Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
When should the military be deployed?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Jeff Jacoby catches Obama doing a 180 about genocide and the use of the military.

Last night Obama said:
In such cases, answered Obama, "we have moral issues at stake." Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."
That, apparently, is the new Obama Doctrine - except when it comes to Iraq:
"Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep US forces there," the AP reported on July 20, 2007...
While that's interesting, I think it misses the point. The question about deploying our military in a situation in which those deployed stand a chance of being killed or wounded should be very simple and straight forward.

Does it serve and advance our national security interests?

If not, no deployment. Obviously, I have no problem with straight up humanitarian use of the military such as in the wake of a natural disaster. But in a shooting war or situation, if it doesn't serve and advance our national security interests, we should stay home.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don’t provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests. — Barack Obama 7-Oct-2008
The quote destroys the leftist myth that President Bush is a warmonger.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
the difference being that ’that one’ would exhaust all the diplomatic and embargo options before resorting to military action. and one of those, or a combo, may actually work. your albino dwarf would go directly to the military option, and most likely screw it up. fortunately this election is ovah!
 
Written By: pedro the illegal alien
URL: http://
the difference being that ’that one’ would exhaust all the diplomatic and embargo options before resorting to military action.
Yeah - that would stop genocide, wouldn’t it pedro?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"the difference being that ’that one’ would exhaust all the diplomatic and embargo options"

You can never exhaust all the diplomatic options. This argument is just an excuse to do nothing while heaping abuse on someone who wants to do something.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
and one of those, or a combo, may actually work.

You’re absolutely right! i mean, just look at how well it’s worked in:
Iran
North Korea
Cuba
Venezuela
Rwanda
Darfur...

Need I go on?
your albino dwarf would go directly to the military option, and most likely screw it up.
So, how old are you, exactly? 12? Cos I teach students who use the same language you just did and appear to have the same maturity level and you know what? Half haven’t hit puberty yet.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
’that one’ would exhaust all the diplomatic and embargo options
You forget exhaust the human supply of victims as happened in Rwanda. Once everyone was killed off, then something was done by the surrounding African nations.
So, how old are you, exactly? 12?
Mental age - definitely

I got into an argument with the usual ilk like Pedro on the economy. The argument started by someone I work with (PhD, professor large university) was started by him as a way of blaming it all on the republicans. Thanks to reading some excellent background, I pointed out the whole history and who was who in the mess. He was reluctantly agreeing and then once he he agreed that the democratic party was at fault and I thought, aha great. Then he launches into a tirade about Bush being at fault for the whole thing.

There is no arguing with these drones. The media carries water and covers up the truth. Have any of you seen a single article on Biden dozens of gaffes int he VP debate. No, off course not.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
You forgot to add that Obama then admitted that we would then have to evaluate the national interest as well because we can’t afford to intervene everywhere; you left that out. Unfair.
 
Written By: Ernie Richardson
URL: http://
Obama, the same guy that when asked if he would attack Pakistan for not doing what we want to terrorists living in Pakistan - says NO!

Then proceeds to outline why he would attack Pakistan for not doing what we want to terrorists living in Pakistan.

Only in the mind of a 10 year old is an American attack on things and people in a foreign country not an attack on the foreign country.

And people like Pedro don’t see it either, unless of course Bush suggested it, then it’s a whole nother matter.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Does it serve and advance our national security interests?
You’re against the Iraq invasion now?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
You’re against the Iraq invasion now?
Obama’s FOR the invasion of Iraq now?

Oh, right, he wouldn’t have been fooled by the imperfect intelligence about Iraq’s WMDs. Being the Light Worker makes him as infallible as the Pope.

Hmmmmmmm - can hardly wait to see how he handles the perfect intelligence the same agencies will be bringing out of Iran.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Are there really people still pretending that poor widdle Bush reluctantly went to war because he was misled by "bad intel"?!?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Are there really people still pretending that poor widdle Bush reluctantly went to war because he was misled by "bad intel"?!?
Are there still people that haven’t read the original declarations and all the reasons besides possible WMD?

Guess not, people with single digit IQs, go figure
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
National security interest can be broadly defined. It can be legitimately argued that injustice over *there* will come back to bite our butts over *here*. Genocide is a tremendous evil. The idea that it can exist entirely localized is a stretch. Intervention in such cases is the foreign policy equivalent of enlightened self-interest.

Note, however, that this is not what Obama suggested. Neither tried to tie our national security interests to the disruption and expanding ripples of unrest and insecurity that accompany genocide. It was presented as a purely moral issue.

Obama and McCain said nearly the same thing, IIRC, and if anything Obama was more aggressive about it. McCain seemed to emphasize other non-military responses and set the requirement that success has to be a reasonable expectation. No sending in the troops for the sake of doing something... better to do nothing at all, than waste our men and women’s lives on something that won’t work. Obama, of course, was trying to sound like a military leader.

And despite Pedro’s naive belief that Obama didn’t really mean it... there is no historical reason to think that he won’t commit our troops very quickly and easily. Clinton did. Even Carter did. Obama talks a tough talk. Why not send troops as peace keepers? Why not? They won’t be fighting. Why not have our Air Force flying enforcement of no-fly zones? They won’t be fighting. Why not send our Army to deliver food to starving people in lawless lands? They. Won’t. Be. Fighting.

Except that it doesn’t work that way and having a natural antipathy toward the use of the military for war, there is no reason to think, or even suspect, that Obama has ever thought about war in any respect other than "it’s bad," in order to understand the tool he will hold in his hands, how it can be used and how it can NOT be used.

So he’ll try to use it.

Probably not to decisively end genocide however. The "Rawanda Solution" (as Captain Joe mentioned) is the only one that the pace of international diplomacy has time for.
 
Written By: synova
URL: http://
the only thing that makes me think that Obama will NOT use our military, for anything, is because we are out of money, and he wants money for his social programs.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider