo-strategic decision making from the
Department of Defense. The Obama Administration has “mixed” the
roles of war within diplomacy with more agencies: the Department of
State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the
Department of Defense (White House, 2012). The Obama Administration
is making the State Department and the overarching bureaucratic
influence more relevant and the U.S. military less relevant in the
process of diplomacy.
In Iraq, where increasing violence by ISIS/ISIL and clandestine
high-level takeovers and assassinations by Iranian groups have
occurred over the past year, the Obama Administration further states
that, “In Iraq, these temporary operations and assistance programs
are necessary to sustain a civilian-led mission; strengthen the
capacity of the Iraqi government through police training, criminal
justice programs, and military assistance; and ensure the [State]
Department and USAID have the necessary resources to support and
secure the diplomatic mission”. President Obama may think that he
is cleverly shaping a new form of diplomacy, but what he is really
doing is undermining and even breaking the military role that can be
leveraged to strengthen diplomatic aims and ensure an American
victory.
Conservatives envision the military as a crucial component of
diplomacy, an important union. President Obama and other Statists on
the other hand, view the military as a hindrance to diplomacy.
Changing diplomacy therefore, is being carried out a number of ways
by the Obama Administration: diminishing the military role and
leadership in diplomacy; manipulating the rules of engagement; and
making the U.S. military irrelevant elsewhere.
Admittedly, the use of the military pre-Obama has not been perfect.
In fact, numerous miscalculations in strategy committed by the White
House can be found from President Kennedy onward. From Vietnam to
Iraq and Afghanistan, Commanders-in-Chief have neglected or abused
the diplomatic role of the military. Kennedy started the Vietnam War
with Advisors, Johnson deepened the commitment in Vietnam and Nixon
ended it and no clear endgame or achieving Victory with near 58,000
American lives lost in battle. Carter failed in properly managing the
US economy and was paralyzed when it came to using the military as a
powerful diplomatic tool; caving in to Iranian revolutionary Islamic
fanatics.
The last major diplomatic victory was the collapse of the Soviet
Empire and the “Wall” coming down due to Reagan’s leadership
and vision. If one error could be highlighted it would be in 1983
when over 200 US Marines and over 50 French soldiers were unwisely
billeted in a building at the Beirut airport (not a good role for
Marines) killed in Beirut, Lebanon. The Muslim terrorists were
emboldened and America and her allies have paid dearly in the Middle
East ever since. The failures have continued, H.W. Bush was about
three days from toppling Iraq’s Hussein in 1991 and why didn’t he
order the military to proceed anyway? Because, we subjugated our
nation to the United Nations.
Clinton, who needed to learn the military salute properly after he
became President, began on a foundation of incoherent foreign policy
with the Bosnian War, Black Hawk Down, the 1993 bombing of New York’s
World Trade Center, and two US embassies in Africa bombed, weaved
with scandalous behavior in the Oval Office, and had no clear
military success.
Problems existed under
George W. Bush as well. Although the Bush Administration cited WMD
(weapons of mass destruction) as part of the justification to invade
Iraq, Bush and the Pentagon ignored the fact that chemical weapons
were transferred from Iraq to Syria in 2003. This has worsened
problems in Syria even today. Col. Cowan (Ret.) recalls that, “The
way we fought the war in Iraq at the outset was tragic and outrageous
because the Pentagon and the military leadership did not understand
what they were dealing with. They purposely ignored the lessons of
Vietnam”.
Toward the end of the
Bush Administration the COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy in Iraq was
a fresh idea, and perpetuated by Obama in Afghanistan. However the
overall effects of COIN are devastating and have rewarded our
enemies. Undoubtedly there has been an accumulation and compounding
of the disharmony of the military within diplomacy over the past 52
years, however Obama has accelerated the division by downsizing,
degrading and demoralizing the U.S. military.
Obama’s campaign and ideology: Diminishing
the U.S. Military
America’s legacy as one of the oldest existing democracies on earth
can only be preserved so long as: 1) a majority of U.S. citizens are
actively involved in a genuinely representative government; 2) a
growing economy persists; and 3) a strong military is maintained to
protect the former. This simple triad of democracy becomes
predictably fragile when the three are not in balance. The budget
deficit and a stagnant economy threaten to destabilize this
equilibrium, declining public involvement in governmental affairs has
weakened a once strong citizenry, and unpredictable leadership for
the U.S. military questions our security.
Part of Obama's political plan to “change America” as he himself
has stated, is to downsize the U.S. military. While one can argue
that long-standing trends have eroded our military, very little has
been done to stem the decline. Indeed, some argue that Obama has
exacerbated problems related to military missions abroad, and our
foreign policy positions.
Obama’s
first term
Obama’s first year
in office did not instill much confidence among military strategists
or foreign-policy makers in Washington, DC. Obama revealed his flawed
leadership amidst two major events in 2009, the emergence of the
Green Revolution in Iran and the abandonment of the missile shield
project in Poland and the Czech Republic.
In mid-June of 2009 the test of
Obama’s leadership would reveal his feeble responses, and lack of
decisiveness on Iran, as Obama said,
“As odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's
statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United
States and Iran on a range of core issues…We will continue to
pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll
see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be
wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television
over the last few days. And what I would say to those people
who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political
process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired
by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of
the election was. And they should know that the world is watching”.
This is a response
that would have been appropriate in the Western world, but Obama,
throughout the past four years, has neglected to properly assess Iran
and other threats in the Middle East because he doesn’t fully
comprehend the way America’s enemies think. Since the U.S.
officially withdrew in December 2011, “assassinations by Iranians
have been quietly conducted, killing Iraqis who worked with or
supported the United States. Selective assassinations of individuals
[were conducted against those who] were close to the U.S.
[forces]. Even before the U.S. pulled out, retired and former
Iraqis officers and pilots who had participated in the Iran/Iraq war
were being assassinated” (Cowan, 2012).
The Obama
Administration’s shortsighted decision to remove the missile shield
in Poland and the Czech Republic on September 17, 2009 fueled
uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy and was ill-timed. First, the
Obama Administration abandoned the project without discussing the
issue with or informing their Polish or Czech Republic counterparts.
Secondly, the Obama Administration did not use the decision to
leverage other issues with Russia, an obvious sign of weakness in
foreign policy. Thirdly and worst of all, the Obama Administration
chose the most undesirable date to make the public announcement when
ending American support for a missile shield: on the 70th
anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland. Culturally speaking,
anniversaries are incredibly symbolic to the Polish people and the
brazen announcement by the Obama Administration was not well received
by the people of Eastern Europe. “The project is of puny importance
militarily, but of enormous significance symbolically…the former
captive nations the Shield signifies the US commitment to maintaining
their freedom”. The Obama Administration unraveled nearly three
decades of trust and hard work that was carefully built between
America and Eastern Europe.
Obama’s Cairo speech
in 2009 needs to be front and center and is a reflection of the
ignorance of his advisors, speech writers and thinking of the Muslim
world. Obama gave an inspiring speech to the people in Egypt; however
Obama’s speechwriters are incredibly detached from Obama’s
actions in the foreign policy sphere. Giving a speech emphasizing
acceptance, peace and harmony between America and the Muslim world is
one matter, however following through with genuine action is another.
U.S. MILITARY RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND PRESIDENT OBAMA
The Obama policy makers in the White House and Pentagon have degraded
the fighting capabilities of our forces with restrictive Rules of
Engagement (ROE). In fairness, Bush initiated very restrictive ROEs.
Instead of being afraid of U.S. firepower, the enemy uses our own
Rules of Engagement and restrictions on artillery support against us:
”—U.S. Marine officer quoted in Defense magazine, August, 2012 -
Rules of engagement a key issue in U.S. Marine’s
court-martial”—L.A. Times, January 2012. “
We called for artillery support and were told we were too close to a
village. They ignored us.” A lot of men were dying”— stated Sgt
Dakota Meyer, Medal of Honor recipient and veteran of battle of
Gangjal.
In today's world conflicts, the U.S. military operates under
guidelines governing their use of deadly force. These guidelines are
officially known as Rules of Engagement (ROE). Some countries
consider their official ROE as guidelines only, but the U.S. military
considers ROE as lawful orders to be strictly obeyed.
Historically, ROE were articulated to limit the damage done by troops
of warring nations while accomplishing a military objective. The
International Institute of Humanitarian Law publishes what is known
as the San Remo Guidelines of ROE. Many countries have used the San
Remo document as a basis for their ROE. NATO also publishes ROE to
be used by member nations, but has no power to enforce their
implementation.
What are the current basics of the ROE our forces operate under? And
why do our serving soldiers say they are confusing, ambiguous, and
causing unnecessary casualties?
Here is a narrative given by soldiers in an Army platoon discussing
ROE with a combat correspondent “In country (Afghanistan) they gave
us Use of Force Escalation kits. They are designed to keep people
away from us in a non-lethal manner. The kits had “KEEP BACK”
signs we could put on the back of our trucks, and small flares we
could fire for warnings. Those were taken away and now we are told to
drive in a normal manner. If cars back up behind us, we are supposed
to pull over and let them pass. This takes our buffer, our zone of
safety away. They pull up right beside us and detonate car bombs, or
fire on us. It takes away our reaction time.”
It may seem incredible that our ROE have gotten to this point.
Perhaps its best expressed by a young soldier in that same platoon:
“Joe Biden flew over Kunar province and said it sure looked safe
down there. Meanwhile, a hell of a firefight was raging on the
ground”.
Maybe our civilian leaders are out of touch with the realities of
ground combat. A basic tenet of ROE is that a soldier always has the
“first right of defense”, meaning he may fire if fired upon, or,
he may engage the enemy first, so long as he perceives a clear and
present danger. Well, it used to be that way. Before President Obama
took office, U.S. forces could open fire upon enemy combatants who
were clearly and definitely observed planting IED’s in roadways.
Now, they may have to ask permission through three levels of
commanders.
“They are
confusing the young soldiers”, complained a veteran NCO, “An IED
is incredibly more dangerous in the hands of an enemy than a rifle,
yet they have to get permission to engage the fighters”.
Welcome to
the new world of infantry combat under Obama.
In World War
II, the first thing a U.S. combat unit would do upon entering a town
held by the German army was to clear civilians out of churches, and
then blow the steeple towers down. Why? Bitter experience taught them
that church steeples contained snipers and artillery observers.
Try doing the
same today with a mosque. We have devolved in a bad way. There comes
a time in infantry combat where a condition sets itself over the
scene. It’s called the “fog of war”; a term first used by
Clausewitz, a Prussian military general. He wrote that in war
everything is simple. You have an army here and an army over there;
at some point they will collide and a battle will ensue. But in the
confusion of battle, Clausewitz wrote, accomplishing even the
simplest tasks becomes incredibly hard. Clausewitz coined this theory
around 1830. It’s still valid today. Radios fail, aircraft engines
malfunction, units get lost, weapons systems jam. It’s all part of
battle. Difficult ROE makes the battle that much harder.
WWII generals
such as George Patton and Omar Bradley knew the advantage in seizing
ground swiftly and with violence. They ordered their subordinates to
overwhelm the enemy with violence of action and maximum force in
order to gain ground and shorten the war. The ROE they operated under
were clearly defined, and they passed those ROE down to their troops.
Patton and Bradley had no intention of placing unnecessary danger or
risk on their troops.
WW2 American
generals had no intention of allowing the enemy to gain a tactical or
strategic advantage and in any event, were not hampered by “Out of
Touch” ROE. In every war in history, atrocities have been committed
on both sides. A general cannot control the actions of every one of
his soldiers on the battlefield. It is a regrettable, but factual,
part of war.
In December of 1944, German SS general Jocheim Peiper was rushing to
gain ground in the Ardennes forest and overrun American positions.
Near the town of Malmedy, Belgium, he took custody of approximately
85 American soldiers who surrendered. According to his account, he
didn’t have the means or the time to care for them, so he had them
shot.
In retaliation, American soldiers methodically shot captured members
of Peiper’s command. An American Colonel issued an order that
stated, “No SS troops will be taken prisoner”. Both acts are
inexcusable, and both armies attempted to justify their acts under
the pressure of combat.
Here is the bottom line: American soldiers should be able to defend
themselves in any situation, in any environment, if there is a clear
and hostile threat. An American soldier takes an oath to protect and
defend the United States and the constitution against all enemies. An
American soldier is also bound by the rules of land warfare to
provide all the protection he can to non-combatants and children, and
to minimize, where possible, collateral damage that may occur. This
includes private property and property of no military value.
However, if your enemy is using a mosque to employ snipers against
you, or planting IED’s in public buildings, the U.S. military
should employ all means necessary to neutralize that threat.
It is regrettable that in Iraq and Afghanistan, our enemies choose a
cowardly way of fighting a war; i.e. hiding in a mosque so that they
can then kill our soldiers, or deliberately using non-combatants as
human shields. As horrible as those circumstances are, however,
Americans should always have the right to defend themselves.
There are several stories about wanton killings and atrocities
against civilians committed by American troops deployed in combat
zones. But the total number of those incidents is outweighed not by
the hundreds, but by the thousands, in terms of how U.S. troops have
taken casualties, rather than risk collateral damage to
non-combatants.
Appeasement
“With a few exceptions on minor issues, Obama and his Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton have preached and practiced appeasement toward
Moscow. One example is the signing of the START II treaty of 2011,
which put America's security at a disadvantage by forcing the US to
obey by an agreement concluded with a party that no longer exists,
the USSR. We are forced to disarm unilaterally. And now the Shield
project will be scratched. President Obama: On all these issues, but
particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's
important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message
about space. Space for you...
President Obama: (putting his hand on Medvedev's knee): This is my
last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to
Vladimir.
In
a way, then, the unguarded remarks of Obama reflect the
administration's consistency and continuity in its policy of
appeasing Russia. What's unsavory about the whole affair is that a
hot microphone accorded America and the world a glimpse at frank,
back door deals between the most powerful leader on Earth and the
boss of a regional power” ”
Chodakiewicz, 2012: pp 1
Objectifying
the Military
Obama has objectified
the military personnel in ways that divide rather than unite. The
overall morale of the military after poorly managed, drawn out wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq was already unstable by 2009 when Obama
became Commander-in-Chief. Obama has done little to boost the morale
in the military and has offered no realistic solutions to strengthen
our military. In fact, the evidence discloses that Obama has set our
military on a course of unpredictable erosion and decay through acts
that have demoralized our military.
A number of misplaced
priorities between the White House and the Pentagon have distracted
our military from a core mission. “We’ve allowed ourselves to get
out of control,” according to the Army’s top enlisted soldier who
has surveyed U.S. military bases globally, Sgt. Maj. Raymond F
Chandler III. While his aim has been to improve discipline and focus
among the armed forces, Sgt. Maj. Chandler’s own leadership has
been uncertain. Jaffe emphasizes “As the war in Afghanistan draws
to a close, more senior officers worry that the Army has not been
able to articulate a clear mission that will enable it to hold on to
its shrinking share of the Pentagon budget” (2012: pp. 2). An
internal survey conducted in December 2011 indicates that Obama has
not had an uplifting influence on the personnel and morale of the
military, “only 26 percent of Army leaders believed that the Army
was ‘headed in the right direction to prepare for the challenges of
the next 10 years,’ down from 38 percent in 2006”.
What could cause such
a decline in the confidence of the military officers for its
Commander-in-Chief? Firstly, the priorities of the code of conduct
have changed. Today’s Generals are occupied with covering up
incidents so that it does not affect their career to be concerned the
greater need of boldly leading their soldiers. Remember the SEALS who
were going to be court-martialed after they brought in a confirmed
Taliban prisoner with a bloody nose? That guy fought back and they
had to subdue him. How about the death of Pat Tillman? Both were
tragedies, but what the Generals should do is SPEAK UP and tells it
like it is.
Obama is socializing the Military.
The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has taken precedence
over the sexual harassment (and even rape) of men and women in the
military. With all the associated problems of being involved in two
wars, Obama's top agenda with the military was to cater to
homosexuals. The military should not be coerced into being a place
for social experimentation. The irony of serving as a soldier is that
he or she necessarily gives up a lot of basic rights for the common
good of the mission to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and the
nation. There are a whole host of problems inherent in Obama’s
repeal such as: Do we allow on-base housing for “married same-sex
couples”? Do we allow PDA’s (public displays of affection)
between gay military members when it has always been discouraged
among heterosexual members if it is detrimental to good order and
discipline? Do we allow same-sex dancing in on-base clubs? Do we
allow a gay soldier to file a complaint against his/her commanding
officer alleging maltreatment because of sexual orientation when in
reality it is actually a case of substandard performance by the gay
soldier? The military will under Obama, and it will distort the
oneness and equality needed for military commanders. Overall the
repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has had a tremendous
negative effect on the military. No special group should be catered
to within the military, whether it is based on gender, sexual
orientation, or race. “The military to Obama is a big social
experiment and he has demonstrated that in his policies”
The increasing numbers
of wounded warriors, including PTSD, and suicides under Obama is also
disconcerting. 2012 marked the record number of suicides over the
past decade among soldiers and family members, most who have never
been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, according to the Military
Suicide Research Consortium. The feeling of hopelessness, internal
pain, inability to cope with life’s challenges can be attributed to
the lack of inspiring leadership in the military.
The lack of concern for the soldier’s political vote, sending the
ballots early in October to reach the polls before 6 November 2012,
even conveniently losing the ballots, was another act of disrespect
by the Obama Administration and their policies.
Obama is committed to slashing the
military budget and would rather send needed troops home than dismiss
an over-bloated bureaucracy to make a leaner Pentagon. According to
LTC Bill Cowan (Ret, USMC.),
“The number of reports generated every month by the Pentagon is
staggering. There is a growing government affinity for generating
regulations and reports, which sends a message that wars don’t
grow, but the Pentagon bureaucracy does. If you cut one-quarter of
the staff in the Pentagon we will not lose our war fighting
capability. In fact, we may even get better!” (2012).
Nation Building
This misconceived war fighting strategy has cost the U.S. valuable
human and financial resources (billions of dollars) with no victories
for the American people. How can we expect Muslim (Sharia guided)
countries of the Middle East to adopt democracy and is certainly not
a mission of the Armed Forces. Do not confuse the terms “nation
building” with “foreign internal defense” (FID). FID means
organizing a resistance movement by training indigenous personnel to
combat and overthrow a murderous regime that supports terrorist
attacks on the U.S. The terms are quite different. “Nation
Building” is more properly the purview of the U.N., private sector
initiatives, NGOs, the Red Cross or some interim governing body. Our
military objective should be to get in, eliminate the threat posed by
belligerents to the U.S. and get out. This is also a basic tenet of
the Lilly Pad strategy. We do not need to build huge bases in foreign
countries that publicly ask us for help and undermine the US and its
mission. Earlier, I mentioned Forward Operating Bases. The best
current example I can give is the Australian army in Afghanistan.
Their soldiers live in “battle boxes” (conexes) with small
generators for light and a/c. Their perimeters are well guarded and
enclosed by concertina wire and claymore mines to repel attacks.
Their ammo bunkers are battle boxes partially submerged in the ground
and protected by sandbagging. An entire base like this can be set up
in a day and a half, and removed and placed elsewhere in about the
same time.]
The COIN
strategy as discussed previously was implemented in Vietnam and Iraq
however it was expanded by Obama in Afghanistan.
Col. Douglas
MacGregor (US Army Ret), Military Strategist and Author writes:
“When
the Surge in Iraq began, no one in Washington was interested in
explaining why the world’s most powerful military establishment led
by Petraeus was buying off its Sunni Arab opponents with hundreds of
millions of dollars, effectively supplanting counterinsurgency with
cash-based cooptation.[iv] When
the Surge in Iraq ended, no one in Washington wanted to discuss
why Tehran’s Shiite allies in Baghdad restrained their
fighters, and waited until the U.S. occupation ended before
consolidating their control of Arab Iraq. In 2009, an Iraqi
journalist described the outcome in terms no serious observer of the
conflict could ignore:
‘Observers
not steeped in Iraqi history might be bemused to find that six years
after the toppling of a dictator, after the death of several hundred
thousand Iraqis, a brutal insurgency, trillions of wasted dollars and
more than 4,000 dead US soldiers, the country is being rebuilt along
very familiar lines: concentration of power, shadowy intelligence
services and corruption’” (2012).
Feedback
that I have received from many mid-level officers and
non-commissioned officers voice many and varied new doubts about the
Army’s battlefield performances and senior leadership in Iraq and
Afghanistan. A few years ago, Army officers almost universally
celebrated the service’s freshly minted counterinsurgency doctrine
and its ability to adapt to a new kind of warfare. Soldiers who were
trained to fight tank battles shifted to a style of combat that
emphasized politics, cultural awareness and protecting the local
population from insurgent attacks.
Today
Iraq, which is still wracked by violence and heavily influenced by
Iran and ISIS forces has provided no victory for America and we do
expect victory when we expend great losses of life and thousands of
wounded troops. In Afghanistan, a surge of more than 30,000 U.S.
troops has produced a stalemate that leaves soldiers counting down to
withdrawal at the end of 2014.
Donovan summarizes his view of the
illusions of Obama’s COIN strategy success here:
“In
the interests of such political correctness, relevant terms like
Islam, Islamist, Muslim, and even terrorist have been stricken from
the public vocabulary with JCS help. Witness the recent Benghazi
fiasco! The debate is not over mayhem or atrocity committed in God's
name. National politicians and the military brass are arguing whether
or not to use the word "terrorist" in their reports dealing
with Muslim barbarities.” (2012, p. 1)
And
consider the 'inside baseball' spat over doctrine to be used against
the nameless enemy; the counter-terror versus counter-insurgency
(COIN) debate within the military. Petraeus apologists believe that
the former ISAF commander reinvented
the US Army with new doctrine; and then rode the COIN horse to
promotions and prominence.
In
truth, COIN played little or no role in Iraq or Afghanistan for two
reasons; the force ratios required by Army doctrine,
impractical theory, were never achieved. And both conflicts, like
most Muslim wars, are civil, not insurgent. These internecine Islamic
fights are between Sunni and Shia or between autocrats and theocrats.
Neither NATO nor the US Army has the charter or doctrine to resolve
these or any other religious or tribal civil wars. Evolution might be
the only solution to any Muslim pathology.
COIN
had nothing to do with tactical "success" in Iraq or
Afghanistan either, but such distractions may contribute to strategic
defeat. Theoretical illusions,
even those nursed in the halls of ivy, are blinders. Theory, or more
honestly, politicized military doctrine does not win wars…
While the U.S. still
has the best war fighting force in the world, Generals have become
more concerned with political correctness than they are with war
fighting capability and future strategies against current and future
threats( our borders, for example). This is in contrast to the
soldiers focusing on the mission. However there has been an inflation
of military Generals as LTC Bill Cowan recalls. During WWII our
military had one General for about every 2,000 enlisted men and
women, today we have one General for about every 400 enlisted men and
women. Do these extra Generals enhance or augment our war fighting
capability?
Obama has thus far not
improved the U.S. military after President George W. Bush and Obama
has no successes to claim. To be fair, as mentioned previously the
military has been eroding at various levels over the generations,
however the Obama Administration has served as more of a catalyst to
the erosion rather than a stabilizer. Reminiscent of the World War I
song, “Over There,” by World War II the U.S. military was labeled
by the Europeans as being “Over-paid, Over-sexed, and Over Here”
Today it could be argued that the U.S. military is over-regulated,
over-promoted, and over-stretched.
Benghazi was a blatant failure by
Obama and most of the military leadership. For the 2012 election, it
is highly suspected that Obama personally requested that the Royal
Family in Saudi Arabia increase oil production to ease the complaints
about gas prices among voters before the election. If true, this
demonstrates that Obama is willing to manipulate the economy solely
for his selfish gain. Therefore would it be any surprise that Obama
would be willing to negatively influence the US military, if he is
willing to maneuver the prices of gasoline at the pump to deceive the
voter?
Now obvious that the Muslim
Brotherhood has support in the White House.
Obama’s Military Evolution
The continued
corruption of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been perpetuated by
Obama. Obama Administration has no successes to claim.
Promises to
exit Iraq and Afghanistan without a stable and effective plan have
left both countries more vulnerable than ever. Obama’s failures to
negotiate a proper status of forces agreement (SOFA) in Iraq
Our foreign policy is about other people liking us instead of other
people fearing us. For instance, over the past decade, the US has
been more concerned about a friendly relationship with Karsai than
with leading Afghanistan out of corruption and war. How the US
handles Karsai has steered our foreign policy platform and it has
killed more troops under Obama.
Obama’s Future Leadership
Obama creates urgency at the last minute. Obama’s strategy is to
push the pressure point. Obama’s projected budget cuts for the
military are expected to be politically charged, with little
effectiveness largely because Obama does not want to understand the
tradition of the U.S. military. While recognizing that the U.S. still
has the most powerful military in the world, Colonel Bill Cowan
(ret.) asks, “if we don’t have a Commander-in-Chief that
understands this and is not willing to exercise force at the right
time, then why have the most powerful military in the world?” Cowan
also confesses, “We have political leadership that is more
interested in their next promotion than they are taking care of the
military…Don’t ask the generals for their opinion on defense
cuts, they have a vested interest and will not address the spending
problem properly. It's best to ask Sergeant Majors on a panel, ‘where
cuts should be made?’”
Some might argue that Colin Powell became too politicized. However,
one could argue it began with General Washington after the
Revolution, General Grant after the Civil War, and General Eisenhower
after World War II. However today, in order for a flag or command
staff person to get a promotion, it must be confirmed by the U.S.
Senate. So over the past few generations of high-ranking military,
the military has had to please the Democrats. Donovan quoted a
veteran who asked regarding General Petraeus, “How does an officer
with no personal experience of direct fire combat in Panama or Desert
Storm become a division CDR (101st Airborne) in 2003…(and
how does) a man who served repeatedly as a sycophantic aide-de-camp,
military assistant and executive officer to four stars get so far?”
Politics inevitably skews the military leadership; the question is,
for better or worse? What is the motive when our Generals take a
promotion from General to the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff or the Head of the CIA?
Now that Obama is, for better or worse, our Commander-in-Chief for
another four years, it is imperative that our General officers SPEAK
UP, for the sake of our troops and the American people. We do NOT
advocate a “coup d’état” against the principle that wisely
keeps civilian control over our military; but what we SHOULD espouse
is that our active General officers use every means and opportunity
to address the threats that the U.S. now faces.
Reviewing the
details, the disappointing relationship between Obama and the
military is very real and apparent. President Barack Obama signed a
$633 billion defense bill for 2013 despite serious concerns about the
limits Congress imposed on his handling of terror suspects and
lawmakers' unwillingness to back the cost-saving retirement of aging
ships and aircraft.
Obama
had threatened to veto the measure because of a number of concerns,
but relented because he couldn't pick and choose specific sections.
However, in a statement, the president spelled out his concerns about
restrictions on his ability to carry out his constitutional duties as
commander in chief. Specifically, he complained that the bill limits
the military's authority to transfer third-country nationals being
held at a detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. He also took
issue with restrictions on his authority to transfer terror suspects
from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"Decisions
regarding the disposition of detainees captured on foreign
battlefields have traditionally been based upon the judgment of
experienced military commanders and national security professionals
without unwarranted interference by members of Congress," Obama
wrote.
He
said the section of the bill related to detainees in Afghanistan
"threatens to upend that tradition, and could interfere with my
ability as commander in chief to make time-sensitive determinations
about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of
hostilities."
Obama
promised when he took office four years ago to close the prison at
Guantanamo, but congressional opposition from Republicans and some
Democrats have prevented him from fulfilling that vow. The law limits
his authority to transfer terror suspects to foreign countries or
move them to the United States. Obama insisted that he still believes
that Guantanamo should be shuttered because operating the facility
"weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging
our relationships with key allies and strengthening our enemies."
The
president has his administration will interpret the bill's provisions
and if they violate the constitutional separation of power, he will
implement them in a way to avoid that conflict.
The
law puts off the retirement of some ships and aircraft, and Obama
warned that the move could force reductions in the overall size of
the military as the Defense Department faces cuts in projected
spending. The law includes cuts in defense spending that the
president and congressional Republicans agreed to in August 2011,
along with the end of the war in Iraq and the drawdown of American
forces in Afghanistan. And it would authorize $528 billion for the
Defense Department's base budget, $17 billion for defense and nuclear
programs in the Energy Department and $88.5 billion for the war in
Afghanistan.
The measure
tightens penalties on Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions and bulk
up security at diplomatic missions worldwide after the deadly Sept.
11 raid in Libya.
As suicides
among active-duty soldiers have accelerated, the bill also allows a
commander officer or health professional to ask if a member of the
services owns a firearm if they consider the individual at risk for
either suicide or hurting others.
The bill
includes a Senate-passed provision sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen,
D-N.H., that expands health insurance coverage for military women and
their dependents who decide to have abortions in cases of rape and
incest. Previously, health coverage applied only to abortions in
cases where the life of the mother was endangered. The measure
includes a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel.
Conclusions:
Conflict within the executive branch and the military will continue
to cause misdirection and confusion on future US National Security
and adaptable global conflict strategies. We
must have more sense and wisdom about engagement and conflicts in
this year 2013 and beyond. We do not seem to look back in history
well and have major problems in seeing and forecasting the future. We
seem to be a nation that is rudderless. We, the people, are the
“Masters of our Fate and Captains of our Soul and Destiny”.
The
Nature of change – War and
conflict will remain a human endeavor, a conflict between two forces,
yet changes in the political landscape, adaptations by the enemy, and
advances in technology and techniques will change the character of
the battle. Leaders are often late to recognize such changes and
adjust to the proper uses of hard and soft power options, and even
when they do, inertia tends to limit their ability to adapt quickly.
Driven by an inherent desire to bring order to a disorderly, chaotic
universe, human beings tend to frame their thoughts about the future
in terms of continuities and extrapolations from the present and
occasionally the past. But a brief look at the past quarter century,
to say nothing of the past four thousand years, suggests the extent
of changes that coming decades will bring.
Any updated US strategic
doctrine will still have to include preemption across many
fronts. Inevitably, there will be new perils that may require
“anticipatory self-defense.” Where rationality cannot be assumed,
and where the effectiveness of missile defense would be low, the only
alternative to capable and lawful forms of American preemption could
be surrender and defeat.
All
policy makers need to ask and answer to the American people, “What
is the US and Western civilization fighting for?” “What is it
that we are defending and protecting based on our Constitution?”
Well, it's everything that shariah Islam stands against:
Judeo-Christian principles, individual liberty, equality before the
law, equality of Muslim and non-Muslim, men and women; it is the
freedom to believe as our conscience directs us, even if that means
no belief at all, or changing beliefs; it means protections for
minorities; pluralism, and tolerance....but all within the ethical
framework of human reason as laid down by the Founding
Fathers.
We
hope President Obama will take heed and strengthen the United States
for the future by his relationship with our Military and ensure the
future security of the United States.
-End-
Sources:
Cowan, William. (2012) Interview on
December 4, 2012.
Chodakiewicz, Marek. (2012) “Hot
Mike Gate.” Institute of World Politics. March 28, 2012
http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/hot-mike-gate
Dilanian, Ken. (2012) “Fact check:
Iran’s ‘Green Revolution’ in 2009.” Los Angeles Times
October 22, 2012.
Donnelly, John M. “Rise of
Military Suicides Driven By More Than War.” Roll Call
December 9. 2012
https://msrc.fsu.edu/news/rise-military-suicides-driven-more-war
Jaffe, Greg. (2012) “Army at
crossroads: Facing budget cuts and uncertainty about future role.”
The Washington Post November 22, 2012.
MacGregor, Col. Douglas (2012) “The
Petraeus Saga: Epitaph for a Four Star” CounterPunch
November 14, 2012
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/14/epitaph-for-a-four-star/
Nation, Craig R. (2010) “Chapter
8: Thucydides and Contemporary Strategy.” in: Bartholomees, J.
Boone Jr. (ed.) The U.S. Army War College Guide to National
Security Issues, Volume I: Theory of War and Strategy (4th
Edition). Carlisle, PA: The Strategic Studies Institute.
White House. (2012) “Overseas
Contingency Operations.”
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/overseas.pdf