Barack Obama is the worst commander in chief in the history of this nation. He earns this distinction by making the astonishing decision to go to war while vowing not to do whatever it takes to win. This is presidential malpractice taken to new heights.
In his address to the nation on Wednesday, Obama announced his intention to go after ISIS, but only under these terms: The U.S. will provide air support for the ground forces of other nations. Under no circumstances will U.S. ground forces engage in combat. This, he informs us with no sense of embarrassment, is to ensure this war is "different from past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
And why, exactly, is that important? It's important because Obama, other Democrats and their media allies thoroughly trashed these efforts for the clear purpose of making them politically toxic - an effort that met with great success and create a political environment that helped make Obama a viable candidate for the presidency in 2008.
The price we are now paying for this trashing, however, is that America cannot fight. Any hint of sending U.S. ground forces into combat, however serious a threat we face, elicits such abject fear in politicians that they believe it makes more sense to come up with a dumbass proposition like the one Obama outlined on Wednesday.
Where we have arrived as a nation is this: We may go to war, but we will not do whatever it takes to win because some of what it takes is too dicey politically.
A responsible commander in chief would understand that you don't go to war if you're not prepared to really commit yourself to victory
A responsible commander in chief would ignore the political dynamics and understand that you don't go to war if you're not prepared to really commit yourself to victory. But that is not the commander in chief we have. We have one for whom politics are always the first priority, especially since he did as much as anyone to create the political environment that now limits his strategic options.
Obama gave ISIS a huge heads-up on Wednesday night by publicly taking one of our most lethal options off the table right at the start. If we will not send ground troops into combat no matter what, then ISIS can develop its own strategy accordingly. They will face certain dangers, but they won't face that one because Obama has already made it clear he is not prepared to deal with the political repercussions of bringing it to bear against them.
This is the case even though the public strongly supports action against ISIS in the aftermath of its brutality against both Americans and Iraqis in recent weeks, and even though Obama himself has finally abandoned the absurd claims that ISIS does not represent a serious threat.
It really comes down to this: Obama has no higher priority than to be the opposite of George W. Bush, and that absolutely includes Bush's best traits - like his willingness to put victory above his own political standing. So if Bush would deploy ground troops (and endure the subsequent political assault emanating from Obama and others), then Obama will never deploy ground troops. Yeah yeah, he'll go after ISIS, but only under limitations that ensure he never has to do what he blustered against Bush for doing.
And if strategic circumstances confront Obama with a choice between defeat and doing what Bush did, then Obama will fold like a cheap suit just like he's doing in Ukraine.
Obama is not committed to victory, and that being the case, we should not be going to war at all with him as commander in chief. Unfortunately, he is the commander in chief we have, and that is the fault of the 52 percent of the electorate that doesn't take its responsibility as citizens any more seriously than Obama takes his as commander.
