Does Barack Obama understand the concept of asymmetric warfare? Barack Obama complains that no one wants to talk about the “issues.” Well, his abject ignorance of warfare in the 21st century is an issue that can’t be emphasized enough.
And the right side of the blogosphere has been all over it.
From Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades:
By stating that Iran isn’t a threat because they spend much less on defense than the US, Obama displays a complete ignorance of how asymmetric warfare operates. The AQ “defense budget” for pulling off 9/11, was by comparison to the US, essentially zero.
An analysis of the Iranian order of battle and where they’ve been spending their defense dollars over the past 10 years would show that they are a serious threat in certain specific areas. They’ve been investing heavily in coastal batteries, anti-ship missile systems, silent diesel electric subs, and such. They could turn the narrow strait of Hormuz into an unnavigable scrap yard faster than the US Navy could stop them or the US Air force could neutralize those batteries and missiles.
Are the Iranians going to bomb NYC or invade Chicago? No. Can they be a major PITA to the rest of the world if they decided to suicidally squeeze oil shipments through the straight? Absolutely.
Make sure to watch the whole clip if you haven’t seen it yet. It’s not just Obama’s blather about who we should talk to, which everyone’s been focusing on–and rightly so. But more to the point, more to the core issue, it’s his idiotic emphasis on how big the military budgets of our enemies are as the measure of the threat they pose.
Barack Obama: The epitome of a 9/10 Democrat.
Obama apparently believes that Iran and other rogues states (he lists Iran, Cuba and Venezuela) “don’t pose a serious threat to the U.S.” Iran, specifically, he tells us spends so little on defense relative to us that if Iran “tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn’t . . . they wouldn’t stand a chance.”
So, taken literally, he seems not much concerned about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorist organizations, its commitment to eradicate Israel, its current actions in supplying weapons that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq, and its role in eroding Lebanon’s sovereignty through its client Hezbollah…
…You can understand why every attempt by John McCain to discuss global threats is labeled “fear-mongering” by Obama. In his world this is all a fantasy and we are not at risk. All perfectly logical . . . if you divorce yourself from reality.
…in an era of asymmetrical warfare, a group’s budget and spending do not necessarily reflect the scope or danger of the threat. The 9/11 Commission report stated the attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan; the short-term costs alone to the U.S. from the attacks are estimated at $27.2 billion…Let’s look at those nations Obama describes as “tiny”…
Karl at Protein Wisdom: “Yesterday, Iran did not pose a serious threat to the US. Today, Obama declares Iran to be a ‘grave threat.’ Tomorrow, who knows? If it’s Tuesday, it must be Tehran!”
Ed Morrissey: Iran is not a “serious threat?”
John Hinderaker: “Can someone explain why it is, exactly, that Barack Obama is not a laughingstock?”
You know, this conversation is not helping Michelle Obama’s kids.blog comments powered by Disqus
Sound familiar? Obama’s HUD secretary (and possible Hillary VP) won’t be punished for breaking the law
July 21, 2016 10:46 AM by Doug Powers
Comforting: Obama reminds America’s police he’s ‘got their back’ — Also, if they like their plan they can keep it
July 19, 2016 10:41 PM by Doug Powers
Of course: Obama said Iran deal means they can’t develop a nuke, except for this part that says they can
July 18, 2016 10:27 PM by Doug Powers
NY Times style guide update on terrorist terminology — Out: Jihadi … In: ‘Surly misfit’ (Sunday open thread)
July 17, 2016 05:02 AM by Doug Powers
July 15, 2016 03:22 PM by Doug Powers