Michelle Malkin » The blogosphere schools Barack Obama in asymmetric warfare

The blogosphere schools Barack Obama in asymmetric warfare

By Michelle Malkin • May 20, 2008 10:13 AM

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.

Jennifer Rubin:

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.

Jim Geraghty:

…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.

Posted in: Barack Obama

Regular View

comments (103)

trackbacks (10)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#328303

On May 20th, 2008 at 8:56 pm, secondsight said:

The problem with Democrats is that when they screw up and need to call in the troops, they can never do so without a mass mobilization. I’d druther have a Republican war than a Democratic one.

But that’s all moot. Wait’ll our kids come back to a nation owned and run by the former illegals.
#328324

On May 20th, 2008 at 9:23 pm, Send_Me said:

I hate the term “asymmetric warfare.” It’s nothing more than a “sexy” word used by conventional thinking people to describe a type of war that is thought different, yet really is not. All war is asymmetrical. Unless one wishes to lose, you have to consider the terrain (in terms of people, organizations, and the physical), composition and disposition of the enemy, time available, and perform a cost-benefit analysis of the target itself in terms of the accessibility of the target, how easily the enemy can recover, and the physical and psychological impact of an operation. These considerations, as are OCOKA, METT-TC, ASCOPE, and the principles of war, are all used during so-called “conventional” and “unconventional” warfare. As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun.” You measure up your opponent then shoot for the weak points however you can.
It’s obvious that Obama sees warfare in terms of arithmetic, rather than an art and science. It’s ironic that this discussion revolves around Iran and the West. Leonidas had far fewer troops, whom the Iranian King, Xerxes, figured he could easily destroy with his 150,000-250,000 troops. History tells us the Persians won a Pyhrric victory. War is not that simple when you consider things such as, in the case of Thermopylae, terrain and the training of the enemy. For a more modern example, look at how the Afghans, with clandestine American aid, defeated a better trained, better equipped Soviet Army. Why? Better use of terrain, greater aid of the population in terms of logistics and intelligence, etc. How about Operation Restore Hope? Though we killed far more than they did, we left without victory. Why? How? It’s obvious Obama does not understand such things.
It’s amazing that a prospective leader of the free world would not understand such basic concepts of warfare.
#328603

On May 21st, 2008 at 9:10 am, emjem24 said:

When I see comments like Obummer’s, calipygian’s, and Independent Tom’s, it becomes pretty obvious that there is a fear of the military, even a resentment. There is a willingness by many Americans to say that the Iraq War was just a scam to further the “military industrial complex.” When I see comments like these, I wonder why the hell my husband is in the military fighting for your rights when all you sanctimonious nitwits can do is throw his service in his face. He and I have given up a lot, as have many other military families, for the ungratefulness now expressed.

Iran not a threat? Puleeze. Obummer is not a foreign or economic policy expert. He leaves that to his advisers. As long as he can insert hopeful, changeling dialogue, the world will be a beautiful, benificent, non-violent place.

If anything, I’ve seen what the country has turned into. It’s not been pretty. Both parties did their part to ensure it. However, to say that a terrorist-supporting country who wants nuclear, hegemonic supremecy in the Middle East is not a threat is sheer lunacy. I don’t get it.

I wish I was like Obummer, Independent Tom, and calipygian who’ve turned their backs on the military. My husband, like the military, is a chew toy that political parties and their ignorant American masses can haggle over. How much do we cut the military? How much further do we make their lives difficult? How much further do we discriminate against their spouses? What would the world think if we kept our military intact?

It’s become widely apparent, that with a few notable exceptions (the military, country supporting conservatives of this blog), I no longer recognize this country. Obummer and his acolytes won’t be content until they have their pound of military cutting, domestic entitlement expanding flesh. Is he what’s good for our country?

It’s really sad how low we’ve sunk and how the country has turned against its military. I weep for the country I once thought I knew and the overall, ignorant self-interest guiding Americans to push the country further into the toilet. America is dead… only the death knell of an Obummer presidency will truly signal her demise and that of the once great American military.
#328663

On May 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am, Jim M. said:

Let’s also not forget that Japan was also a “tiny” country.

Obama accuses McCain as being lost in the past, but it is Obama who continues to believe the world operates according to cold war rules.

Iran is not the USSR. A country ruled by a theocracy that has as part of its governing philosophy the concept that martrydom is an open door to paradise is much different to deal with than a secular country with a decided atheistic bent. One is perfectly willing to accept a retailiatory attack while the other is frozen to inaction by the concept of mutual assured destruction.

http://dtom.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/20/the_obama_two_step.thtml

In addition, dealing with a country with thousands of nuclear weapons in much different that dealing with a country or group with one or two. It is the rougue state with one nuclear weapon that is more likely to use in then the country with many.

The Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. Obama is just like Jimmy Carter – without the military background.
#329080

On May 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm, bilgerat said:

Thank you, emjem, to you and your husband for your patriotism and sacrifice for our country.

Just ignore the ungrateful, unwashed, and uninformed masses when they spew their hatred of our fine soldiers.

There are many more of us who appreciate what your husband and your family is doing than those who do not.
#329510

On May 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm, zyzzyg said:

This discussion is far more embarrassing to Pres Bush than it is for Sen Obama. There is nuance to Sen Obama’s statements. Iran (and, for that matter, Iraq) does not threaten our freedoms. There is no way Iran (or Iraq) could come to our soil and take away my rifles, tear down my house of worship, or shut down our press. Yes, they can do damage and as Sen Obama said, and Sen McCain agrees, Iran should not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.

Where it is embarrassing for Pres Bush is that he has not been nuanced, but inconsistent. ‘With us or against us.’ Yeah, right. We have known about Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO well before Al Qaeda was on the scene. We have known where they are based and who supports them. Why haven’t we gone after them? Good grief, 16 of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi Arabian and what did Pres Bush do? He didn’t stop, or restrain, Saudi Arabians from entering the US on student visas as he did with other Arab/Muslim countries.

Yes, take Sen Obama to task. Get him to explain in more detail what he means. What purpose does it serve to assign motive and meaning to his statements when he can be asked.
#332450

On May 25th, 2008 at 12:10 am, yohannbiimu said:

Barack Obama is an imbecile. I don’t care where he went to school and what grades they gave him, he’s a moron. Anyone with an ounce of brain matter could destroy this “presidential candidate” in any form of debate, and for him to be where he is displays more the state of American politics right now that the true mettle of Obama.

To say that he’s “a lightweight” would suggest that something is there to WEIGH. It’s absolutely TERRIFYING to imagine this man holding the highest office on the planet. The mere thought of this blank disc running the executive office of the United States is inconceivable.
#370829

On July 9th, 2008 at 12:18 am, Lifeofthemind said:

Obama’s policy can be described as Complacency Pacifism. It is similar to the policy of the British Exchequer (their Treasury) after the First World War. It was policy to write defense budgets under the assumption that there would be no serious threat within a 10 year period. That argument got by in 1930 when everyone was broke and weak. It was cheap and popular with bean counters. Of course they didn’t change it until after 1936 by which time it was a little late to react to the real world growing threat.

Shoving problems off into the future when they will become someone else’s problem is a natural policy for the party of the permanent bureaucracy. If and when things blow up you just form a commission of inquiry, like after 9-11, to muddy the waters. They show the same inability to take action on defense issues as they do on energy. On the other hand a non-issue like long term environmental change can serve as a wedge to grow the government and regulate choices. That they have plenty of time and energy for.