Erick Erickson of Redstate tries to make Sen. Obama’s statement on when America needs to intervene militarily into a gaffe.
Barack Obama suggests we need to consider moral issues in intervening with combat forces. He mentions intervening in the Holocaust and how we should have done that.
Um Senator, we did intervene in the Holocaust. It was called World War II.
America’s involvement in WWII had nothing to do with the Holocaust. We joined WWII formally because Japan attacked us and we gave informal help before because our ally, England, was being bombed. There was some knowledge of the extermination of Jews by our leadership, but it was never elevated to a reason for war for numerous reasons. Post-WWI America was very non-interventionist, there was a strong strain of anti-semitism in America, and we did not know the full extent of the Holocaust.
Eventually the allies did liberate the Jewish people and it became one of the shining moments in American history for which we can all be proud. But that’s not why we got involved in WWII.
I know this because I’ve read a few history books and I didn’t sleep through history class in school.
Related
Conservatives Are Idiots [Radio Host Kevin James On Neville Chamberlain Appeasement Edition]
Conservatives vs. History
Crack In Your Pocket
The problem with intervening militarily on a humanitarian basis is almost always logistics — and that is where Obama’s lack of military experience and utter disinterest in learning about things military combine in a lethally naive fashion.
What, exactly, would a “no-fly zone” in Darfur achieve? They ain’t using aircraft to commit genocide. It would be about as effective as bans on using spacecraft, mining machines, and death rays.
They’re fighting on the ground. So we need to stop them on the ground. That means we send in large numbers of ground forces with orders to stop the killing.
They do this by killing those who are now doing the killing. That means piling up a lot of bodies.
Bodies of Africans and Muslims and African Muslims. Killed by Americans.
And we have to keep that force adequately supplied. Looked at a map lately? Darfur has no coastline, so we’re talking resupply by land or air. So, do we go in through Libya, Chad, or the Central African Republic? Which of them is going to say “sure, come on in, US, we’ll be glad to help you go kill Muslims in Sudan!”
Let’s also not forget that the people we’ll be fighting will be shooting back. You think it’s unpleasant explaining to parents why their son or daughter was killed in Iraq? Tell the military notification details to bring along a map with Sudan highlighted, along with crib notes on the vital American interest they represent.
That will involve some creative BS. I’d recommend getting Joe Biden to write that one.
And that doesn’t even touch upon the fact that China is aiding and abetting the genocide to shore up its own oil and natural gas supplies. But the only time people are willing to say “no blood for oil” is, apparently, when they’re opposing the US.
That would be the same China that has a veto on the UN Security Council, by the way.
You know something? The genocide in Darfur sucks. It is an abomination.
And there ain’t a damned thing the US can do about it militarily.
But I do give you credit, Oliver — the argument that the US got into World War II over the Holocaust is an utter fabrication, and those who try to rewrite history to say so need to be smacked down.
I just might take a swipe at this guy myself.
J.
There was a surprising amount of pro-German sympathy in America in 1941 too. Not that our involvement and victory in WWII wasn’t arguably our greatest moment as a nation, but it’s always dangerous when pundits try to act like they’re historians. And when politicans make sweeping, moralistic statements that try to divide the world into black and white.
We did the right thing in helping to liberate the concentration camps (although many would argue we were way to slow to do so), but our reasons and motivations were far from pure. That’s how life works, and that’s how adults look at the world.
Hopefully the children currently running our country from the White House will be swepped into the dustbin of history come November. These are dangerous times, and we need steady leadership, not angry old men or faith-based platitudes or presidents who think they can “read another person’s soul” by looking in their eyes.
When I said something to my FIL about attacking Iraq when they did nothing to us, he replied “We attacked Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor”. I couldn’t believe it. I thought the man was smart. So, I explained to him why we attacked Germany and told him to take some remedial history courses at the local community college.
He stopped sending me his wingnut hate emails when I laughed, called him and his friends submoronic cretins and hit reply all.
My wife now forbids me to discuss politics with him.
We didn’t really know about the Holocaust in its full horror until after the war. And besides, Germany declared war on you, duh.
The fact of the matter is that these United States cannot/should not stand idly by during a genocide (although we very often have done just that). Logistics and (narrow) American interests be damned. We are either on the side of right or we are not and no amount of high minded equivocating can change that.
Why is it that Republicans take such perverse pleasure in taking and defending the low road?
Enjoy the landslide people, I know I will.
While Jay makes some salient points about the difficulties of humanitarian military conflict, he’ll find that he’s in a minority of Americans who won’t want desperately to do something in such situations.
Our national character is rooted in the mythos of America as The Good Guy. Good Guys don’t sit on the sidelines watching innocent people get slaughtered.
If “American interest” was a strong enough selling point on its own, then Bush/Cheney wouldn’t have bothered to tell the American people about our mission of liberation and freedom in Iraq. They would have easily appropriated the Coulter Doctrine instead–”we need oil, they have oil, we have guns and will.”
Jay Tea,
The Sudanese government forces and their allies are indeed using aircraft in their war against their own people. Usually small and outdated aircraft that can be easily dealt with using our unmanned planes, so making a no-fly zone would be effective in fighting against the genocide. It would also allow for more effective aid deliveries to the refugees, who can’t safely stay in a camp and must instead go out daily to gather wood in areas where killers and rapists and slavers await them (and have aircraft giving them instructions regarding where the refugees are.)
A no-fly zone isn’t stupid, but the real question is whether or not our military is overextended. There we probably agree, but it wouldn’t take a long-term commitment to knock off Sudan from the air and stop this evil. Let chaos take over, since that’s what they made for their enemies. Would more trouble result? Of course, but I think it’s at least worth considering the possibility that Sudan’s government doesn’t deserve the air it breathes.
SpiderJ, I don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t want desperately to do something. Why the hell do you think I put so much time and effort into trying to think of something to do, but couldn’t find a damned thing that might actually work?
Hope is not a birth control method. Good intentions are often the pavestones to hell. And both are utterly disastrous as foundations of foreign policy.
J.
A ‘no-fly’ zone also means that your aircraft are the only ones in the sky. We do other things from the sky besides shoot down other planes – surveillance, reconnaissance, monitor, logistics and support. There is also a policing element to knowing that any aircraft heard overhead is from the ‘other side,’ which is part of the reason that airports have always been high value targets in war.
Spider, we were writing our comments at the same time.
OK, we declare a no-fly zone over Darfur. How do we enforce it? Suppose we just use drones — where will they be based out of? Who will grant them overflight rights?
Our Air Force and Navy planes were a hell of a lot more overextended enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq than they are today, so that’s not an issue.
And even if we did get them to stop using what few aircraft they do have, and are using, so what? They are doing a lot more of the killing on the ground, up close and personal, and this “drone-enforced no-fly zone” won’t do a thing about that.
The arguments you raise sound an awful lot like the ones used against Saddam — just substitute “Kurds” and “Shiites” and toss in the use of weapons of mass destruction.
J.
Jay Tea:
Have you thought of how doing stuff in Sudan(liberating Darfur and what not) would look to the Chinese? They are Sudan’s biggest trading partner. Speaking of that, why does McCain want to sell more military hardware to Taiwan? Is he trying to intentionally provoke the Chinese? Oh, that is right. Bill “William the Bloody” Kristol was agitating to take on China before he had his Iraq wish fulfilled(You might not remember, but I do).
I just think it’s funny that Jay Tea cares about Sudan all of a sudden.
There is no doubt that the U.S. Gov’t, and others, knew what the Nazis were doing to Jews and other groups well before Pearl Harbor. If not for Pearl Harbor, who knows when, or if, the U.S. would have gotten directly involved in WWII and how many more would have died in concentration camps. Once we were in we were all in, but it should have been sooner. Putting aside the camps, imagine today sitting by and watching London get bombed without intervening militarily. It’s unthinkable.
Not every military action has to be about the U.S.’s best interests. I know it is difficult if not near impossible to know when to draw the line, or maybe it is like pornography – you know it when you see it. At some point we have an obligation to intervene, if for no other reason because no one else can. Sometimes it is just about what is right.
Jay Tea: “Hope is not a birth control method.”
Funny, I thought that was the Palin plan.
Erick did his research by reviewing documentaries, especially one released in 1978, called “Das Haus von Tiere”. From that Award-winning film, he particularly remembered:
“Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”
So give the guy a break, please! His musings are as scrupulously researched as those of noted intellectual, Jonah Goldberg
There was a surprising amount of Pro-German sympathy after World War II as well. Only until the Eichmann trial in Israel did it become OK to even talk publicly about the Holocaust. Before then, most Americans did not know about it, and anyone who brought it up was shushed as wanting to antagonize our much needed German allies in the Cold War against Russia.
I’m not making this up, I remember this very well, even though I was a child at the time. My parents took me to see the Holocaust Museum in France in 1956 (after the film “Night and Fog” came out). When I told friends and relatives (some Jewish) back in the States about what I had seen, I was met with hostility and disbelief.
I’m pretty sure there was a conservative effort to stay out of things, and the slogan was “America First”. Sounds familiar, can’t quite recall why.
To the moron who wrote the first post: in fact they are using aircraft to commit genocide in Darfur, and even worse still, they paint their aircraft with UN markings so as to lure people out from under cover before slaughtering them.
Typical right-wing mouth-breather: relying on nothing but his imagination to support his arguments.
Well said, Oliver. (I will say it’s my understanding we knew a great deal of what was happening to the Jews prior to our entry into the war, and of course, it is still an debate as to why we did not bomb the railways into the concentration camps either before or during the war.)
OK, we declare a no-fly zone over Darfur. How do we enforce it? Suppose we just use drones — where will they be based out of? Who will grant them overflight rights?
If nowhere else, out of the Red Sea. A no-fly zone is an act of war against the Sudanese Government; overflying their territory to get to it is no worse. (Before that stage comes constraining them by embargo: preventing purchase of their oil.)
Nor does this resemble the war against Saddam; it resembles the previous twelve years of more or less successful containment.
Apparently, Erikson’s never visited the Holocaust Museum in D.C. either, since one section deals with this issue, and poses the question about whether Auschwitz should have been bombed. This is standard quibbling to score a point where the facts don’t even support his attack.
I think conservatives cite WWII problematically more than any other conflict, and that’s very unhelpful, but I’d also really like it if all pundits – especially the unrepentant hawks – studied WWI. The rah-rah-glory and sanitized bullshit, and all the irresponsible saber-rattling with little to no consideration of the costs in resources and human lives, doesn’t work as well with a crowd that knows WWI and say, the Battle of the Somme.
There is no doubt that the U.S. Gov’t, and others, knew what the Nazis were doing to Jews and other groups well before Pearl Harbor.
The shipload of Jews arriving at our ports begging for entry and being turned away, temporarily finding refuge elsewhere but most ending up in the concentration camps when Hitler overran the Continent, probably was a hint.
Jay Tea wrote,
Logistics is a problem, of course, but I’d argue that the number one problem is one of motive: as a rule, states never are motivated by humanitarian considerations (even if they pretend to be).
Now, you can claim that “oh, this time it will be different, and we’ll do things for the ‘right’ reasons,” but empirically it just doesn’t seem to happen that way.
John Westerman wrote,
I’m afraid that, as a matter of empirical fact, that’s just not how states—including the US—act.
Now while I’m a committed, very liberal Democrat, have given lots of money to Obama, blah blah blah, I have to go against the grain of the thread here and adamantly state that liberal interventionism is just a bad, bad idea.
We need to get back to the foreign policy enunciated by George Washington and John Quincy Adams. It will be better for us, and better for the world.
There is no doubt that the U.S. Gov’t, and others, knew what the Nazis were doing to Jews and other groups well before Pearl Harbor.
There was no doubt that Jews were being persecuted, but the order to exterminate Europe’s Jews — the Final Solution — was not implemented until the Wansee Conference held January 20, 1942, well after Pearl Harbor.
There had been massacres by Einsatzgruppen in occupied Russia following Germany’s invasion in late summer 1942, but information on them was kept secret and not widely known prior to 1942. So it actually is very doubtful that the US Gov’t knew about what later became known as the Holocaust well before Pearl Harbor. Simply because for the most part it hadn’t started.
Battochio touches on what I think Obama was referring to – the decision not to bomb the railroad lines leading to the death camps. Churchill wanted to do it, Roosevelt thought it wasn’t a top priority for bombers going on very dangerous missions.
The US-UK governments knew what the death camps were for, but probably didn’t understand the extent of what the Nazis were doing.
More info:
“On July 7 [1944], shortly after the U.S. War Department refused requests from Jewish leaders to bomb the railway lines leading to the camps, a fleet of 452 15th Air Force bombers flew along and across the five deportation railway lines on their way to bomb oil refineries nearby.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate#Allied_bombing_and_reconnaissance_missions
OK, the U.S. didn’t know that Germany had a master plan for committing genocide; the U.S. just knew even as of 1933 that Germany was killing Jews. By 1935 New Yorkers were boycotting Germany. By 1940 Germany stated that there would be no peace in Europe so long as Jews remained there.
Can we just take as an assumption for the future that when a country says it won’t allow a particular race of people to exist, not only within its borders but on its continent, that there’s about to be a genocide?
I suspect he exists to road-test RNC-issued talking points in places such as this.
While the bulk of the mass killings took place after the enactment of the “Final Solution,” the camps had been built since as far back as 1933 with Jews being rounded up around 1938-39 where they were killed and forced into slave labor. Perhaps not as on a large scale as post-Pearl Harbor, but they weren’t isolated incidents. There were hundreds and eventually thousands of camps all over Eastern Europe. And as PG stated above, the St. Louis arriving in 1939, and subsequently turned away on orders of FDR, was surely a hint of what was happening.
The movie “Conspiracy” starring Kenneth Branagh and Stanley Tucci, was about that conference. Watch it. It’s a movie involving a bunch of guys sitting around a conference table. It will give you nightmares.
Erick, you are stupid, aren’t you?
The United States entered WWII because Japan attacked us and we were tacitly involved thru our help with England (our ally) before December 7th 1941 because England was being bombed by the Nazis.
We knew very little about the holocaust until we rolled up to the camps. There was a lot of anti-semitic sentiment in this country during the periods between 1900 and 1945. That’s a fact.
You’re an idiot if you think that we entered WWII BECAUSE of the holocaust. Factually wrong as well as wrong in your ideology. Who’d a thunk it?
What a surprise! Another wingnut that shot spitballs during history class!
You’re an idiot.
The movie “Conspiracy” starring Kenneth Branagh and Stanley Tucci, was about that conference. Watch it. It’s a movie involving a bunch of guys sitting around a conference table. It will give you nightmares.
And excellent production. The actual transcript of the meeting was destroyed, but the script follows the sanitized minutes of the conference, and jibes with the interrogation/testimony of Eichmann and other participants after the war.
It isn’t hard to envision an Addington or a Woo sitting in among the other lawyers at that meeting.
Well, I for one congratulate Mr. Tea for coming, albeit belatedly, to the realization that military might can’t accomplish everything.
Can we bring our people home from Iraq yet?
Jay Tea said
“The problem with intervening militarily on a humanitarian basis is almost always logistics — and that is where Obama’s lack of military experience and utter disinterest in learning about things military combine in a lethally naive fashion.
What, exactly, would a “no-fly zone” in Darfur achieve? They ain’t using aircraft to commit genocide. It would be about as effective as bans on using spacecraft, mining machines, and death rays.”
Yes that Obama sure is naive. How could he come up with such a preposterous proposal. It just goes to show you what a complete ignoramous he is on foreign policy. Why yes, nobody, but nobody would agree with this wacky, crazy, loony, moronic idea of a no-fly zone. And we have Jay Tea to thanks for ensuring we all see the complete buffoonery of that lightweight Obama.
I sure am glad I read Jay Tea, he sure must be an expert on Darfur. And I guess he didn’t have to go to the Googles, just to check to see how really, really, really stupid this ideo is.
But if he did, and came up with an ingenious keyword string: (darfur no fly) he really would have shown us his unrivaled expertize on Darfur.
And of course if he checked out the fifth item of that ingenious keyword search, he would have found this link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801664.html
And what would he have found if he actually clicked on that link??????
A 2006 op ed, by none other than John McCain, co-authored with Bob Dole. And what would he have found if he actually read said article, number 5 on the google list of 169,000 hits? Well, he just might have read the following:
“Third, NATO should immediately establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur to ensure that Khartoum ends its offensive military flights and bombing raids, as the Security Council has already demanded.”
Well how about that. I guess Jay Tea should have written the following:
“and that is where McCain’s lack of military experience and utter disinterest in learning about things military combine in a lethally naive fashion.”
“Just Once I Wish A Conservative Would Crack Open A
HistoryBook”Fixed.
Nimrod, Quaker, most of what I said above I plagiarized from an article I wrote over four years ago:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/07/enabling-genoci.php
As far as the logistics go, with Iraq, we had a deep-water port and several bordering nations willing to grant us not only overflight, but basing rights. That made a huge difference in how readily we got into Iraq. With Sudan, the use of the Red Sea means we’d be limited to carrier-based aircraft only — and that puts a lot of wear and tear on naval aviation. That’s pilots, planes, plane crews, carriers, escort vessels… the whole kit and kaboodle.
I am as bothered by the ongoing genocide in Darfur as pretty much anyone. I don’t disagree that we should do something — I just want to know what we can do, and want to make sure that the concerns I have are addressed.
There’s only one thing worse than doing nothing in a situation like this, and that’s doing the wrong thing. When you do the wrong thing, you can be lucky and merely feel better about yourself while actually making no difference at all. If you’re not lucky, then you simply make things worse.
J.
“Now, you can claim that “oh, this time it will be different, and we’ll do things for the ‘right’ reasons,” but empirically it just doesn’t seem to happen that way.”
War must have an economic or political (in the sense of power, not ideology) justification to occur. Those are completely independent of moral considerations. They sometimes overlap, but morals are a consideration of least importance in terms of the social mechanisms that lead to war. They are always constructed, newly emphasized or neglected as required, often retrospectively.
I wouldn’t like to rule out interventionism indefinitely, but it may be a good idea for the nation to abstain for a decade or two, maybe a century. But there are other ways to intervene than with military force. They can even involve personnel, planes, etc. There’s a lot you could do with just that in, say, a flood in a major city.
And let’s not forget Prescott Bush’s involvement with the Nazis.
There’s only one thing worse than doing nothing in a situation like this, and that’s doing the wrong thing. When you do the wrong thing, you can be lucky and merely feel better about yourself while actually making no difference at all. If you’re not lucky, then you simply make things worse.
You sound just like me before the Iraq invasion, hippie.
You just criticised someone for something he didn’t say, you moron.
For that matter, the actual existence of the Holocaust was not known before late 1943. Now, there are controversies over whether the US should have bombed the railroad lines into Auschwitz, but frankly, in my opinion that would not have been effective. The Nazis were murderous, and if we crippled those rail lines, they would have marched the Jews to their deaths, and they would have spent a lot of money to repair those lines. I think, sadly, that the only anti-Holocaust strategy was to defeat the Nazi regime and occupy Germany.
Out of curiosity, why do we assume that we couldn’t base out of Kenya to run a no-fly zone for Darfur? Certainly it is in the interests of neighboring countries to reduce the number of refugees coming from Darfur. I don’t know how many miles our planes feasibly can go to do such a thing, and it may be too large a region for a no-fly zone that isn’t run from land immediately around the area protected. It would be a pain to go through the Indian Ocean port and run the convoy up to Kenya’s northwest border, and obviously we would have to go over airspace in southern Sudan. But I would hope the folks there (who suffered the ravages of civil war with Khartoum) would be reasonably sympathetic toward what’s happening in Darfur, and the Kenyans seem like nice folks, especially the immigration department.
While the bulk of the mass killings took place after the enactment of the “Final Solution,” the camps had been built since as far back as 1933 with Jews being rounded up around 1938-39 where they were killed and forced into slave labor.
The Concentration Camps which existed prior to Wansee were of a very different nature. They were for specific enemies of the state, many of whom were Jewish, but many others were communist. They forced labor, and inmates died due to disease, malnutrition and hosts of other causes. Although the camps themselves could be very deadly (particularly by the end of the war when disease and starvation ravaged them) they were not constructed for the purpose of conducting mass killings. Holocaust deniers typically point to the absence of gas chambers at such concentration camps as “proof” that the Holocaust is a hoax.
At this point, the bulk of the Jewish populations of Nazi Europe were either deported or ghettoized. They certainly were victims of
obscene persecution, but the policy of the Reich had not yet turned to genocide.
The camps used for mass killings – the extermination camps – were specifically constructed in the East for that purpose beginning in 1942 after the Wansee Conference, and specifically designed for the conduct of the genocide we now call the Holocaust.
Actually the full extent of the holocaust was well known by our Government, during WW II. They had some of the best intelligence available. They just didn’t really give a shit. Be proud folks.
Steve
“I just want to know what we can do, and want to make sure that the concerns I have are addressed.”
I am absolutely certain that President Obama will be on the phone with you first, Jay Tea, to reassure you that you’re concerns have been addressed. And when you get the call, please try to carry yourself with some sense of dignity: Remember to brush the Cheeto dust off your t-shirt.
(There is nothing more amusing to me than the the self-aggrandizement of the right’s armchair generals.)
Fafaroo, I’d hope that President Obama listens to SOMEONE who knows something about the military, because he knows jack shit about it himself. And even worse, his running mate THINKS he knows something, but at least half of what he “knows” is utterly wrong.
J.
Again, while the bulk of the mass murders came after Wannsee, the camps were in existence and Jews and others were routinely killed there or allowed to die en mass. Dachau was built in 1933 and Buchenwald in 1937. Parts of Auschwitz in 1940. And yes, the camps, initially, were not extermination camps, but by 1941, prior to Pearl Harbor and Wannsee, mass murders were taking place there.
The fact that a ship of Jews looking to escape came to our shores in 1939, only to be turned away by FDR, is obviously a clue that something bad is happening.
The fact remains the U.S. knew what was happening and turned a blind eye. If not for Pearl Harbor, we might never have gotten involved.
Dachau was built in 1933 and Buchenwald in 1937. Parts of Auschwitz in 1940. And yes, the camps, initially, were not extermination camps, but by 1941, prior to Pearl Harbor and Wannsee, mass murders were taking place there.
Mass murder in the camps was first implemented at Chelmo which was completed in December 1941 using vans, and on a larger scale using gas chambers in what the Germans called Aktion Reinhard at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, starting in 1942.
The first gas chambers at Auschwitz were not completed until 1942 – the camp prior to that time housed a mixture of communists, political prisoners, and some Jewish prisoners.
Obviously “something bad” was happening in Germany to Jews by 1939 when the passengers of the St. Louis were denied entry. They were subject to incredibly discriminatory laws which precluded them from holding jobs, owning property, and most rights of citizenship.
But the process of organized mass murder didn’t start until after Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into the war.
I’d hope that President Obama listens to SOMEONE who knows something about the military,
That’s a great idea, Mr. Tea! President Obama could hire a guy who knows all about military matters to give him advice. He might even meet with this man (or woman) on a regular basis! Maybe even include him or her in cabinet meetings!
You’re brilliant, Mr. Tea? But what do you think this person’s job title should be?
Bush knows nothing about ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH BEING PRESIDENT. Even now. After eight years of supposedly doing the job.
I’m sure you’re okay with that.
The movie “Conspiracy” starring Kenneth Branagh and Stanley Tucci, was about that conference. Watch it. It’s a movie involving a bunch of guys sitting around a conference table. It will give you nightmares.
“And excellent production. The actual transcript of the meeting was destroyed, but the script follows the sanitized minutes of the conference, and jibes with the interrogation/testimony of Eichmann and other participants after the war.”
It’s good, but the original German film on which Conspiracy is based is even better, in my opinion. Die Wanseekonferenz was made for West German TV in 1984. It is real-time, and quite extraordinary.
It isn’t hard to envision an Addington or a Woo sitting in among the other lawyers at that meeting.
Indeed, not at all hard. I can even think of a cast . . .
Thanks for the recommendation of “Conspiracy” (2001). Netflxed it.
“I’d hope that President Obama listens to SOMEONE who knows something about the military …”
I think Quaker lays this one to rest pretty well.
Jay Tea, you can go back to playing Risk now.
I’d hope that President Obama listens to SOMEONE who knows something about the military, because he knows jack shit about it himself.
JT, out of curiosity, why do you suppose that the framers insisted that the CiC must be a civilian? Not that he can’t have military experience, but obviously military experience in the president was not something the framers considered necessary.
I have military experience myself, but I hardly think having served qualifies me to be CiC. Do YOU think that having served is vital to the president’s understanding of military matters? How did Franklin Roosevelt do?
I dunno, do you think a guy who graduated Magna Cum Laude from the most prestigious school in the country might be able to figure out how to be CiC? And how could anyone possibly be worse than Bush, who froze like a squirrel in the road in a second grade class while his country was under attack?
Having someone holding the title “Secretary of Defense” is no guarantee that they actually know what they’re doing. Further, there is no guarantee that they will be listened to.
As we have seen in the past.
Look into the backstory of the Battle of Mogadishu, for a classic example.
J.
This is the part where Jay Tea goes off on a tangent.
Jay Tea, you bore me. You’re as predictable as heat in August.
Just out of interest, but did your history books mention the difference between “England” and “The United Kingdom”?
“I think, sadly, that the only anti-Holocaust strategy was to defeat the Nazi regime and occupy Germany.”
Eichmann offered to trade 1 million Hungarian Jews for 10,000 trucks filled with soap.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jewsfortrucks.html
There were all types of options that were not explored and because the camps remained open, the Nazis were able to maintain there killings in secret. The death marches occurred during the KAOS at the end and may not have been acceptable Axis occupied population.
That’s part of the reason that we are still debating this today. It’s one of the eternal “What if?” of history.
Repack, stop rewriting what I say to make your pointless point. I never said “experience,” I said knowledge. The two sometimes overlap, but they don’t have to.
For example: witness the ways Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon employed the military. Then remember that Nixon was a Navy vet from World War II.
To paraphrase Oliver, it would be nice if occasionally liberals would learn from history instead of rewriting it.
J.
“Look into the backstory of the Battle of Mogadishu, for a classic example.”
Jay Tea, why didn’t you start with Rumsfeld and Iraq? Now THERE’S your classic example of both a president and a defense secretary who had no clue what they were doing and refused to listen to those that did.
What is The Holocaust?
You know, Jay tea, something just caught my eye. Here’s the first sentence you wrote in this thread:
“The problem with intervening militarily on a humanitarian basis is almost always logistics — and that is where Obama’s lack of military experience and utter disinterest in learning about things military combine in a lethally naive fashion.”
I’m not the military expert you are but I’ll bet that the problem with intervening militarily on ANY basis is almost always logistics. Just a wild guess. Or in your vast understanding of military history is logistics only something that poses a problem when the goal is humanitarian? Jesus.
This is the kind of classic right wing asshattery that just makes me howl.
I bet you thought you were really off to a great start with that one. So reasonable, so learned, so smart. Why that sentence is just packed with serious words, McCain-like words: “military,” “intervention,” “logistics.” Who could argue with such a seriously considered and rendered statement? Why no one of course, because it’s so completely, totally and patently obvious.
But not for Obama. Nope. Why Obama is so inexperienced I’ll bet he never in a million years would have thought that logistics are “almost always” a problem when it comes to military interventions, especially not humanitarian ones! Why I’ll bet he’s never even heard of those serious, McCain-like words — and he’s too much of an egomaniac to ask what they mean or even look them up. And if he did ask someone, he’d probably ask Bill Ayers.
Jay Tea, you must be the biggest blowhard on the internets.
Fafaroo, I’d hope that President Obama listens to SOMEONE who knows something about the military, because he knows jack shit about it himself.
Unlike McCain, of course, who knows all about the military because he was a POW, and because his Daddy and Grampaw were Admirals.
And McCain’s sorta like George W. Bush, who knows all about how to run an oil company (or two) and a country because his Poppy and Grampy did that stuff (more or less).
What EXACTLY do you want your “SOMEONE” to know? That the Greeks won at Marathon/Salamis? That the cheese-eating surrender monkeys lost at Agincourt? That something happened at/on the Plains of Abraham? That, according to Vizzini, you should “never get involved in a land war in Asia”? That a General outranks a Colonel?
Or should the “SOMEONE” just be able to tell the difference between when his generals (etc.) know what they’re doing, and when they’re feeding him a line? And perhaps the “SOMEONE” should know how to make a rational decision? Or maybe that the “SOMEONE” knows how much he/she doesn’t know, and takes steps to gain the required knowledge?
But I guess I see your point, because of a striking parallel from the business world: Lou Gerstner knew jack shit about running a computer company before he became IBM’s CEO – that became obvious fairly quickly, since IBM went out of business shortly after he took over, didn’t it?
Or am I being too subtle, Ess Eff Bee?
[Oliver, can you implement some kind of minimum-intelligence-test that commenters must pass before commenting? I realize Jay Tea would doubtless ace it, while I would doubtless fail miserably, but at least it would keep down SOME of the noise.]
Jay Tea, you must be the biggest blowhard on the internets.
fafaroo -
With my previous comment, I am hoping to wrest that title from him.
I’m not entirely certain why I’m about to waste my time explaining reality to this bunch of gibbering, crap-flinging monkeys who seem far more interested in showing each other how clever they can toss insults than discuss reality, but here is the challenge in intervening in Darfur:
1) Determine the desired outcome on the scene.
2) Calculate the force needed (size and mix) to achieve that goal.
3) Assemble that force.
4) Find a route that will get that force to the scene without intervening conflict.
4A) If an uncontested route cannot be found, add to the force enough elements to secure the route without so many casualties as to diminish the force beyond what it needs to achieve goal 1.
5) Begin transporting the force to the destination, making certain that the initial force is strong enough to secure the arrival point from an immediate attack.
6) Have the force establish its base (not necessarily the arrival point) and bring in the rest of the force.
7) Keep the force supplied with sufficient materiel (including food, water, weapons, ammunition, and reinforcements, just to name a few of the requirements for sustained operations).
That’s just the bare-bones, off the top of my head, kind of details that Obama will need explained to him once he becomes Commander In Chief. Bringing about “change” in a foreign nation engaging in genocide against its own people is a smidgen more complicated than throwing a few hundred thousand dollars at community organizers like ACORN and having them fake an assload of voter registration forms in preparation for massive voter fraud.
Obama, despite his brief flirtation with a military career (September 7, 2008 — George Stephanopoulos asks him if he ever considered a military career: “You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service [a means of conscription in case of war] when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there. And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honourable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.” Of course, this does fly in the face of reality — he graduated in 1979, registration for the draft didn’t come back until late summer 1980, so he wouldn’t have had to register and could not have registered until after his first year of college), has never shown the slightest interest in things military. And his running mate can’t tell the difference between a battalion and a brigade. (Here’s a hint: it’s about 6,000-7,000 people, and a lot more weaponry.)
Maybe he’ll suddenly develop an interest and be a remarkably fast learner. Could happen. But I’m not taking that chance with my vote.
J.
“Bringing about “change” in a foreign nation”
Um, this is exactly what George Bush (with his awesome experience in the Texas National Guard) tried to do in Iraq, and he failed miserably.
Not sure what you’re driving at Jay. First, you’re claiming that Obama fancies himself a wizened military leader, something that he’s never done. Calm, confident, intelligent, and capable? Well, most Americans think he’s all of these things and would remain cool in an emergency or crisis. McCain? The man’s a time bomb and doesn’t have the character of a president. Military experience? Of course. He crashed four different jets and helped us lose the Vietnam War.
Second, if actual military experience is really the most important qualification for being POTUS, then answer me these two questions: 1) Why didn’t you vote for John Kerry in 2004 and 2) Why did you think non-vets like Rumsfeld and Cheney could ever possibly pull off a succesful round of nation-building in Iraq?
(You do remember the phrase “nation building,” don’t you? That scary, wasteful thing big bad Bill Clinton did when he sent a relatively small number of US troops in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia? But all of a sudden, under a Republican president, nation building became “spreading democracy”? Yeesh. I get the impression that you honestly fancy yourself a “student of history” or something like that, when the fact is you’re a feebleminded simpleton who tries to bluster his way through these arguments and simply isn’t equipped for them. And so people point out that you’re full of shit, and you respond with the time-tested WALL OF TEXT tactic. Thanks for the laughs, yet again.)
I’m not entirely certain why I’m about to waste my time explaining reality to this bunch of gibbering, crap-flinging monkeys who seem far more interested in showing each other how clever they can toss insults than discuss reality, …
Maybe because you’re a dimwit in love with the sound of your own voice (so to speak)? Or because you like playing the I’m-not-going-to-stoop-to-name-calling-like-those-assholes card?
… but here is the challenge in intervening in Darfur:
You know, it took me all of two minutes (because I’m a slo-o-o-o-w reader) to read through your Clausewitzian-in-their-brilliance list of tactics (or as McCain would call them, “strategy”). If I weren’t part Preussich, I would never have understood the subtleties like:
1) Determine the desired outcome on the scene.
2) Calculate the force needed (size and mix) to achieve that goal.
3) Assemble that force.
4) Find a route that will get that force to the scene without intervening conflict.
4A) If an uncontested route cannot be found, add to the force enough elements to secure the route without so many casualties as to diminish the force beyond what it needs to achieve goal 1.
5) Begin transporting the force to the destination, making certain that the initial force is strong enough to secure the arrival point from an immediate attack.
6) Have the force establish its base (not necessarily the arrival point) and bring in the rest of the force.
7) Keep the force supplied with sufficient materiel (including food, water, weapons, ammunition, and reinforcements, just to name a few of the requirements for sustained operations).
.
.
.
That’s just the bare-bones, off the top of my head, kind of details that Obama will need explained to him once he becomes Commander In Chief.
It is truly amazing that you believe that Obama couldn’t pick this up in about 30 seconds. I realize you probably studied for years to be able to come up with such an exhaustive list, etc., etc.
But if the best you got is that Biden doesn’t know the size difference between a brigade and a battalion (or a platoon and a company or a phalanx and a kumquat), then you got jack shit.
Maybe he’ll suddenly develop an interest and be a remarkably fast learner. Could happen. But I’m not taking that chance with my vote.
Good point. Much better to give your vote to someone who finished 5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis; who doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia, or between financial and fiscal; who gave aid and comfort to the enemy while a POW in the “Hanoi Hilton”; who was a member in good standing of the Keating Five (until he decided he couldn’t play the “I’ve learned from my mistake and will now be a Reformer” role any longer); who is trying to get a government corruption investigation of his running mate squashed.
Oh, how I long for the days of Floyd Alvis Cooper. Even Kaye Grogan showed more intellectual rigor than you, Jay Tea. I think it’s time for you to go back on your meds.
Hmm. Rumsfeld actually served three years in the Navy. My bad.
But further proof that military service doesn’t make for unimpeachable expertise on military matters. Not that it hurts either, IMO, but there’s a reason why US presidents were suits and ties, not military outfits like third-world dictators.
(Unless your name is Chimpy McFlightsuit and you’re trying to pull of a campaign speech on an aircraft carrier.)
I realize this contradicts your little fantasy world, Jaim, but not only did Rumsfeld serve in the Navy, but he had previously been Ford’s Secretary of Defense. In fact, he holds the distinction of being both the youngest and oldest SecDef in history.
But that’s a diversion. I didn’t say that military SERVICE was essential, but military KNOWLEDGE. That would be what I meant when I referred to FDR and Richard Nixon (although Lyndon Johnson would be an even better comparison). Experience can often give the knowledge, but it’s not necessary.
Obama was willing to make up a bullshit story about considering a career in the military (kind of like Hillary Clinton joining the Marines). That says, to me, that he doesn’t take it seriously.
J.
So that’s really your whole argument: that Obama was willing to tell a story about considering military service that you claim (without proof) is untrue.
From that you give us a bogus argument full of platitudes and statements of the obvious (”the problem is….logistics”)in a vain attempt to show us how we’re all moroms and you’re a fucking expert. Hysterical.
Jay, you’re more unbelievable than usual. If Obama had said “Fuck no I wasn’t going to be a soldier,” you’d crucify him.
As for this: Rumsfeld “had previously been Ford’s Secretary of Defense.”
No shit Sherlock. We didn’t win in Vietnam thanks to him, and we’ve already lost in Iraq. We’re definitely losing in Afghanistan unless Obama takes charge and sets things right.
Game. Set. Match. Take yr meds, get yr mom to bring you a PBnJ without the crusts you moronic troll.
As for “knowledge,” Obama has degrees from two Ivies (granted, so does Bush II). You can argue against his policies, but you can’t argue against his intelligence. Unless you have degrees from The Sorbonne and Stanford, just give it a rest.
Bruce, Obama said he’d considered the military after graduating high school and having to register for the draft. Instead, he went to college.
Only problem: he graduated in 1979 and entered college. The draft registration wasn’t reinstated until the summer of 1980, after he completed his first year of college. So his story about being a fresh high school graduate and looking at registering for the draft is complete and utter bullshit.
Jaim: Ever since the draft ended, all anyone has to say is that they didn’t think a military career was right for them. Lord knows it wasn’t for me. (Health issues.)
Also, Rumsfeld was Ford’s SecDef. Ford wasn’t president until the latter half of 1974, and Rumsfeld took office in late November of 1975. Are you saying things were going just swimmingly up until that point, and it was Rumsfeld’s fault alone that we lost?
What was that about “game/set/match?” I think you just managed to geld yourself and your own arguments — with a rusty chainsaw.
I’d suggest putting some rubbing alcohol on those cuts.
J.
Jaim -
I think you have a lot of nerve, comparing Bush II to Obama. After all, Bush II came from nothing, and had to work hard for everything he had – not like Obama who had everything handed to him on a silver platter, being a “legacy” student and all that.
And Bush II has time and again proved his staggering intellect. Need I remind you of the understated praise given him by Hinderaker, lo these many years ago? (In case you’re unfamiliar with this particular statement, you can read it here:
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/03/02/it-must-be-very-strange-to-be-john-hinderaker/ )
So, please, leave Jay Tea ALO-O-O-O-ONE!
And his Mommy doesn’t bring him PBnJ, you moonbat! She brings him fresh bags of Cheetos! (And, now that Palin’s on the scene, fresh boxes of Kleenex.)
Rumsfeld’s alone? No. But Rumsfeld is the perfect example of someone with military experience who’s incompetent. Just look at how he screwed up Iraq. Or would you like to tell us about his numerous successes as a SecDef, at any point in time?
Sorry, but your stupid burns stronger than usual in this thread. Go try and troll another one.
So that’s really your whole argument: that Obama was willing to tell a story about considering military service that you claim (without proof) is untrue.
Not really. He’s also big on the idea that Biden “can’t tell the difference between a battalion and a brigade. (Here’s a hint: it’s about 6,000-7,000 people, and a lot more weaponry.)” Of course, according to Wikipedia, US Army brigade strength is 3,000-5,000 soldiers, and a battalion is 300-1,000 soldiers …let’s see …. 5,000 minus 1,000 equals 7,000, and 3,000 minus 300 equals 6,000 …. yeah, that’s about right.
Jay Tea, you incomparable nincompoop: if you’re going to flame Biden for his “lack” of military knowledge, you should at least get your numbers straight. Or, you could move to Elbonia, where you’d fit right in.
Jay Tea -
Seriously, girlfriend, you need to dial it back a little. I’m concerned that all this hard work you’re doing, in your efforts to make shit up, will cause your remaining brain cell to implode, and I wouldn’t want to be even partially responsible for you stroking out. (Please note that “stroking out” is not the same as “stroking it” – THAT you can continue to do until all your precious bodily fluids are depleted, for all I care.)
And everyone knew in 1979 that they would have to register in 1980. Were you even born in 1979? ‘Cause I’ve been keeping up since 1968 or so.