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

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (103)

trackbacks (9)

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

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

#101

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.
#102

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.
#103

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.