One of the whispers in the back halls of the Pentagon is that so far, President Trump is showing that he is a better military leader than former President Obama.

One lesson learned from Viet Nam and WWII is that politicians meddling in military tactics inevitably lead to disasters.

During WWII Hitler insisted on dictating tactics and strategy to the military. He insisted, for example, that most of his reserves be held close to Calais in France because he was convinced that was where the invasion would come. In fact, the allies invaded in Normandy and historians agree, if Hitler had thrown his reserves into Normandy in a timely fashion, the invasion would not have succeeded.

During Viet Nam President Johnson insisted on picking targets for bombing missions in Viet Nam. It was Johnson's belief that military action could be used to make political statements. As a result, he did not let the military bomb or mine Haiphong harbor, where much of the war material for North Viet Nam was unloaded. US pilots have described seeing surface to air missiles and related material on the docks at Haiphong, but were ordered not to attack them because foreign flagged (notably French) ships were also in the harbor, and Johnson didn't want an "international incident". France was an ally of America but was making bank shipping war goods to North Viet Nam. The process was that the military command in Viet Nam would create a list of targets and forward them to the White house. Johnson and his team (including McNamara) would review the list and decide which, if any, targets would be approved. The approved list was sent back to Viet Nam, and the missions would be scheduled. The process took days or even weeks, so hitting say, a convoy of war goods moving on the Ho Chi Minh trail in the end became monkey killing missions.

The moral learned is, politicians set goals and strategy (we want to bomb Iran into the dark ages and we'll know that is accomplished when Iran is pretty much glassed over) the military carries out the mission, including how to achieve the goal. Simply, politicians politic, military leaders lead.

So according to the Pentagon, Obama was a very much hands on President when it came to the military. Obama set his policy in 2013 and it can best be summarized as; "American lives need to be at immediate risk, and there has to be a near certainty that no civilian lives will be lost". The problem is, when we're talking drone strikes in Syria or Afghanistan, it's nearly impossible to tell who the bad guys are, and who the civilians are. Also, the Obama administration imposed a process even more laborious than President Johnson's, so that target opportunities vital to our interests were simply lost through attrition; in other words, the Obama administration talked them to death.

President Trump, on the other hand, has given the Pentagon it's marching orders; "If there is a threat to American interests worthy of the risk and expense, and civilian lives can reasonably be protected or isolated".

Unsupporters will moan and froth that the war mongering Trump will be bombing civilians in Iraq. So be it.
The reality is, we are at war and we are not winning. Trump, for one, will take the bad press if it will further the goal of defeating ISIS.

This President, despite all the bad press about his orange skin and weird hair and preference for well done steak is showing that he is a leader.

 

It does make sense. I mean who would want a draft dodger making military strategy..

 

Trump isn't worried about his political future. That has always been a big problem with life long politicians.
Trump isn't worried about polls. Again that is a very big problem with life long politicians.
Trump is not worried about the news media. Another rather large problem with life long politicians.

Imagine how much time that frees up to for him to do the work he was elected to do.

 

Really? Barely a week after taking office...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/...rumps-first-counterterror-operation.html?_r=0

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...first-known-combat-death-since-trump-sworn-in

*not_secure_link*www.npr.org/sectio...st-military-raid-continues-to-raise-questions

And more recently:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...voters-don-t-buy-it/58e48659e9b69b72b25510ba/

 

Bill Clinton and his wife where war desenters protesting against the USA....

and both of them made many military decisions.....

Hillary's decisions where so good she is a charter member of ISIS.....hell she armed them....

 

Gee, let's go back further...Reagan armed the Taliban.

 

Today, I see nothing other than Russian made arsenals that the terrorists are sporting today.
Yet, actually, who gives a fuck about that dumb shit...Russians are hampering National elections today...of other nations.

It was a different time back when Reagan was POTUS.

 

Trump's 2013 tweets on Syria tell a different story

President Trump's statement on the Assad regime's chemical attack today in Syria pulled no punches in blaming the Obama administration:

Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a "red line" against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack.
But Trump's tweets around the time that President Obama considered seeking congressional approval for military action in Syria — an idea discarded after the Syrian government agreed to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles on September 10, 2013 in an agreement jointly negotiated with Russia — indicate an agreement with Obama's ultimate decision not to act, if not his methods.

Read the tweets. 264 words
June 15, 2013: We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO

August 29, 2013: @walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.

August 29, 2013: What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

September 1, 2013: President Obama's weakness and indecision may have saved us from doing a horrible and very costly (in more ways than money) attack on Syria!

September 2, 2013: If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.

September 3, 2013: What I am saying is stay out of Syria.

September 5, 2013: The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.

September 5, 2013: AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

September 7, 2013: President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

September 9, 2013: Don't attack Syria - an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!

 

Yep, @shootersa is a retard.

 

I see @shootersa did not have a response for you since it is fact. President Dipshit typed every single word.

 

*not_secure_link*3.bp.blogspot.com/-6hGYfAoA3hc/UX7T8qKTTlI/AAAAAAAAAPo/OmdxuEMLx1M/s1600/moving-redline.jpg

*not_secure_link*blogs.denverpost.com/opinion-cartoons/files/2015/11/syria-boots-on-the-ground-cartoon-beeler.jpg

 

So far President Dipshit following the same policy. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no winning solution. Especially with Russia siding with Syria.

Keep up that Obama crutch.

 

Trump is an isolationist. So, how can his military decisions be better?

Matter of fact, what military decisions has Trump made except for killing more civilians than terrorists, getting a US service member killed, and using his widow as a prop?

 

Further proof Trump is doing a good job.

 

Trump was elected to restore the plush economy for non college educated white men that existed from 1946 to 1973. What he will do is to skew things more in favor of the already affluent. The well paying factory and mine jobs are not coming back.

The few that do come back either won't pay much, or they will require skills beyond the learning ability of the average low income white Republican.

Whether or not lower income white Republicans will turn against Trump will depend on how gullible they are. Ronald Reagan kept the gullibles in tow with nationalistic and semi racist rhetoric. Trump may succeed at that. Nevertheless, his approval rating already resembles something stuck on the bottom of my shoe. Paul Ryan's approval rating is even lower.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2448

 

What a fucking load of crap ...couldn't you have just found an "alternate news" thread to post that stupid statement in ???

Surely you jest ???

Let us revisit this topic when the military stages a coup ...

 

Trump is finding out that is easier to condemn Barack Obama for messy international and economic situations than it is to fix them.

During the campaign he made unrealistic promises. He said that he would bring back the well paying, unskilled factory jobs his followers to the left of the IQ bell curve once depended on for lower middle class incomes. He said, "It will happen very, very quickly."

 

Something you still do to this day.

And Obama did for a number of years.


President Obama’s Hall of Blame

Promise Broken rulings on The Obameter



Cry me ANOTHER river!

 

Looking at that list and I think I fell for his bull shit and voted for him.....ONCE !!!!
Jive ass.....wigger....

and now someone in his administration needs to go to jail.......Susan Rice?

 

Same here.