An international commander in chief

3027813577CSP, By Adm. James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.)

President Obama’s remarks at the Group of 20 conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, that he was “elected to stop wars, not start them” certainly implies that he sees himself endowed with an expanded global mandate. While it’s far from clear that he understands the oath of office he took to be president of the United States — which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic — he apparently has no trouble viewing himself as more of an “international president.” There is no mandate in that oath that charges him with the responsibility to intervene or stop international wars, unless it can be seen to be in our vital national interests.

The Syrian civil war, by any standard, is a humanitarian tragedy, but it does not qualify as a vital national issue. Further, there is nothing in the oath of office that stipulates that Mr. Obama has a unilateral mandate to support the controversial doctrine of “responsibility to protect.” Supporters of this doctrine are core members of the administration’s national security team — Susan E. Rice, Samantha Power and Denis McDonough — none of whom has any military experience. It should be remembered that this is the weakest and least credible national security team in recent history.

With Mr. Obama’s left-wing upbringing, he has been taught that our great nation is the root cause of many of the world’s problems. It is acknowledged that our superb military capability provides the key underpinning for our influence throughout the world. Therefore, in order to change the dynamics of that influence, the capability of our military forces must be changed. If this assessment is correct, then the appalling unilateral disarmament of our military forces makes sense. Granted, there are economic problems that must be addressed, including out-of-control domestic spending. While our military forces consume less than 20 percent of the federal budget, under sequestration, they have been forced to absorb 50 percent of the draconian budget cuts. It should be remembered that sequestration was an Obama administration initiative.

The impact of conducting two wars over the past decade has taken its toll, and Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for involvement in a third one in Syria would raise the cost. Our military forces have been run hard and put away wet. As a result, our military readiness has been seriously compromised with delayed or canceled required maintenance and overhauls. Equipment, in many cases, is obsolete and needs to be replaced. Drastic cuts to our naval superiority by planning to decommission carrier strike groups, the key element in our ability to project power and a recognized symbol of U.S. power and influence anywhere in the world, make no sense.

The credibility of our military forces has also suffered by making our military, particularly ground forces, adhere to restricted rules of engagement in the failed hope of winning the hearts and minds of tribal Muslim societies. This policy has costs thousands of lives and many more permanent injuries. Further, it has given a distinct advantage to our enemies, who are well familiar with the rules to which our forces must adhere. These forces are our national treasure and cannot be wasted implementing some academic exercise.

Other factors have adversely affected our military forces’ credibility and fighting spirit:

  • Forcing our military to embrace Islam’s seventh-century culture, customs and legal system goes against everything our forces have been taught. For example, if an Afghan beats a woman or sodomizes a young boy, our forces are told not to interfere and look the other way. Is this what we are asking our national treasure to sacrifice their lives for? I don’t think so. We as a nation are better than that. Why are we forcing our military forces to compromise their values?
  • Militarytraining manuals (and trainers) have been purged of any material that links acts of terrorism with Islam.
  • Diversity has become the No. 1 priority for our military forces instead of the proven principle of “professionalism.” Why erode the moral fiber of the finest military forces in the world by making them embrace the homosexual agenda?
  • Restrictions have been removed on women serving in combat.

The bottom line is that none of these social-engineering changes have improved combat readiness or our military credibility and unit integrity. Unless changed, our overall effectiveness will be severely diminished. Is that the objective?

While every other nuclear power is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces, Mr. Obama is forcing further drastic cuts on our strategic and theater nuclear forces, thereby jeopardizing our national security.

The current direction of our military forces requires an immediate course correction. A similar situation occurred in 1949, when Harry Truman’s Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson was planning to eliminate the Navy’s carriers and the Marine Corps. There was a “Revolt of the Admirals” to preserve our Navy’s carrier strike forces. Their success paid large dividends during the Korean War.

Political correctness has silenced our military leadership up to now. However, today’s leaders are no less capable than those World War II-hardened veterans — who led the admirals’ revolt. We clearly need another one, but this time joined by generals, to restore our military’s effectiveness as the finest fighting force in the world. Military leaders are required to give their best professional opinion — even if it opposes administration policies. Nothing less is acceptable.

 

Obama: “Ho Chi Mihn was Inspired by the United States Constitution”

janefonda_s640x425-450x298By :

Ho Chi Minh was a Communist terrorist. President Truong Tan Sang, whom Obama is trying to win over, is a leading Communist.

“We both reaffirmed the efforts that have been made to deal with war legacy issues.  We very much appreciate Vietnam’s continued cooperation as we try to recover our Missing in Action and those that were lost during the course of the war.  And I reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to work with Vietnam around some of the environmental and health issues that have continued, decades later, because of the war,” Obama said.

How nice.

“Finally, we agreed that one of the great sources of strength between our two countries is the Vietnamese American population that is here but obviously has continued strong ties to Vietnam,” Obama said.

Much of America’s Vietnamese population came here as refugees. It’s like claiming that the Cuban community bonds us to Castro.

“At the conclusion of the meeting, President Sang shared with me a copy of a letter sent by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman.  And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.  Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States.  And President Sang indicated that even if it’s 67 years later, it’s good that we’re still making progress,” Obama said.

The message to Truman came in 1946. By then Ho Chi Mihn had long been a dedicated Communist and Soviet agent. At the time the letter was sent, Ho Chi Mihn was murdering his political opponents while trying to wheedle Truman into helping him out.

The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence was indeed partly a cheap copy of the American Declaration of Independence in that it borrowed the format to issue a list of grievances against the French.

And the resemblance ends there. There was no commitment to internal freedom. Its sole real purpose was to kick out the French.

But good news. Obama will go to Vietnam according to President Sang.

“Last but not least, I also, on behalf of our government and our state, to extend to President Obama our invitation to visit Vietnam.  And President Obama has accepted our invitation and will try his best to pay a visit to Vietnam during his term.”

Maybe he can chant the left’s favorite, “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh is going to win” chant while he’s there.

Noxious Nominations: The Four Horsemen of the American Foreign Policy Apocalypse

imagesCATT3GCQBy Barry Rubin

Excerpt:

Brennan is no less than the father of the pro-Islamist policy. What Obama is saying is this: My policy of backing Islamists has worked so well, including in Egypt, that we need to do even more! All those analogies to 1930s appeasement are an understatement. Nobody in the British leadership said, “I have a great idea. Let’s help fascist regimes take power and then they’ll be our friends and become more moderate!” That’s the equivalent of what Brennan does.

********

Brennan’s only life accomplishment has been to propose backing radical Islamists. As a reward, he isn’t just being made head of intelligence for the Middle East but for the whole world! Has Brennan any proven administrative skill? Any knowledge of other parts of the world? No. All he has is a proximity to Obama and a very bad policy concept. What’s especially ironic here is that by now, the Islamist policy has clearly failed and a lot of people are having second thoughts.

With Brennan running the CIA, though, do you think there will be critical intelligence evaluations of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, or even Hamas? Is the CIA going to warn U.S. leaders about the repression against women, Christians, and moderates? Will there be warnings that Islamists are taking over Syria or reports on Islamist involvement in killing Americans in Benghazi?  Can we have confidence about U.S. policy toward Iran?

To get some insight into his thinking, consider the incident in which a left-wing reporter, forgetting there were people listening, reminded Brennan that in an earlier private conversation he admitted favoring engagement not only with the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah, but also the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Ask yourself this question: when an American intelligence chief told Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was a moderate, secular group, who approved that line of argument?

Kerry, of course, was the most energetic backer of sponsoring Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad before the revolt began. Now he will be the most energetic backer of putting the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Syria. Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and torturers (such things certainly happened but Kerry, made the blame collective, except for himself of course).

As for Hagel, suffice it to say that the embarrassing quotes and actions from him in the past — including his opposition to sanctions against Iran — fueled a response to his proposed nomination so strong that the administration had to back down for a while.

What would have happened if President Harry Truman turned over American defense, diplomacy, and intelligence in 1946 to those who said that Stalin wanted peace and that Communist rule in Central Europe was a good thing?

Obama has been president of the United States for four years. Yet in foreign policy, having some decent and competent people in high positions mitigated the damage. Well, the reins are now loosed; the muzzle is off.

I apologize for being so pessimistic, but look at the cast of characters. When it comes to Obama administration foreign policy’s damage on the world and on U.S. interests, one can only say, like the great singer Al Jolson, folks, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

To get a sense of his thinking, check out Brennan’s article, “The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 618, Terrorism: What the Next President Will Face (Jul., 2008), pp. 168-179. Here’s the conclusion:

If the United States actually demonstrates that it will work to help advance rather than thwart Iranian interests, the course of Iranian politics as well as the future of U.S.-Iranian relations could be forever altered.

The Obama administration followed this advice during its first two years with the result being total failure. The theme of the 2008 article carries over to his view of the Muslim Brotherhood. If the United States shows it is friendly, helpful, and does not oppose their taking power, then revolutionary Islamists will become moderate.

For example, he also proposes a U.S. policy “to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system….” This step, he suggests, will reduce “the influence of violent extremists in the organization.”

Of course, Hizballah does not need to stage terrorist attacks if it holds state power! Terrorism is only a tactic to seize control of countries. If you give revolutionaries their goal, then why do they need to continue using such a tactic? Yet putting them in power does not increase stability, improve the lives of people, or benefit U.S. interests. If al-Qaeda, for example, overthrew the Iraqi or Saudi government, you would see a sharp decline in terrorist attacks! If the Muslim Brotherhood rules Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria, it doesn’t need to send suicide bombers into the marketplaces.

The same, by the way, would apply to anywhere else in the world. If Communist rebels took power in Latin American or Asian countries, you wouldn’t find them hanging out in the jungles raiding isolated villages.

In Brennan’s terms, that means the problem would be solved. Instead, the correct response is parallel to Winston Churchill’s point in his 1946 Fulton, Missouri, speech: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”

This is what Brennan — and the Obama administration — fails to understand regarding this point. The danger is not terrorism but a dangerous revolutionary movement that becomes even more dangerous if it controls entire states, their resources, and their military forces.

Read it all at PJ Media

 

Sens. Warner, Mikulski introduce bipartisan bill honoring intelligence service professionals

~ Legislation designates July 26 as ‘U.S. Intelligence Professionals Day’

Contact: Kevin Hall – (202) 224-2023

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, introduced a joint resolution today that would designate July 26 as United States Intelligence Professionals Day to honor intelligence officers, past and present, for their service and professionalism. July 26, 2012 will mark 65 years since President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, which created the intelligence community and governs its activities to this day. The bipartisan legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jim Risch (R-ID), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Mark Udall (D-CO).

“Our country relies on the quiet work of the intelligence community every day to keep us safe, and these men and women – many of them Virginians — deserve our respect and appreciation for their service and sacrifice,” Senator Warner said. “We rely on the abilities of these intelligence professionals and it is appropriate that we honor their work and acknowledge their silent victories.”

“Intelligence professionals serve our country in anonymity knowing that most of the work they do to protect our freedom will never be made public,” Senator Mikulski said. “They are unsung heroes who risk their lives and even give their lives fighting terrorists and those who wish to do this country harm. This bill honors America’s intelligence professionals with their own national day of recognition. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am proud and honored to support the brave men and women of the intelligence community.”

 Text of the resolution introduced by the bipartisan group of nine senators