Our Reluctant Warrior President

We sometimes forget that the primary focus of the President of the United States should not be domestic laws or policies.  Rather, it is to lead the U.S. military.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, in enumerating the powers of the chief executive, begins, not coincidentally, with the clause “The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.”

Law-making, on the other hand, is reserved exclusively to Congress.  Article I, Section 1.

The paramount responsibility of the President, it would therefore seem clear, is to defend our country – to keep us safe – by all means necessary.

Alas, Barack Obama has problems bearing that burden and fulfilling that responsibility.

 

His conduct suggests that he’s more concerned with keeping foolish campaign pledges than adjusting to reality.

He set a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq and kept it – over the objections of those who, in retrospect, plainly knew better.

He has promised to do the same in Afghanistan and has generated similar worries. 

He pledged that American ground forces would not return to the Middle East, and “no boots on the ground” remains the President’s mantra.

There’s certainly much merit to keeping one’s word given on the campaign trail.  But how about pledges about  American responses to challenges from our foes?  They would seem far more vital to keep.  America’s word should not be doubted by our enemies or our friends.  They need to know we mean what we say.

How about red lines in Syria?  Or serious consequences for Russian encroachment on Ukraine?

Campaign promises, if sincere, are statements of intentions.  Experience shows, however, that reality can – and should – upend them if they are not founded in the world as it is, regardless of what’s one’s wishes may be.

Incredibly, President Obama has turned this common sense approach on its head.  Wishes have trumped reality.  Why is it so important to him to parse the truth so that he can deny doing what events are forcing him to do?  Is he an example of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s belief that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”?

Is he so dependent on the emotional support of his left-wing, anti-war constituency that he does not want to dampen it by telling the whole truth?  (He certainly no longer needs their electoral support). 

The beheadings have forced his hand.  He feels compelled to do something – but as little as he must.

 

Our national interest compels that we defeat ISIS, he thunders… but without U.S. ground troops.  And if our Middle Eastern allies decline to provide necessary ground troops as they have so far refused to do?  What then?  Will he cling to his “no boots” promise?  Or will he do what others know must be done?

The great fear is that the President’s past performance has already provided the answer.