Photo: Pete Souza
“It reveals a severe lack of understanding of the job of president… and frankly it’s unbecoming of someone who wants to be the Commander in Chief,” he told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “They’re not an item on a laundry list, they’re a priority.” [Buzzfeed]
THE COMMANDER in chief card now belongs to Democrats. In the latest CNN/ORC poll, President Obama leads Mitt Romney among likely voters 54% to 42% on foreign policy. This shift began during the Iraq war, with the legacy of the bin Laden kill washing out everything else, which shouldn’t surprise anyone.
The reason was amplified on Tuesday when more information was released on what warnings the Bush administration had on an attack before 9/11.
The gaping maw is emphasized when the Republican candidate doesn’t even bother to address the troops at his convention in any meaningful way. The sacrifices being made are something Mitt Romney no doubt appreciates, but with five sons, none of whom chose military service, it’s an issue that perfectly represents how removed our elite politicians are from the men and women whom they send into harm’s way.
No one should forget what President Obama has done with national security, however. Not only has he kept some of the strongest Bush policies that impede civil liberties in this country, but assassinations, drone strikes and other militarism is straight from the pages of Scoop Jackson and the national security Democrats of old.
It poses questions about Joe Lieberman distancing himself from Barack Obama that become another part of Lieberman’s uncomfortable legacy.
John F. Kennedy was one of the first American leaders to embrace the potential of a small, elite force. Having served, his disdain for much of the military industrial chain of command has been written about extensively. The use of drones would likely have intrigued him as much on one end as his disdain for torture would on the other.
Michele Flournoy is quoted on Buzzfeed about voters and national security and she’s correct about the small number of people who cast their vote on national security. It’s only 3-4%, by all counts, but I happen to be one of them, so I understand their mindset.
There is always danger in foreign policy waters for a president. Today, Iraq is convulsing, soldiers are getting killed by their Afghan partners, with no coherent explanation why America should be involved in Afghanistan until 2024. The bell has tolled for the Arab Spring in Syria, which is a much bigger humanitarian crisis than anything that happened in Libya, but yet Obama does nothing, making a mockery of his reasoning for targeting Qaddafi. It gets down to what can be done and accomplished easily, which isn’t exactly impressive, but is the truth.
A subject neither candidate has addressed in any meaningful way is China.
…and this election is still about the economy.
Having a cousin who served 4 tours in Iraq, and just had his tour in Afghanistan extended, I have to wonder what we are still doing in Afghanistan. I resented the fact that Mr. Romney had nothing to say about our troops at the GOP (I call it the Goofy Old Patoots) convention. And the troops and our veterans shouldn’t forget that they didn’t even get a mention. I’m conflicted about Obama and his foreign policy. I give him credit for Osama bin Laden but the rest has me confused. I do take foreign policy into consideration when I vote.
To understand Pres. Obama on foreign policy you have to appreciate former Sen. Sam Nunn.
Oh yes, I remember Sam Nunn. He, along with jimmy Carter and Colin Powell, helped avert military action in Haiti by persuading the dictator to leave. The only reason that event stands out was because I was scheduled to go to Hati and had to cancel the trip. I think both Republicans and Democrats looked very favorably on him if I recall.