EDITOR OF REDSTATE
How Many Lives Lost and Americans Dead With Obama in the White House?
How much blood on Barack Obama's hands should he become President of the United States?
This is one of those impolite, but necessary posts.
If we have established nothing else, we have established that Barack Obama is inexperienced. I would submit we have established that Barack Obama is a fool and quite ignorant in the ways of the non-academic world; one of those rare species of politicians, fooliis ignoramus, found frequently at the local level, but rarely able to survive the voters at the national level.
The Obama inexperience does not show itself often in domestic policy. More often than not he stays with the congressional pack. But as he exerts himself on the national stage expounding on foreign and military policy, we see more and more just how inexperienced and foolish he is.
Barack Obama refuses to acknowledge how serious a threat Iran is, despite the telling combination of dire warnings from throughout the international community and the genocidal rhetoric emanating almost daily from Tehran . He wants to preemptively invade Pakistan, a country which needs our help in combating al Qaeda and the threat of Islamofascist terror as much as we need theirs, without bothering to consider the repercussions of unleashing the firepower of a military he does not understand in as volatile an area as there is anywhere in the world. He has consistently refused to acknowledge success in Iraq and has likewise refused to acknowledge the terrorist enemy we’ve engaged in Iraq that we would no doubt be engaging domestically were it not for them flocking to Iraq. Instead, he parrots Nancy Pelosi, closing his eyes to the massive presence – now all-but defeated – of al Qaeda in Iraq, and insisting that “the real war on terror is in Afghanistan.”
Yesterday we had another taste of Obama’s inexperience and foolishness, when he said he’d oppose the surge again if given the chance to do so.
Despite the surge’s recognized success, Obama has amazingly admitted that he would rather have seen us fail and lose than take steps to succeed, and, whether out of spite for President Bush, an utter lack of understanding of the most basic principles of national security, or simple self-absorbed naivete, he has said that he would again do everything in his power to block the U.S. from taking those steps to succeed, even now that he has seen how successful those steps were.
Oh, but at least this time he is willing to acknowledge “there has been enormous improvement.” That, in my mind, makes it even worse. He’ll acknowledge enormous improvement, but still cannot admit he was wrong to oppose that which brought us the enormous improvement — and has said that he would oppose it again if given the chance.
Senator Richard Burr was right when he said that Obama will, undoubtedly because of his inexperience and foolishness, ignore General Petraeus. But more directly, Senator Burr told me, “Senator Obama potentially puts more U.S. soldiers in jeopardy than he takes out of harms way by blindly setting goals that, quite frankly, if he talked to the military, are not as easily achieved as he thinks.”
More and more we see this would be the case. We know that when Bill Clinton failed to engage al Qaeda, they kept hitting harder and harder at the “paper tiger” the U.S. had become, and succeeded in killing more and more Americans until President Bush finally fought back.
I’m reminded that more of our soldiers and sailors died in the last year of Jimmy Carter’s administration than in any one of the years we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan (cite?). With American civilians being in the sights of Islamofascists more and more since the 1980’s, and now being even more widely targeted, the odds are it won’t just be troops getting killed in the next four (or “eight to ten“) years with Barack Obama at the helm.
An Obama administration and the mixed signals it would send through foolishness and inexperience will no doubt embolden an enemy we’ve had on the run for seven years.