Barack Obama as Commander in Chief … The Pentagon as a social experiment

By 14 Comments 2,041 views

I’ve probably cited this before, but it’s easily one of the best speeches ever uttered in the movies. In A Few Good Men Jack Nicholson’s Col. Jessep explains life to Tom Cruz’s Lt. Kaffee:

… And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.

This speech came back to me a couple of weeks ago as I was reading about women being given special treatment so that they would pass the Army’s Ranger school. This is just the latest example of Barack Obama misunderstanding – or more likely, not caring about – the fundamental mission of the United States military.

From Berghdal to troops being kicked out of the military for beating up child molesters to gays in the military to women in combat roles, to the dangerous Rules Of Engagement troops must operate under, the Department of Defense has become a playground for political activism and social engineering rather than what it actually exists for, which is to defend the United States from external enemies.

Coffee in Chief2One reason that liberals like Obama feel like they can manipulate the military is because they see it as simply another arm of the government, rather than the unique entity it is. Wherever on the political spectrum one sits, the general role of government is to protect the freedoms of citizens, prosecute those who violate the laws and support economic prosperity via the issuance of patents & trademarks and enforcing contracts, etc. That definition is pretty opaque, but whether we’re talking about the SEC, the FDA or the EPA, the primary goal is not (theoretically) to be prepared to kill hundreds or thousands or millions of people while putting the lives of thousands of Americans at risk.

That however, is exactly what DOD does. The role of the Department of Defense is to defend the nation from external threats, which often includes killing the enemy in large numbers, often violently. At the same time, by definition, it involves putting at risk the lives of American personnel. That fundamentally makes DOD different than HUD or the GPO or the Education Department.

Given the extraordinarily high risks and dangers associated with putting the military in the field, the primary driver of policy should be to further the mission, not social agendas. But the reality is, Barack Obama doesn’t agree with that. To him, putting women in combat or moving the goalposts so that women can “pass” Ranger school is more about combating the “War on Women” than it is about a military prepared to face real combat.

To Barack Obama, gays serving openly in the military make perfect sense as gays can work in law offices or coffee shops or big box retailers with no impact on operations. But the military is not Wal-Mart, Starbucks baristas don’t train to kill people and in most law offices men don’t spend hours and weeks and years training with one another in close quarters where emotions and tempers and jealousies and hormones come into play and put people’s lives at risk while doing so. It’s true, that on the field of battle when the bad guys are shooting at you it doesn’t really matter if the guy next to you is gay or straight or confused if he’s on your side. The reality however is that 99.9% of a military man’s job is not spent in the heat of battle, it’s spent in the classroom learning, in the field training, on back on base regrouping. It’s in those environments where soldiers and Marines spend most of their time that the problems associated with gays in the military are felt, not in the foxhole.

The perfect demonstration of Barack Obama’s view that all government programs are but tools for his social agenda can be found in something tangential to the Defense Department. In 2010 Obama’s NASA Administrator said the following: “When I became the NASA Administrator — before I became the NASA Administrator — He (President Obama) charged me with three things: One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

For Barack Obama the Pentagon is nothing more than a vehicle for achieving his progressive goals. That alone makes him an unfit Commander in Chief. Unfortunately the next Commander in Chief will pay the price for Obama’s folly. Not only will he inherit a military with morale at the lowest in years, he will inherit the smallest Navy in a century, a powerful and growing enemy in ISIS that is a direct result of Obama’s incompetence, and most dangerously he will inherit a world that increasingly lacks respect for American strength… which ironically, and unfortunately, increases the likelihood of actually having to use the military.

But on the upside he will have female rangers, gay couples and transgenders openly serving and a JAG Corps that has been cowed into towing the administration’s line on Berghdal. No doubt that should make him feel better.

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.

14 Responses to “Barack Obama as Commander in Chief … The Pentagon as a social experiment”

  1. 1


    One of the reasons that politicians love mucking around with the military is that they see military members as captive lab rats.
    In general;
    They must obey orders
    Penalties for disobedience are severe
    The “lab rats” cannot leave the maze
    So, any social experiments which the politicians wish to implement must have full cooperation from the military, corrosive or not.

  2. 2


    Obama simply looks for opportunities to round up some political support. If he has to give gays more “rights” in the military, so be it. If he needs to empower women to qualify for combat roles, even if it means reducing the requirements, no problem.

    Obama (or any other liberal) doesn’t have to worry about failure or negative consequences because those will always be redefined as necessary. Plus, as long as the media remains pliant and cooperative, blame can always be shifted as required.

    Such is the cost of corruption.

  3. 3

    Rich Wheeler

    Vince–A great speech delivered by a great actor.
    The truth is, in these troubled times, we need a CIC with a strong military background. A man who gets it.when it comes to the military.
    Join Petercat* , Dr. J* and myself in supporting Navy Cross recipient Capt. Jim Webb for POTUS.
    Semper Fi

    * see post ref Webb’s Marine son.

  4. 4


    @Rich Wheeler:

    The truth is, in these troubled times, we need a CIC with a strong military background. A man who gets it.when it comes to the military.

    And these “troubled times” are a new phenomena? Are not these “troubled times” not related to radical Islamic jihad? Seems to me we have been in “troubled times” for decades.

    Yet, you voted for Obama, who not only did not have any military background, but has clearly shown that he is anti-U.S. military and views it only as a social engineering petri dish.

    If you are going to claim that the need is for a POTUS with a military background, then you are going to have to explain why you voted for someone who clearly abhors our military and why, as you have admitted, you voted for a draft dodger even after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon made it clear that we had entered “troubling times.”

    Webb may announce today that he is going to run as an Independent. He needs to decide exactly where he is on the political spectrum. First a Republican who switched sides of the aisle because his advise was not taken (he seems to think he is the sharpest tack in the box) to a Democrat who now toys with becoming an Independent.

    Since he can’t seem to decide who he is, or what he is, why should anyone trust he would be any more decisive as POTUS?

  5. 5

    Rich Wheeler

    @retire05: Webb will get my support if he runs as an INDIE.
    Talk about flip flopping parties That would include Trump and Ronald Reagan.

    BTW Webb IS “the sharpest tack in the box”—not saying much.

  6. 6


    The lack of women on NFL team rosters is all the common sense one needs to know that placing women into combat arms is insane. Are the same people pushing for this immature denial of physiologic reality going to accept that women will need to be drafted should our nation enact compulsory military service in the future, should this stupifying social machination remain in place? As is typical of every democrat president since Carter, leftist trash to a man, the only government agency that is downsized is the military. I remember Clinton’s foolhardy RIF in the 90s, and we are seeing the despicable weaking of our military under Obama, as the left works feverishly to change what was once the strongest force for good in the world, into a giant SJW daycare service.

    And as far as Webb is concerned, given that as a senator he voted in lockstep with the scumbag Reid, his military service seems to have little positive impact on his political actions. Gore and Kerry were both veterans, as was Cleland. So are McCain and Graham. Military service, no matter how honorable, is not by itself qualification to be president. Character and integrity matter far more, qualities that are utterly foreign and incomprehensible to the left.

  7. 7


    @Rich Wheeler:

    Talk about flip flopping parties That would include Trump and Ronald Reagan.

    Reagan is not running, and you seem to assume that Trump has the support of all Republicans. Major mistake on your part.

    BTW Webb IS “the sharpest tack in the box”—not saying much.

    Actually, no, he’s not the sharpest tack in the box, not now, not back then when he decided to switch parties because his recommendations on foreign policy were not treated as the gold standard.

    You are more than welcome to vote for anyone you choose. That is the beauty of our system. But to claim that it is because of Webb’s military service that you support him, when you clearly voted for not only a draft dodger, but I suspect you voted for someone who slandered every Vietnam veteran with false Congressional testimony as well as voting for a man who clearly holds animus toward our military and wants to treat it as a social engineering petri dish, only exposes your own hypocrisy.

  8. 10


    @Rich Wheeler:

    Why won’t you own up to the fact that military service of a candidate was never an issue for you before when you were helping elect Democrats to the Office of President of the United States but now, all of a sudden, it’s a big deal for you?

  9. 12


    @Rich Wheeler:

    Then there is military service that cost you five years of your life as a guest of the North Vietnamese.

    Are you now going to tell us that you voted for John McCain?

    How hypocritical do you intend to be?

  10. 13


    @Rich Wheeler: Would you have voted for Murtha? He falsely accused our military personnel of war crimes.

    As to women in the military, while arguing with liberal on the subject some time back, I pointed out that I had no objection to it, based on them meeting the requirements (rather than lowering the bar) but are we, as a society, willing to accept the female casualties and the eventual POW’s? That brought about a pause for thought.

  11. 14

    MOS# 8541

    every been in a fire fight, had incoming or called in artillery strikes on your own position? The person next to you is your buddy. He, she or trans is willing to die with you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *