Another Liberal Warrior?

Well, seems like we have have us another Wartime President that has no business even playing paintball much less determining US Global Strategy and conducting a war that could determine the fate of our very way of life?

Maybe you think I'm being too hard on him, but there has neve been a Liberal yet that could conduct a war to actually win it. They are too concerned with policy and fallout from their decisions. They are also more concerned with how to get out of a war than how to truly win one. They also seem to think that they are about twice as smart as the people that that have trained their whole lives and dedicated themselves to their chosen profession.

I'm only going to go back to the beginning of the 20th Century to make my point. so here goes.

Woodrow Wilson: WWI- He was willing to settle for Armistice rather than victory and pushed for the League of Nations in his Fourteen Points. We all know how well that worked. Twenty years later the world was at war again, with another liberal at the helm.

Franklin Roosevelt: WWII- Caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor, then sold out the British by believing Stalin. He then allowed the Soviets free rein in Eastern Europe. How well did that work out? Seems like the ends never work out the way things liberals plan.

Harry Truman: Korea: I will say that he started strong, but then listened to advisors instead of ground commanders and intelligence. Then issued very ambigious orders to field commanders that lead to near disaster and an eventual stalemate that lasted nearly three years and cost thousands of lives.

John Kennedy: Bay of Pigs Cuban Missile Crisis, and Viet Nam- During the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, Kennedy gave the okay then vacillated and refused to commit air cover leaving men stranded and and eventually captured by the Cubans. This would eventually lead to the Missile Crisis because they felt that he would back down again. And he did, he talked tough up front but during the back-door negotiations, missiles were removed from Turkey. In Viet Nam, he began a build up that would eventually nearly tear the country apart. On a military note, he did allow the US Special Forces to wear the Green Beret.

Lyndon Johnson: Viet Nam- Volumes could be written here, but when a president is picking the bombing targets, it can't end well. Add that to confining rules of engagement, unclear directives and you have a recipe for disaster.

Jimmy Carter: Iran- Hosatges, and a failed recsue mission. That speaks for itself.

Bill Clinton: Bosnia, USS Stark and Somalia- I will only touch on Somalia here. After landing troops and getting 32 men killed he pulled out, leaving the impression among terrorsits that the US was a paper tiger. Among those coming to that conclusion was Usama Bin Laden.

Now we come to the latest and greatest addition to the list: Barak Hussein Obama. It took him 4 months to come up with a strategy? Whats he doing planning strategy? Dont we have generals for that? And his strategy focuses on getting out rather than winning. More liberal reverse victories.

Maybe I'm wrong here but a strategy to conduct a war should include winning it. And, the exit strategy should be "We come home after we have thorougly destroyed the desire in people to attack us again". I may be overly simplistic, but what works on a school yard will work in the world. Somebdy comes at you, you beat them so bad the last thing they ever want to do is mess with you again. Our foreign policy should be one sentence,"We can be your best friend or your worst nightmare." Simple but effective.