Five reasons why I'm not voting for Donald Trump.

Links: A. Trump for President Official Site.
           B. Real Clear Politics- Presidential Polls, GOP


I admit it- I'm just as surprised as all the media analysts and talking heads regarding Donald Trump's seeming inevitable March to the GOP nomination.  Immediately following the latest offensive comment, I always expect to see Trump's numbers take a hit.  But if we are to believe the polls, and there are reasons to approach them with a cautious eye, The Donald seems to just build on his advantage.  I've heard the whispers in some Republican conspiratory circles, that the media is doctoring the polls, to create an air of invincibility in Trump.  Why would the media do something to benefit Donald Trump?  Because they realize that when Nov. 2 rolls around, he is the one GOP candidate that Independent voters will have the hardest time supporting over Hillary Clinton.  I can't say that I'm anywhere ready to sign on to that theory, but strangely enough, I'm having trouble finding folks down south in Red State Country, who will openly declare their support for Trump.  But he is getting tremendous support from somewhere.  I don't like Trump, and I'm going to tell you why.

Trump is a "sound bite" candidate if there ever was one.  He makes grandiose announcements, with no follow-up.  Its not difficult to do...just fill the empty air with another sound bite.  Trump will build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it.  And just how will this be accomplished?  I'm not looking for an answer in two sentences, I'm looking for an actual well-thought piece that takes into account all the factors and variables included in public policy.  How much will it cost?  Who will pay for it?  How long will it take to build?  About the mechanics...how will the wall be constructed and with what materials?  Will there be breaks in the wall for Ports of Entry?  Will it be necessary to build the same wall on the Canadian border?  Does Congress need to approve this action?  How will it impact our already existing treaties with not only Mexico, but other Latin American countries? How will this wall impact the environment? Will it destabilize the migratory patterns of wildlife?  I am using one of Trump's more famous pronouncements as an example of his addiction to sound bites.  The questions that I have listed took five minutes to create; I'm sure with a bit of time, experts could come up with quite a few more questions, most with more substance. The reality is, he never has to give an answer.  He has his own version of "Trump Answers", which are dismissive at best and insulting at worst.  You see, Trump thinks that any idea he has must be genius, and if you can't see it well enough to understand all the answers already, then you are an idiot and a moron.  Oh, and you're ugly to boot.  And possibly a pedophile.

Trump believes he can develop a foreign policy based on his business experience.  Nothing personal, Mr. Trump, but one of the reasons I voted for Mitt Romney was because of his business acumen.  But he chose to keep his business credentials where they belonged...in conversations relating to economics.  Trump's forty-year record as a businessman is difficult to really grasp.  He has had his share of successes, and also a few high-profile train wrecks.  But foreign policy must always be more about people than money, more about compromise than victory, and more about friendship than hostile takeovers.  Trump compliments Putin, and says that the Russian leader "is a man I can work with".  I find Putin to be a 21st century fascist, whose actions in Ukraine and Georgia over the past decade show a complete contempt for international law and the integrity of national borders.  Putin is militarizing Russia in the same manner than Hitler did Germany in the 1930s....getting rid of dead-weight, simplification and modernization, and the skirting of international laws and treaties.  I don't admire Vladimir Putin, but if Trump thinks Putin is going to fold like the chairman of some company Trump Enterprises has just swallowed, he has a few surprises coming.  Trump scares me for a number of reasons, including the vision I have of Trump losing his temper because he can't "swing the deal" he wants, and all of a sudden the U.S. military becomes the wild card.

I don't trust Donald Trump.  For some people, maybe that isn't a problem, but it is for me.  I'm not so jaded about our political system that I'm ready to vote for someone that I do not trust.  My lack of trust stems from a simple examination of history.  Just a few years ago, Trump was a Democrat.  Probably a decade ago, he was a Republican, who knows.  I'm sure it made sense at the time, to be on the same side as the political winning side (of the moment).  But Trump professes to be a "life-long Conservative".  How can any life-long Conservative admit to donating money to the Clintons?  As for his claim to being a Conservative, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is certainly "pro-business" (a bit too pro-business for me), but what are his opinions about the other issues that are important to many Conservatives?  Is Trump pro-choice?  What is his opinion regarding the Marriage debate?  More importantly, how often has his opinion on these issues changed?  Personally, I'm not looking for a political ideologue as a candidate.  But with Trump, I'm just sure what I'm getting, and just how far I can throw it.

My final reason for not supporting Donald Trump, is that I don't want a bigot and a misogynist for a president.  I don't think I will ever get past his comments about Carly Fiorina.  What's really sad is that Trump supporters know in their hearts that the only reason he apologized was for political expediency, but yet they don't care....depressing.  Donald Trump is also a first-class Ass Hole.  Excuse my descent into profanity, but for some reason, that title just seems perfect.  He is the perfect example of a school-yard bully, who has spent most of his business career intimidating people with less resources.  Actually, its a bit of a play on the Napoleon Syndrome.  Trump has always bragged about his ability to outspend people; I've never heard him brag about his ability to impact another person's perspective through honest dialogue, have you?  If we are faced with a President Trump, exactly how will he conduct a meeting with a female foreign leader, whose appearance he doesn't appreciate?  Watching Trump respond whenever another candidate improves in the polls is like watching a World Champion Prize Fighter who will stop at nothing to keep the title.  He threatens (usually by bragging about how much money he is prepared to spend), and then he makes good on his threats.  Ben Carson did not lose his momentum because of his lackluster debate performances, he fell victim to nasty accusations regarding the truthfulness of his biography.  A few weeks later, when all the dust had settled, Carson had reasonably addressed all the questions, but the damage was done.  Trump publicly called Carson a liar and compared him to a pedophile.  Of course, it took some time for Carson, a very decent man who lives his life for philanthropy, to come out from under the stench of "liar and pedophile".  But being a jerk doesn't disqualify someone from being president.   

The greatest Presidents in the history of our Republic were able to effectively persuade because of the conviction of their beliefs, not because of the size of their pocketbook.  I'm worried that Donald Trump believes that the President of the United States carries a wallet with the title, "Armed Forces of the United States of America".  And I have no doubt that he would use that wallet unwisely.   

Turkey escalates tension between NATO and Russia with the destruction of Russian Su-24 bomber.

Link:  Erdogan stands firm in crisis with Russia.

The crisis in Syria continues to make strange bedfellows, with antagonists being forced to put away grudges to accommodate more pressing matters.  When Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan's party won elections earlier this month, there was real concern that Turkey would move further away from NATO and Europe, and possibly adopt a more friendly approach to Islamist parties and organizations.  Those of us who feared just such a development should be thankful, in our own way, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, for Russia's timely intrusion into the Syrian conflict.  The Russian military has a history of not respecting international borders, and Wednesday's development involving Turkish accusations of an airspace violation, came as no surprise. In fact, since the arrival of the Russian Air Force in the region, there have been complaints from just about every direction regarding Russian lack of respect for international boundaries.  Turkey has been  complaining of Russian border violations almost every day over the past week, and not surprisingly, the Russians continued to use the sky as their personal domain.  Now that the Turks have taken down a Russian bomber that allegedly crossed the Syrian-Turkish border, the Russians are indignantly ratcheting up defensive measures, starting with the deployment of the S-400 air defense system at the Russian Air Base in Latakia.  Russia also announced that a Russian missile cruiser sitting off the Syrian coast wouldn't hesitate to destroy any threat to Russian aircraft. 

Interestingly enough, Erdogan has to tone down his recent anti-Europe, anti-U.S. and anti-NATO rhetoric.  With the Russian military force that is just across the border in Syria growing all the time, Erdogan has no choice but to call upon his NATO allies in this dangerous time.  Although Turkey has a very capable armed forces, and the Russians would have to move night-and-day to transport adequate military personnel and equipment to the region, Erdogan has no intention of standing up to Russia alone.  Putin has already demonstrated his willingness to push the envelope, in Georgia, Crimea, and now in Syria.  Actually, the onset of this mini-crisis provides the United States and Turkey with an important opportunity to mend fences, although Turkey has been the bellicose trouble-maker in the relationship lately.  Even though Erdogan was able to solidify his domestic position with the recent election victory, he has been given a reminder that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire and the year is not 1560 AD.  Turkey not only needs allies in the west, but Turkey needs its membership in NATO to remain healthy and in good-standing.  Everyday it becomes more obvious that Russia is following through on some grand scheme to increase her influence internationally and to rebuild Russia's relationships around the world, in order to isolate and diminish the United States.  Russia continues to aggressively champion Iran's acceptance as a regional super-power, and leaves no stone unturned in its effort to coax away long-time U.S. allies like Egypt and Jordan.

This conflict is beginning to take on so many different dimensions, that it will become more and more difficult to separate the good guys from the bad guys.  Right now, the world is focused on eliminating ISIS, or at least its pretending to be focused; Russia is still the only major military power who has committed itself to the destruction of this monstrous group (as opposed to "containment").  But I'm beginning to wonder if Russia might actually be the more dangerous of the two.  ISIS invaded two countries: Syria and Iraq.  Russia has invaded three countries: Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, and formerly annexed a province of Ukraine.  If the United States had taken the lead and built a coalition that included ground forces, ISIS would have been defeated by now.  But rethinking past decisions is really a waste of time.  We have to come up with a strategy for what we face today.

Washington Post lest-than thoughtful editorial on Russia's interest in Syria.

Link: Washington Post article on Russian involvement in Syria.

I haven't read the New York times in years.  I'm not alone in my disdain for politically motivated interpretation of national and international events; the Gray Lady ain't what she used to be.  But I do still take a look at the Washington Post on occasion.  Today's editorial by Samuel Ramani isn't terrible, but it is selectively dismissive of certain facts that really shouldn't be left out of this discussion.  As his first point of conversation, Ramani introduces the issue of Putin's motivation for military involvement in Syria.  Basically, he gets this one right.  Putin has a handful of reasons to be interested in the Syrian conflict.  As we've discussed on this blog previously, Putin really wants that Mediterranean Sea Naval Base at Tartus.  Historically, Russia has always craved access to the Mediterranean.  Moscow's interest in the Mediterranean caused the Ottoman Empire centuries of concern.  Presently, the U.S. has naval facilities in the Mediterranean, and also in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf.  Putin must frequently ask himself why Russia, as an "equal" superpower, doesn't have the same access.  If Assad stays in power in Syria, and ISIS is defeated, you can bet that Russia will get that Naval Base at Tartus.  I'm not sure about Putin interest in billion-dollar arms deals.  I have no idea how Assad is accessing money these days, but I would be very surprised to learn that he's paying for all of the recent Russian largesse regarding military equipment and supplies.  Ramani is right-on about the importance of Syria as an opportunity for Putin to demonstrate his abilities as the supreme leader of a world's superpower.

Ramani makes great import of Russia's interest in "the legitimacy of the Assad regime" as the government and authority in Damascus.  I don't believe that Russia give's a rat's ass about the legitimacy of any government.  Its all about Russia's interests, not Assad's legitimacy.  The opposition that Putin's jets are currently blasting to bits in northeast Syria are arguably more legitimate than Assad ever was.  Don't you think that if Assad could have won a free and fair election, he would have called for one before we reached this stage?  Before Putin's arrival, Assad and his Ba'ath Party cronies had become so marginalized that they were close to losing the support of even the Alawite community.  If Assad were in any way a legitimate ruler, he wouldn't have been facing a rebellion that almost swept aside the Levant's largest army and air force.  Ramani comments about Putin's fear of the U.S. is trying to reshape the world in its own image.  Right after Obama pulled U.S. troops out of Syria, and laid out a plan to do the same in Afghanistan?  Actually, if we turn the clock back just a bit, we see Russian interference in Georgia, and more recently, the outright invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.  So who is trying to reshape the world here, Putin or the United States?  Putin may publicly accuse the United States of imperialist intentions, but its nothing more than typical Russian obfuscation.  In the last seven years, the United States has been about as expansionist as Botswana.

I agree with Ramani that Putin is determined to spread the message loud and clear that Russia will not be ignored.  But Russia's intervention in Syria, with its proxy Iran alongside, is really about regional power and damaging U.S. influence in the Middle East.  Putin is a megalomaniac and he does want to be acknowledged as the world leader who vanquished ISIS.  I do not envision a Russian "bloc of allies" in the Middle East, the likes of which we saw in the days of Gamal Abdel Nassar and Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez.  Putin is definitely living in the moment, and recognizes that the leadership vacuum that currently exists vis-à-vis the international community and ISIS, may not last past 2016 and the next U.S. presidential election.  Also, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran, who leaders have a habit of spitting in every direction, and Tehran may not always agree with Russian strategy.  Iran has serious ideas about its own regional position, and Iraq may end up causing disagreements between the two "new friends".  Putin is aware that he has limited time to accomplish his goals.  Expect to see more aggressive action by Russia against ISIS.

Lets take a break from bad news, and talk about my favorite places to visit Stateside.....

Links: A.Welcome to Savannah, Georgia.
           B. Welcome to Big Bend Country, Texas.
           C. Highway to America's past...the Colonial Parkway.

I have to ask my regular visitors for a bit of patience.  Occasionally, more or less to keep me from burning out on current events, I enjoy writing about pleasant subjects.  I have traveled a great deal in my life, a fact for much I am very fortunate.  I have written in this blog about some of the places I've visited internationally, but I don't recall discussing my favorite locations in the United States.  I've never been to Hawaii or Alaska, and I'm very anxious to visit both.  In fact, I've probably covered more of the African continent than I have my own country.  But I have experienced some marvelous places stateside, and I would like to share my memories with you.

I first visited Savannah, Georgia in the mid 90's, just prior to the explosion of the best-selling book by John Berendt, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil".  The book is billed as non-fiction, but a quick investigation of some of the vents and persons described within make it apparent that the events in "Midnight" fall somewhere in that cloudy area between literary truth and fantasy.  The book tells the story of Jim Williams, a wealthy Savannah art and antique collector, and historic home restorer.  Williams is responsible for saving many of Savannah's most historic and treasured homes from the wrecking ball.  In 1981, when Williams was in his mid 50's, he shot and killed a young male hustler names Danny Hansford inside his restored priceless Mansion, Mercer House.  Williams, who was one of Hansford's more regular and prolific customers, claimed self-defense, but the District Attorney of Chatham County was determined to convict Williams of first degree murder.  The case took on a life of its own because of three hung-juries.  Finally, in 1990, Williams was acquitted.  He died a few months later of a heart attack, in the same room in which Hansford was shot.  Berendt, and author from New York, recreated the event and decorated the story with a cast of real-life Savannah characters, who act as a perfect introduction to the unique, charming and yet absurd nature of the town of Savannah.  I discovered Savannah before the book took the country by storm, and I was quick to notice that folks in Savannah really do follow their own road map, so to speak.  The community is much smaller than the population figures let on, and everyone's business is anyone's business.  And Savannah is forgiving of just about anything, except bad manners.  The town is absolutely lovely, especially the older section that hugs the river bank and the handful of Spanish Moss-covered cemeteries that edge Savannah in the east.  You will experience town square (sometimes referred to as "parks") after town square, filled with fountains and flowers and guarded by the most stunning, gorgeous collection of southern mansions that you can imagine.  You will find museums and art galleries galore in the older residential area, and for tourists, the riverside is the perfect place for shopping, sea food, or just enjoying the sights of the river.  Being a history fanatic, I enjoyed visited Civil War-era Fort Jackson and Fort Pulaski.  For anyone looking for a unique tourist destination, I can't recommend Savannah more highly.  Tybee Island, with beautiful beaches and wildlife in abundance, is just down the road, and you will have no trouble finding a hotel in your price range.  I do advise you to read the book first, though.  And don't be surprised if you run into a ghost or two or three while in Savannah...they're everywhere.

I'm a proud Texan, and I can say with complete sincerity that there is no part of the great Lone Star State that I don't love.  But I'm allowed to love some places more than others, and I'm head over heels for west Texas.  This includes the Big Bend National Park, but I'm going to focus on what can be found outside the Park's boundaries.  First and foremost, west Texas is desolate.  It can be lonely at times, and you will have countless opportunities to look as far as the eye can see and find no sign of people.  West Texas has its chair of scenery, including range after range of hills, buffeted by open valleys full of tumbleweeds and cactus. Other parts of west Texas are covered in grassland, which allows for the success of a number of large ranches in the area.  Aside from cotton and hay (and maybe onions), I can't imagine what can grow for human consumption, but livestock on the plans are a very familiar sight.  Where is west Texas?  Folks will certainly argue this with me, but for my purposes, it begins at Ozona (down to Del Rio) and stretches as far as Marfa (and Ojinaga). For me, west Texas is the Marfa lights and the stories of "Giant", and Marathon and the famous, haunted Gage Hotel.  My favorite town is Alpine (there's a story somewhere but I can't quite recall it, besides, you can Wiki just as easy as I can), and when I'm in the area I make my home at the Holland Hotel, across the street from the train depot (the management thoughtfully provides earplugs for the guests).  I like Alpine because regardless of its moniker, to me it feels like a real Texas town.  People are friendly, and they usually aren't transplants.  Also, Alpine is perfectly situated to visit the McDonald Observatory and the U.S. Cavalry Barracks and Museum at Ft. Davis.  Let me tell you, the views around Ft. Davis are second only to the views in the Big Bend State Park.  Marfa is a fun little town, home to the famous "Marfa Lights" (actually, you have to drive a ways east, towards Alpine, before you reach the comfortable, well-thought Marfa Lights Viewing Area).  What are the Lights?  Who knows.  Documented since the 1870's, the Lights will pop up out of nowhere just after sunset.  Sometimes they stay in one place and flicker out, and other times they race from one side of the horizon to the other.  Many researchers, including a funded project from Texas Tech University, have been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation.  And there is no guarantee that they will appear on any given night, that's why its best to plan for a two-night stay in Marfa.  I prefer to stay in Alpine, home of Sul Ross University, and drive the thirty minutes to the viewing area, than staying in Marfa, which has become a bit too commercial and "California" for my tastes.  But if you do find yourself in this neck of the woods, don't forget to spend at least one night in the Gage Hotel in Marathon.  its a wonderful place, comfortable and staffed by the friendliest folks you can imagine.  One thing the Holland and the Gage Hotels have in common is a bar that is usually visited in the evenings by a variety of local cowmen and cowboys.  The stories that they tell........

I don't have as much to say about the Colonial National Historic Parkway, because basically its just a stretch of highway in far eastern Virginia.  The location that I find the most bewitching is between Williamsburg and Yorktown.  If you happen to be there at just the right time of year (Spring and early Fall), you will be amazed at the beauty of the trees that decorate the sides of the highway.  They reach as far as you can see, as you are sitting in your car, and it reminds one a bit of old New England.  As you leave Williamsburg and get closer to Yorktown, the road begins to turn a bit here and there, and you start to feel like you are entering tunnels made up of the actual trees themselves.  Just before you arrive at Yorktown, the road pops out and hugs the bank of the York river for a mile or so.  Its a wonderful place to truly appreciate nature.  Also, I highly recommend a visit to both Williamsburg and Yorktown.  I especially enjoy Yorktown, because I never see any tourists!  A stroll down to the town from the battlefield, with a view across the York River to Gloucester Point, will remind you of what it must have been like in 1789.  The Yorktown Battlefield Military Park is a quiet, relaxing place to contemplate a time when the hill overlooking Yorktown and the York River wasn't so peaceful.  Its been over twenty years since I've driven the Colonial National Historic Parkway from Williamsburg to Yorktown, but it sits in my mind, as clear as yesterday.

Update On Troubles In Ukraine

Link: Russian Army Tank Column Crosses Border Into Ukraine

Its been a while since we visited Ukraine.  Syria, Iraq and West Africa have been a bit distracting as of late.  In all honesty, I was beginning to hope that cooler heads had prevailed in Moscow.  Putin had the opportunity to "magnanimously" withdraw all Russian units from eastern Ukraine, and invite the Ukrainians (alone) to join him at the negotiating table.  You know and I know that Russia will not be returning Crimea to Ukraine, and Putin's influence and reputation have suffered because of this unilateral annexation.  So a peace offensive on the part of Putin would provide a way out for those Europeans who have been looking for a way to forgive Russia, and to do so without losing face. While theoretically this could begin with a sign of good faith in form of the departure of Russian military units from eastern Ukraine, it isn't going to happen.  We now have clear and dangerous indications that Russian armor is on the move in eastern Ukraine.  Friday's actions remind me of the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and I fully expect to see a mobilization of sorts from the Russian Army (In the long run, Russia's less-than prepared Army and Airborne units invading Georgia resembled Mussolini's forces invading Greece in 1940).   Putin knows he doesn't need to play "peacemaker," and negotiate to keep Crimea.  He recognizes that Russia can tear off just as much of Ukraine as she pleases.  Merkel, Cameron and Hollande (is this little pipsqueak still around?) will go to lunch and toss a few more sanctions at Russia.  Putin is well aware that this is the only recourse for the European

Union.  Since I don't see much anti-Putin agitation in Moscow these days, we can assume that the sanctions haven't been much of a deterrent.

Last month, I hypothesized that Putin was really only interested in Crimea, because of its strategic location on the Black Sea.  I believe he stirred up the shit pot among the substantial Russian minority  in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk (why do I like saying "Dnipropetrovsk" so much?) in order to create a problem that only he could solve.  I assumed that Putin was planning to offer peace and the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine, in exchange for an acknowledgement of Russia's Crimean annexation.  It's really simple, when you think about it.  If you want something that belongs to someone else, you take it, along with something else of value.  In order to return the second item of value, they must accept that you are keeping the first item.  If not, they risk losing both.  I believe that Putin's original intention was to maneuver his way into receiving European and Ukrainian acceptance of Russian Crimea.  For the life of me I couldn't find a reason why Putin would want eastern Ukraine.  Forgive the rudeness, but have you been to Donetsk? Its not Vienna or Paris, that's for sure.  Hell, its not even Des Moines.  But Putin did not need to find justification for invading eastern Ukraine.  All Putin needed to do was CONVINCE THE WEST that he had reason for invading eastern Ukraine (all those poor, abused ethnic Russians).  Then when the mercenary slugs hired by Putin in the Donetsk region accidentally shot down a civilian jet full of totally innocent folks, I imagine that Putin was obliged to review his escape strategy.  But, as it is with most things, if you wait awhile, people will forget.  I can't remember the last time I heard mention of the Malaysian Airlines jet that was shot down.

The truth is, Putin realizes that he doesn't have to order the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine.  The typically weak line of diplomacy offered up by Obama, Merkel, Hollande and Kirk Cameron has allowed Putin to annex Crimea and absorb the Ukrainian Navy.  And to Putin's surprise, it looks like he gets to keep as much of the Ukraine as he chooses.  It's no longer about Crimea.  The presence of a column of what appears to be functioning (nothing is guaranteed) Russian armor tooling around in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine is a clear indication to me that Putin has decided to "up the ante".  It is in Putin's nature to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible, which includes the west being distracted by events on Syria, Iraq and Liberia.  These distractions, and Obama's continued mantra about "no ground troops" (which is an example to be followed by everyone....except France), have given Putin the opportunity to decide just how much of

A horse with two asses . . .

Ukraine to keep.  Interestingly enough, while Putin dances diplomatic circles around Obama and the Europeans, he has had plenty of time to send equipment, supplies and possibly air units to his buddy Bashir al-Assad in Damascus.  I'm guessing that Vlad is trying to get as much accomplished as possible before 2016, when its likely that the White House will be home to someone "with a pair".  I can just imagine what the map of Ukraine will look like in 2016.  Eastern Ukraine does have a number of lovely forested regions, perfect for a topless Putin to go on lots of horseback excursions.  I only ask, for the sake of decency, Vlad: either find a training bra or put your shirt back on.

Obama's Wartime Ideology

Link: Obama Goes To War

I had the most difficult time creating a title to this post.  I like the word "ideology", especially as it pertains to all things "Barack".  But I'm not really sure how I feel about Barack Obama. As President, he has not surprised me one bit.  When it comes to politics, I can be very pragmatic.  I believe if the country elects a man president, then he has every justification to do things as he sees appropriate.  But he must work within the confines of the Constitution.  His recent willingness to utilize "Executive Action" bothers me more than anything else he has done, because it stretches the boundaries of "working within the confines of the Constitution".  But today, I will commenting on Obama's actions as they relate to being Commander in Chief.  Which brings me back to "ideology".  I can't really discern an Obama ideology as far as war is concerned.  I am convinced that then-Senator Obama truly believed he cold govern two terms and never face the possibility of war.  He was convinced that previous wartime presidents (at least in our lifetime) could have found diplomatic solutions to using force, and his administration would prove it.  Six years of the Obama Administration have demonstrated one fact to me above all others. As a Commander in Chief, he is not up to the task.  He is an amateur with no chance of reaching the professional leagues.

No matter how nice you are to some folks, they will continue to hate your guts.  Isn't that a lesson we all learned in grade school?  Its impossible to comment on this administration's military policy without reviewing foreign policy.  Obama began his first term with what many refer to as the "apology tour".  From European capital to European capital he went, spreading the news that the United States was going to use its economic might and international standing for peaceful causes.  He was very sincere in his belief that a new page had to be turned in U.S. international relations.  As part of the effort to create a "clean slate" (coup de torchon- my favorite French phrase), he told an audience of Egyptians that United States policy in that part of the world had been misguided.  He wanted diplomats and aid workers representing the U.S. in the Near East, not soldiers.  This was the first time we were given a glimpse of Obama's worst habit: telegraphing his intentions beforehand.  No doubt ISIS (then still under the banner of AQI- Al Qaeda in Iraq) realized that Obama would be pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, lock, stock, and barrel, relatively quickly.  I assume that the North Koreans were not thinking, "finally, now we can destroy our nuclear weapons program and open our borders".  In Beijing, they congratulated themselves on this stroke of good fortune.  Who would have thought...an American President who acts in China's best interest (we haven't had one of those since Bill Clinton)!  And on it went.  President Obama expressing regret for past foreign policy "mistakes", and vowing to build new relationships built on mutual respect.  Its a nice thought, but totally inadequate in the world we face today.  The actions of a rank amateur.

Back stateside, we were confronted with the politicization of all branches of government.  Democrat activists were put in charge of the Justice Department, the I.R.S., Health and Human Services, and even the CIA, and it appeared that their marching orders were, "get Democrats elected at any cost".  As the controversies mounted, the media and the American people took their eyes off of the international stage for a split second.  And when we looked back, we saw examples all over the globe, of Obama's diplomatic "peace initiative".  During Obama's first term, the administration heralded Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's negotiated arms reduction treaty with Russia.  Most experts reminded the administration that Russia NEVER follows through on these agreements, but that was a secondary concern to creating a platform from which Hillary would run for President in 2016.  Now that Russia has been unmasked as the corrupt, militarily aggressive bear it has always been under Putin, we no longer hear the Democrats talking about Hillary's arms reduction treaty (which we, invariably, will obey and the Russians, ultimately, will not).  Putin has everyone talking about Ukraine, not arms treaties.  And what about the Ukraine?  In his effort to look like the "peace president", Obama ended research and funding into the Strategic Defense Shield.  You might remember it as the "Strategic Defense Initiative".  Research and planning began under President Ronald Reagan, and the left howled that it was not feasible, a waste of money, and way too provocative.  As of 2008, it was nearly ready for deployment, and Poland was only to happy to accept it (as a member of NATO).  Can you imagine....a defense shield (similar to the Israeli "Iron Dome") that would destroy incoming rockets before they hit their targets?  This technology drove the Russians crazy, and Obama gave them a big, fat Christmas present that year.  No more SDI.  Since then, Russia has consolidated territories occupied in Georgia in 2008, and has invaded Ukraine.  Putin knows that Obama will NEVER use the U.S. military in a confrontation with Russia, and the Europeans won't act without leadership from the United States.  It might be time for citizens of Byelorus to bring out the suitcases.

The Near East is where Obama's determination to avoid military confrontation has been the most costly to U.S. interests.  The Arab Spring raged for months without any coherent policy from this administration.  Once Gaddafi was out of power and Egypt appeared to move away from the brink, the administration bounced around from group to group, appearing to have no idea who to support and who to oppose.  It was this type of confused policy that contributed to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.  And the lack of accountability, from all sides of this administration and in response to all types of screw ups, is galling.  Iraq is a separate nut altogether.  We knew that Obama would pull troops out of Iraq.  In fact, I expected a quicker departure from Afghanistan than we have seen.  Back to Iraq....the military planners provided a variety of options, including the possibility of leaving some U.S. military in place, at least until the Iraqi Army and government could establish some level of legitimacy.  I thought it was the least we could do, considering how many young Americans died for that cause. But the Obama timetable did not include leaving behind a U.S. Army and/or Air Force Base.  One issue that is difficult to dispute: if U.S. soldiers were still in the Iraqi theater, and the Iraqi Army was still being trained by the best and the brightest (U.S. soldiers), ISIS would have never established their present foothold in northern Iraq.  And what can we expect in Afghanistan?  A reversion back to Taliban authority and ultimately, a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and all the other shit-ball terrorist groups.

Recently, as highlighted by the link I have provided, Obama has attempted to appear a bit more "hawkish".  But he continues to commit one of the cardinal sins of warfare; don't tell the enemy your intentions beforehand!  This administration, in an effort to appear more aggressive, gives the media all sorts of military details that should not be in the public arena.  And why does this administration continue to publicly announce that the U.S. will not use ground troops?  As far as ISIS is concerned, they just have to crawl back into their well-worn holes out in the desert and wait-out the latest bombing campaign.  They've done it before.  Its true that the administration will be providing arms and supplies to "someone" opposing ISIS (I'm still not 100 percent sure who).  Is this an admission on the part of the administration that Americans are "too important" to put their lives on the line in this instance? Call me old fashioned, but this is either our fight or it isn't.  If this group is a real and present danger to the United States, then it should be the U.S. military taking care of business, not "surrogates".  Hell, why don't we just pay someone to bomb these assholes as well?  Then we can be guaranteed to be taking "no risk" as far as U.S. personnel are concerned.

Its obvious that President Obama is uncomfortable with the military aspects of the job.  He wants the world to find peaceful solutions to all the various nosebleeds currently dotting the planet. And when military action is forced on him, he will take the least amount of risk possible. I'm sure a political angle exists in this picture, especially when one considers Obama's base and the upcoming mid-term elections.  But sooner or later someone is going to be forced to make a bolder decision, either Obama or his replacement.