Topic: US military to be "volunteered" by the Intl "community"??!!

[Pandora]

Barack Obama is now allowing the US military to be “voluteered by others” to do dangerous service work for the international community.

It’s not clear where in the US Constitution he found this.

Ed Driscoll posted this from an Obama interview in El Salvador:

    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.

Ace added this on today’s stunning admission by our new age Commander in Chief:

    Obama seems to be such a believer in the extra-constitutional, or, more accurately, anti-constitutional view that it is the “international community,” whatever that is, that confers constitutional legality in matters of war rather than the body of Americans actually granted such power in the great national charter that he feels no need to pay even token, false lip service to the contrary position.

    If Obama merely meant “We seek no empire, and come to this fight reluctantly, only at the request of foreign allies,” well, he could have said that.

    Implicit in the words this rara avis literary genius actually chose is the idea that foreign citizens have a more important role in determining America’s status of “at peace” or “at war” than American citizens.

    “Just words”? Obama himself gave many speeches, written for him by David Axelrod and previously used by Axelrod-client and Obama proof-of-concept prototype Devall Patrick, that words are not “just words” but full of crucial meaning.

In the strongest terms possible, this cannot be allowed to stand.  I hope the Joint Chiefs step on this right now, and Congress does as well.

[IronDioPriest]

It is an outrage to think that the Commander in Chief would place our men and women in harm's way without accepting complete responsibility, and allowing them in effect to be marshalled by a foreign entity.

The Joint Chiefs indeed. I suppose it depends on whether they are soldiers at heart, or bureaucrats.

[Glock32]

This is all part and parcel of the movement to eliminate the concept of nationhood. Marxism was from the beginning an internationalist movement, and the current crop of proglodytes are at the very least heavily informed by their man-crush on Karl Marx. Why, it's "progress" to move beyond quaint relics of the past, like the Constitution, private property, and nationhood.

They think we're going to evolve into some Star Trek society if only we give up all our rights and property and allow them to enlighten us with their glowing genius.

[Libertas]

It is manifest in their ideology that bigger is better.  In their mind the world is bigger than even the United States, the UN & World Court bigger than our Constitution.  We reel in horror at such secular apostasy, and they will deny it outright and rationalize it with gobbledygook, but in the dark recesses of their diseased hearts it is what they believe.

If only we had a Congress capable of putting the Constitution first...having those idiots read the document at the start of this session didn't even help!

 

[IronDioPriest]

...They think we're going to evolve into some Star Trek society if only we give up all our rights and property and allow them to enlighten us with their glowing genius.

Future Economy

[Libertas]

Yeah, I always thought that angle of Star Trek was retarded.  Without a value-based medium and an absence of war...they made it seem like all was just fluffy bunnies and unicorns for everyone and everyone had all the food, shelter and possessions they desired just for the asking.

Yeah.

There's a reason they don't go into a lot of details on that score.  It's like push-polling,,,set the result in stone, and make the story fit it!

 

[Glock32]

If only we had a Congress capable of putting the Constitution first...having those idiots read the document at the start of this session didn't even help!

 

I would like to go on record as stating that, at this point, the Republicans are a bigger problem than the Democrats. They were rocketed into office with enormous popular will against the Left's agenda, and they have conspicuously failed to do what they were elected to do. We all knew they'd be limited in what could actually be enacted, but we did expect them to make a fight of it to help lay groundwork for 2012. Their inaction can only be deliberate, and it can only be because they have as much vested in Big Government as the Democrats do.

[Pandora]

The NATO-not-NATO solution is probably designed to give France and Britain the means they lack to continue. The key dilemma is found in a phrase above: “US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Britain or France could also take control of the mission, but some NATO officials doubt if either country could handle the operation by itself”.  Without Germany to back them, there’s a chance that neither country can go forward.

With President Obama experiencing political difficulties the American waterhole may soon dry up. Creating a quasi-NATO channels will provide a way of laundering at least some US military resources to act in support while remaining in the background. By rebranding American assets they can be used as part of an “international effort” and hopefully will not be noticed acting in service of what is effectively the foreign policy of Britain and France and the unexplained goals of the Obama administration. Without that laundering, the Libyan mission may fail from lack of supply.

As in many other things, the lack of money and the shortage of honesty is the root of all evil. Nothing prevents Britain and France, acting unilaterally or jointly, from acting against Libya except the lack of money. Both are sovereign countries and have been to war with other countries many times through history, Britain most recently in the Falklands. Nothing prevents it that is, except the lack of resources. Similarly, nothing prevents the Obama administration from acting against Libya in alliance with Britain and France . Nothing that is, except the absence of a cogent reason; hence Obama’s unwillingness to get the approval of Congress. France and Britain have the political mandate but not the means while Obama has the opposite problem. He has the means but not the mandate.

The solution is to cook up this NATO-not-NATO command structure. That creates the shell by which Britain and France can gain access to American resources and may allow President Obama to keep going without explaining his war aims to Congress.  In that way they can protect the Libyan people from a dictator without aiming to dislodge him; as one might try to overthrow Hitler without really overthrowing him. But we really know they want to, or do we? The alternative to this shadowy policy is for Britain, France and the US to man up, frankly declare their goals and jointly obtain the political and logistical means to pursue a policy they can explain to their publics.

But that would be too simple. We live in an age of nuanced diplomacy and that makes everything complicated. There are fewer regimes on earth more odious than that of the Duck of Death’s. In a rational world an enterprise to overthrow him should have been greeted with universal acclaim. This should have been an easy, or at least a do-able sell instead of a via dolorosa. Only Barack Obama could be incompetent enough to give the project of overthrowing Khadaffi a bad name.

"American resources" my ass.  He's talking about OUR PEOPLE!!; our military!  What the hell is this, another  "global redistribution of "resources"?!  C'mon, Wretchard!

Link

[IronDioPriest]

Link

"Laundering a War". Perfect title that captures the malfeasance of this president and his new military operation.

[ToddF]

The links are not carrying me to original sources.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/OFA/gGMHlL

I'd like to be outrageously outraged, but I'd like to see the quote from him, first, or evidence they've scrubbed this blog post.

[Libertas]

If only we had a Congress capable of putting the Constitution first...having those idiots read the document at the start of this session didn't even help!

 

I would like to go on record as stating that, at this point, the Republicans are a bigger problem than the Democrats. They were rocketed into office with enormous popular will against the Left's agenda, and they have conspicuously failed to do what they were elected to do. We all knew they'd be limited in what could actually be enacted, but we did expect them to make a fight of it to help lay groundwork for 2012. Their inaction can only be deliberate, and it can only be because they have as much vested in Big Government as the Democrats do.

Our Ruling Class types are in for a rough primary season.  Our aim should be to make it very hard on them!

[Libertas]

Link

"Laundering a War". Perfect title that captures the malfeasance of this president and his new military operation.

NATO Not-NATO!

 

 

[Pandora]

The links are not carrying me to original sources.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/OFA/gGMHlL

I'd like to be outrageously outraged, but I'd like to see the quote from him, first, or evidence they've scrubbed this blog post.

This remains:

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.

"Others" are "volunteering" our military?

In any but Duh Wun's world, that sentence doesn't even make any sense, but its intention is clear enough to me.

eta:  BTW, is your link supposed to go to "Organizing for America"? 

[Glock32]

Remember back when NATO was a defensive alliance against an attack by the USSR? Now it's a fig leaf for spilling American blood on behalf of a bunch of ingrates who will throw it in our faces in a few years, just like that Kosovo Muslim turd in Frankfurt a few weeks ago, or how the muj thanked us for helping them get rid of the Soviets by forming Al-Qaeda and murdering over 3,000 of our citizens.

We're also seeing just about how useful our "allies" would have been if the T-72s really had started pouring through the Fulda Gap. They can't even sort out half-ass dictators in their own backyard without us doing all the heavy lifting (while at the same time launching into sanctimonious tirades against the Ugly American and our imperial aims).

[Libertas]

The links are not carrying me to original sources.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/OFA/gGMHlL

I'd like to be outrageously outraged, but I'd like to see the quote from him, first, or evidence they've scrubbed this blog post.

This remains:

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.

"Others" are "volunteering" our military?

In any but Duh Wun's world, that sentence doesn't even make any sense, but its intention is clear enough to me.

eta:  BTW, is your link supposed to go to "Organizing for America"? 

In his bumbling stumbling way he is referring to NATO taking the lead, and we as a part of NATO are going along...but it is a retarded statement only a fool would buy at face value, the Supreme Commander of NATO has always been an American.  Obama would have to cede command and control and allow the NATO commander to take orders from a European consensus...a completely insane act and a precedent that should not be set.  NATO typically would take action as agreed upon by getting the various heads of state to agree to an act.  Obama is saying he doesn't want to be included in the decisions involving use of force, which our NATO forces are the dominant element!  Stunning and stupid!

[Predator Don]

Our community organizer in chief......Doin' what he does best.

Congrats are in order....he can now change his logo to include his international status as a community organizer.


2012 can't get here quick enough.

[Libertas]

Remember back when NATO was a defensive alliance against an attack by the USSR? Now it's a fig leaf for spilling American blood on behalf of a bunch of ingrates who will throw it in our faces in a few years, just like that Kosovo Muslim turd in Frankfurt a few weeks ago, or how the muj thanked us for helping them get rid of the Soviets by forming Al-Qaeda and murdering over 3,000 of our citizens.

We're also seeing just about how useful our "allies" would have been if the T-72s really had started pouring through the Fulda Gap. They can't even sort out half-ass dictators in their own backyard without us doing all the heavy lifting (while at the same time launching into sanctimonious tirades against the Ugly American and our imperial aims).

I've often thought about the ability to react to a Soviet Block advance in those days and came to the conclusion that NATO would've been penetrated pretty deeply and that political alliances would have been split over the use of tactical nukes to slow the advance or stay conventional and cede vast tracts before allied air power slowed down their logistical support.  I have no doubt under Reagan the tough choices could have been made, but after that...I think disaster would have ensued.  Under this idiot in the White House, it is apparent that disaster takes on an even more horrific shape!

[charlesoakwood]

If only we had a Congress capable of putting the Constitution first...having those idiots read the document at the start of this session didn't even help!

 

I would like to go on record as stating that, at this point, the Republicans are a bigger problem than the Democrats. They were rocketed into office with enormous popular will against the Left's agenda, and they have conspicuously failed to do what they were elected to do. We all knew they'd be limited in what could actually be enacted, but we did expect them to make a fight of it to help lay groundwork for 2012. Their inaction can only be deliberate, and it can only be because they have as much vested in Big Government as the Democrats do.

 

NATO's origin in 1949 was America on the line stopping the Russians from taking Western Europe.  Harry Truman with the Berlin airlift put a big stop sign on their aspirations.
If MacArthur had written Europe's constitution they would have evolved into a more capitalist entity, but he couldn't be everywhere at once. Besides, Eisenhower hated him.

[Pandora]

The links are not carrying me to original sources.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/OFA/gGMHlL

I'd like to be outrageously outraged, but I'd like to see the quote from him, first, or evidence they've scrubbed this blog post.

This remains:

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.

"Others" are "volunteering" our military?

In any but Duh Wun's world, that sentence doesn't even make any sense, but its intention is clear enough to me.

eta:  BTW, is your link supposed to go to "Organizing for America"? 

In his bumbling stumbling way he is referring to NATO taking the lead, and we as a part of NATO are going along...but it is a retarded statement only a fool would buy at face value, the Supreme Commander of NATO has always been an American.  Obama would have to cede command and control and allow the NATO commander to take orders from a European consensus...a completely insane act and a precedent that should not be set.  NATO typically would take action as agreed upon by getting the various heads of state to agree to an act.  Obama is saying he doesn't want to be included in the decisions involving use of force, which our NATO forces are the dominant element!  Stunning and stupid!

That EU 'consensus' being a steering committee.

He may be bumbling, but I believe his intent is to turn our military over to foreign command and that cannot be allowed in today's climate.... or ever, IMO.

[charlesoakwood]

Beck just agreed with your opinion.