Obama v. Military

Custom Search

 Obama did NOT include one dollar of military spending in the entire "stimulus"



help fight the media






Items are archived in this category chronologically or in the order of discovery.  Previous year in left column . . .
It Just Boggles

When Being PC Is More Important Than Living
Margaret Calhoun Hemenway says recent pictures in Stars and Stripes feature female U.S. service members wearing the Islamic headscarf, also known as a hijab.  These women are part of a new initiative, Female Engagement Teams, being deployed in Afghanistan.

Aside from questions about whether the safety of these women deployed into harm's way is jeopardized by trading the helmet for the hijab, the photos invoke memories of a policy fight in Congress less than a decade ago.  In 2002, the Senate overturned a DoD mandate requiring female American service members stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the Saudi version of the burqa, known as an abaya.  Similarly, in the House of Representatives, an amendment was enacted to end the "abaya" mandate. Women in Saudi Arabia (or in Afghanistan under the brutal reign of the primitive Taliban) are subject to beatings by religious police (in Saudi Arabia known as muttawa), if they expose, even inadvertently, a wrist or ankle.
The DoD "abaya" policy was defended under the guise of "cultural sensitivities," but it morphed into being justified as necessary for "force protection," since "cultural sensitivities" smacked of political correctness.  Could anyone imagine U.S. soldiers dispatched to South Africa under Apartheid segregating black and white soldiers to comply with "cultural sensitivities?"  Yet in Saudi Arabia, American servicewomen, prior to congressional intervention, were subjected to similar humiliation and coerced into conformance with an alien religious faith.

In Barack Obama's Cairo speech in June 2009, he stated, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal."  Obama implied, mistakenly, that wearing of the hijab is by choice.  Surely Obama, with part of his youth spent in Muslim-dominant Indonesia, knows that in strict Islamic societies, the veil or headscarf is not optional.  Even in the U.S. and Canada, young Muslim women have been killed by their fathers for refusing to submit to Islamic practices, including covering their hair -- their "crime" being their desire to fit in and to look like other American girls.

Back in 2001, Congress unanimously decided, with support from feminists and religious freedom advocates, that it was wrong to subject female service members to requirements of an Islamic regime that relegates women to second-class status.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama's Very Special Forces
Rowan Scarborough is reporting that American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the militaryís new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan said Thursday.

The Pentagon is launching an extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units.

Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill, the top enlisted man in Afghanistan where 100,000 U.S. troops are deployed, said that the sessions on respecting gaysí rights will go right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban militants.

"I have heard about the training that will be forthcoming to the battlefield," Sgt. Hill told Pentagon reporters via a teleconference from Kabul.

"We will take our directions from the Department of Defense, from the secretary of defense, the chairman, as well as the service chiefs of each service.  Our plan is to take their direction, and weíre going to execute that training right here on the battlefield."

No unit is exempted, he said.
Sissy sensitivity training will be scheduled right between bayonet drill and hand-to-hand combat.
Just For Fun

Few Americans See Obama As Strong Military Leader
Reuters is reporting that only 17% of Americans see Barack Obama as a strong and decisive military leader, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after the United States and its allies began bombing Libya.

Nearly half of those polled view Obama as a cautious and consultative commander-in-chief and more than a third see him as indecisive in military matters.

Obama was widely criticized in 2009 for his months-long consultations with senior aides and military chiefs on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.  Critics called it dithering, but he said such a big decision required careful deliberation.  He eventually dispatched 30,000 more troops.

But Obama is facing mounting discontent among opposition Republicans and from within his own Democratic Party over the fuzzy aims of the U.S.-led mission in Libya and the lack of a clearly spelled-out exit strategy for U.S. forces.
If the Libya mission becomes a foreign policy mess, mixed with perceptions Obama is a weak military leader, it could spell trouble for him in the 2012 presidential election.

The poll also found that 60 percent of Americans support the United States and its allies bombing Libya to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said the United States and its allies should try to remove Gaddafi, who has ruled the oil-exporting North African country for more than four decades.

In the survey, conducted on March 22 from a nationally representative sample of 975 adults, only 7 percent supported deploying ground troops.

Of the 60 percent in favor of the Libya military action, 20 percent strongly supported it and 40 percent somewhat supported it. Twenty-five percent somewhat opposed it and 14 percent were strongly against it.
Lowest Military Op Approval In 4 Decades
Terence P. Jeffrey says Barack Obama's intervention in Libya's civil war has not only failed to win the approval of a majority of the American people, according to a Gallup poll conducted Monday, it also earned the lowest public approval rating of any U.S. military operation polled by Gallup over the past four decades.

In fact, it was the only U.S. military intervention polled by Gallup that received less than majority approval from Americans.

"The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades."

That compares to the 90 percent approval rating Americans gave President George W. Bush's October 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the 83 percent approval rating they gave President George H.W. Bush's January 1993 bombing of military targets in Iraq, the 76 percent approval rating they gave President George W. Bush's March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the 71 percent approval rating they gave President Ronald Reagan's March 1986 bombing of Libya, and the 66 percent approval rating they gave President Bill Clinton's August 1998 missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, according to the Gallup poll.

Before Obama's intervention in Libya, the least popular U.S. military intervention polled by Gallup was President Clinton's 1999 intervention in the Balkan conflict over Kosovo. In a survey conducted April 30 to May 2, 1999, only 51 percent of Americans approved of that military action [and we were on the wrong side in that one].

Continue reading here -- with poll results . . .

It won't matter.  The ObamaMedia will ignore this poll and tell us what a magnificent job Obama is doing.
Obama Says American Troops "Volunteered By Others"
Ed Driscoll says remember when the lads at Time magazine went on a bender in late January and did the cover story on Obama as the second coming of President Reagan?  Try to image the Gipper uttering these words, as spotted by Bryan Preston on the Pajamas Tatler blog:

A very alert Tatler reader tipped us to this statement by Obama.  It's from an interview he did in El Salvador during his swing through Central and South America.  Take a look at how he characterizes how the United States has ended up putting troops in harm's way in Libya.


And we will continue to support the efforts to protect the Libyan people, but we will not be in the lead.  That's what the transition that I discussed has always been designed to do.  We have unique capabilities.  We came in, up front, fairly readily, fairly substantially, and at considerable risk to our military personnel.  And when this transition takes place, it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone.  It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily involved in enforcing the arms embargo.  That's precisely what the other coalition partners are going to do.

And that's why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost.  It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.  And we will accomplish that in a relatively short period of time.


There are problems with all of that, especially in the military capabilities and will to act that this president seems to think our allies possess. There would have been no no-fly zone without the US, and there will be no no-fly zone if we're not playing a major role in enforcing it.  That's just reality.

But moving past that, the bolded sentence in the second paragraph beggars belief.  As president, Obama is the commander-in-chief of the US military.  It should not be "volunteered by others" for anything.  Obama is, to borrow the word of a previous president, the decider when it comes to deploying the military.  But here is more evidence that not only is Obama uncomfortable with command, he is also very leery of American leadership in the world.  See Tony Katz's article at PJM for a deeper look into that.

Here's a screen capture of the relevant passage, lest it disappear from Obama's Website:

Click to enlarge.
And since context is everything, click here for more from that page.

As Bryan writes, "This is a coalition and a war in total disarray, because the American president is abdicating his responsibility at every turn."
Obama Administration Threatens War Fighters
Fred Lucas is reporting that the military will continue to earn money but not be paid during a government shutdown, a senior Obama administration official said:

"Military will continue to work as I described earlier.  "They will continue to earn money during this period of time.  Given that we do not have any money to pay out, they will not be paid.  They will not receive their paychecks until we have money again and Congress appropriates."


Military personnel would be paid for the current pay period, but if a government shutdown extends beyond April 15, military paychecks would be impacted, but they would get backpay once military funding is restored, said Josh Holly, a spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) is working to ensure that military pay does not become a political bargaining chip, Holly said.

"They would get the pay.  The problem is they wouldn't get it when they plan on getting it," McKeon said in a press conference Monday.  "I don't even want to contemplate that because to think we would have our young men and women over on the front lines putting their lives on the line with their families at home with bills to pay that don't get their paycheck -- I just think that's really going too far.  I think we are mature enough to get this thing fixed."


I really, really hate these bastards!  This administration has sent our warriors into battle with one hand tied behind their backs, wants female soldiers to wear the hijab instead of the Kevlar helmet, and now they are threatening not to pay them.  Despicable bastards.

And somebody inform that dickheaded "administration official" that what our warriors are doing could hardly be described as "work."
Obamaís New "Donít Ask, Donít Tell" Policy
The Washington Times says soldiers offended by the sight of two male Marines kissing in public better not mention that fact to their superiors.  Under Obama, the new "Donít Ask, Donít Tell" rules turn the Clinton-era policy on its head.  Now those who embrace traditional moral values are the ones being told to stay in the closet.

In testimony Thursday before the House Armed Services Committee, leaders of each service branch answered questions about what they have been doing to implement the repeal of the long-standing ban on open homosexual conduct in the military.  In December, defeated members of Congress rammed through a repeal of the homosexual conduct ban in a lame-duck congressional session.  The new policy will take effect 60 days after the Pentagon certifies that doing so wonít undermine military readiness.  Given marching orders from the White House, the top generals and admiral made clear they have every intention of providing the rubber stamp the Obama administration seeks.

Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos insisted that so far there had been no "push back" from the troops.  Thatís because administration officials had been busy laying the groundwork for this change long before the repeal was signed into law.  The message from on high has been crystal clear: Anyone who has a problem with the New Gay Army isnít welcome.  As Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen put it in a briefing last year, the answer for those who donít like it is "to vote with your feet" and leave the military.

Committee Republicans raised concern about how the new policy would drive away experienced officers and enlisted personnel.  Thereís no doubt that a significant number of those interested in serving their country might pause at the prospect of joining up at a time when political correctness, not mission effectiveness, is the primary goal at the Pentagon.  Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz equated the "moderate risk" of the open homosexuality policy with the risk of going to war.

Under questioning, the heads of the service branches were unable to explain how allowing homosexual conduct would enhance the ability of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force to wage war.  Thatís the big news out of this event, according to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness.  "All they talk about is mitigating problems," she told The Washington Times.  "Well, why cause the problems in the first place?  It all boils down to the generalsí and admiralsí hope, and the junior officers have to cope.  Thatís what theyíre calling leadership."

Re-education briefings already have begun at the highest ranks and will continue down the chain of command to the enlisted ranks over the course of the next few months.  Forcing soldiers to endure Powerpoint slides and new sensitivity training sessions would seem to be the last thing a commander in chief who just opened a third overseas war ought to do.

Repealing "Donít Ask, Donít Tell" never was about anything other than payback to the radical homosexual lobby for its support during Barack Obamaís presidential campaign.  The new policy can still be stopped if the service chiefs refuse to certify that open homosexual conduct will have no effect on readiness.  If they value their duty to America, thatís exactly what they need to do.
Obama's Taliban-Friendly Rules Of Engagement
Sara A. Carter is reporting that Several Taliban detainees who had been captured in February after being observed placing bombs in the culverts of roads used by civilians and military convoys near Kandahar were fed, given medical treatment, then released by American troops frustrated by a policy they say is forcing them to kick loose enemies who are trying to kill them.

Despite what American soldiers say was a mountain of evidence, which included a video of the men planting the bomb and chemical traces found on their hands, there was nothing the soldiers who had captured them could do but feed and care for them for 96 hours and then set them free.

In another incident, members of a unit attached to 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment survived an attack by a suicide bomber on their convoy when his device failed to detonate.  Soldiers managed to capture the would-be martyr, but he too was released after being held for four days.

"We put our lives on the line to capture the enemy," a soldier with the Stryker regiment told The Washington Examiner.  "Since my deployment, every insurgent we've captured has been released."

International Security Assistance Forces officials contacted by The Examiner admitted that releases like these were common.  The officials said ISAF forces can hold detainees for up to 96 hours, during which time detainees are "screened and a decision is made whether to release the individual, transfer them to appropriate Afghan authorities, or to the detention facility in Parwan [at Bagram Air Base]."

ISAF spokesman Lt. Col. John Dorrian said things are expected to change. He said Afghanistan's Ministry of Interior, supported by Combined Joint Interagency Task Force 435, is implementing a system for fingerprinting captured insurgents.

That'll fix them -- put ink on their fingers before releasing them -- WTF?

Troops say top commander Gen. David Petraeus, who "swore loyalty" to Obama, has not fulfilled promises he made to Congress last year to review and, where appropriate, change rules of engagement that have restricted troops' ability to stop the enemy.

Troops say it's impossible to hold the terrain when insurgents know that, if captured, they cannot be held.

The policy of releasing insurgents is expected to continue for now, officials said.

"While there may be ample evidence to detain an individual, the same evidence may be insufficient to obtain an indictment or bring the detainee to an evidence-based trial," Dorrian said.  "In other instances, individuals may be detained based on legitimate intelligence, but the intelligence may be classified and thus not able to be presented in open court.  In some instances, this results in the individual being released."

Obama is out to destroy our military, but don't ask, and whatever you do, don't tell.
From Blackfive
Froggy says this story regarding whether or not the SEALs were specifically instructed to kill UBL has now officially gotten out of control.  Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too, and in so doing, he has completely buddy f*cked the SEAL Teams.  Already stories are being written by Obama syncophants and AQ sympathizers implicating the SEALs as essentially murdering an unarmed man.  Meanwhile, on background, more "Senior Administration Officials" are saying that POTUS ordered the SEALs to assassinate bin Laden, but there's more:

The SEALsí decision to fatally shoot bin Laden -- even though he didnít have a weapon Ė wasnít an accident.  The administration had made clear to the militaryís clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions.  A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.

WRONG F*CKING ANSWER!  If you order the SEALs to kill and not capture bin Laden then there is NO DECISION FOR THEM TO MAKE!  They are following explicit orders of the President of the United States, but Obama does not have the sac to stand behind his decision and support the very people who are responsible for the only foreign policy victory of his Presidency.  Sure, Obama is content to accept the congratulations from the media and his supporters for his "gutsy" decision, but when the rubber meets the road he says, "Hey thanks SEALs for killing bin Laden like I told you to.  But you didn't expect me to stand behind you when my left wing media starts going after you as murderers?  Oh you did?  How cute."

This is the most disgusting and craven betrayal of leadership that I have ever seen.  Also, where is the NSW Leadership?  JSOC?  They are keeping their mouths shut like good little soldiers while their own men are trampled underfoot and mischaracterized as having unilaterally decided to shoot an unarmed man despite following explicit orders to do so.  Way to go.
Senators Press Obama On War Powers Deadline
Dana Bash is reporting that as the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark today, six Republican senators wrote Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.

"Friday is the final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response." wrote the GOP senators Wednesday.

The letter was signed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

The GOP senators said they believe Obama already violated part of the War Powers Act -- which says a president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.

But Obama did follow the provision in the 1973 law requiring him to provide information to Congress about committing U.S. forces after the fact. Now the question is whether he will abide by the part of the War Powers Act which says he must get Congressional permission within 60 days.

Tweedle Dee (Kerry) and Tweedle Dumb (McCain) comment here . . .
Troops Lose Confidence In Obama

Elaine Donnelly is reporting that Barack Obama is working hard to shore up his liberal political base, but military voters may be less likely to lend support for his re-election. According to the 2011 Military Times Poll of active-duty subscribers, confidence in the overall job performance of the Commander-in-Chief has plummeted from 70% to 25%. The steep decline was illustrated with a multi-color bar graph on a page 10 of the September 19, 2011, Navy Times print edition, and in a secondary link in the web-posted article available to non-subscribers, titled "A Souring Mood."

The 2011 annual poll published in different service versions of the Gannet-owned Military Times indicated that weariness with the current long war is a major reason for slumping morale. Ten years after the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan began, many troops are losing confidence in the mission there. Approval of Obama's handling of Afghanistan has slipped from 47% to 26%.

Military Times polls in previous years have generally found evidence of fairly high morale. But in 2011, several indicators showed a hard turn downward. For example, the percentage of active-duty troops who would recommend a military career to others was 76%, but that number is 9 points lower than it was only one year ago. (Army Times editorial, Sept. 19, 2011)

The Times further noted, "Slightly less than half of readers said the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in Afghanistan." Support is even lower among troops who have deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom -- significantly less than the 75% level in 2007, four years ago.

A general question about the repeal of the 1993 law regarding gays in the military registered less opposition than in previous years, but support remains less than 50%, except in the Navy. (According to Roper, poll respondents are more likely to approve of a policy already in place.) A subsequent online poll, however, revealed some unease with the new policy in personal relationships. (Air Force Times, Oct. 24)

Military Times asked readers on active duty if the official repeal of the 1993 law (mislabeled "Donít Ask, Donít Tell") had any effect on their unit or workplace. Most of the 4,818 respondents (69%) had no experience with the repeal in their unit. But of the 31% indicating that someone did "come out," 5% reported no increased tension, but five times as many (26%) said that it did create tension. Looking at the same numbers, Navy Commander Wayne L. Johnson, JAGC, (Ret.) has noted that in those units where someone did come out, tension was created 84% of the time. (26% of 31% represents 84% of the group of respondents who said that someone came out in their unit. )

In the year 2000 military voters were thought to be eight times more likely to vote for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush than for Vice President Al Gore. In that year, contested absentee ballots in Florida, mostly from military voters, probably saved the election of George W. Bush.

In 2008, the advantage of Republican nominee Sen. John McCain was only three times stronger among military voters polled by the Military Times, (68%-23%). That level of support was significant, but not enough to help McCain win the election.

Social issues that affect the unique culture of the military are matters of national security that all candidates should address in 2012. The next Commander-in-Chief must earn respect and more than dutiful obedience from men and women who volunteer to serve.

Comments . . .

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2011
All right reserved