Obama and the Use of Military Force: Why an Obama Presidency would Necessarily Fail

Here is something the media won’t tell you:

The means by which Barack Obama has positioned himself to potentially capture the presidency have put him in a box from which there is no escape. Should he obtain his goal, the seeds of his political destruction have already been planted, and there is one and only possible outcome: disastrous failure.

Whether the disaster would be substantive (our disaster) or merely political (Obama’s electoral disaster in 2012 ) one cannot yet say, but the writing is already on the wall.

Remember that before he was able to capitalize on the current market downturn for political advantage, the reason he was able to capture his party’s nomination was that unlike his main rival, Hillary Clinton, he was vocally against the Iraq war from the outset… what’s often forgotten (although America’s enemies certainly haven’t failed to notice this) is that he was against an intervention in Iraq despite the fact that the CIA, as well as the intelligence agencies of our allies, all believed that Saddam Hussein was developing and possessed weapons of mass destruction. Whatever was learned in hindsight is a separate matter–Obama never originally maintained that there were no WMD in Iraq. Obama has clearly established that he is against the use of military force even in the face of threats to American allies and American interests.

Here’s why Obama is in a box:

1). As a result of his primary campaign (in which he captured his party’s nomination by being anti-war), Obama, like no previous US President in history, must firmly and credibly establish in the eyes of the world that he is willing to use military force to defend American interests and allies. As Joe Biden pointed out, someone, somewhere, is going to test Obama on this point. I see no reason, for example, why China should not move against Taiwan the day after an Obama inauguration. Even if Obama does not overcompensate and responds appropriately, the nature of his political support in the US will still doom him politically (see number 3).

2). Should a President Obama fail to credibly threaten the use of military force–or even give hints that he is disinclined to do so–his presidency will be a catalog of unspeakable catastrophes. All of the world’s madmen who have hitherto been checked by American power would move in concert to present a President Obama with one international crisis after another–if not simultaneous crises.

3). Should Obama actually rise to the occasion and act like a real president… should he use or credibly threaten to use military force anywhere in the world, his electoral base, elements of which are unconditionally anti-war and view American military power as the world’s great evil, will turn on him in unison. As will his European fans and those in the UN. Those who are not part of his political base will see that these threats and crises have emerged because America’s enemies pegged Obama as a weak horse, and Obama will essentially have no supporters… except, perhaps, certain members of the media and a percentage of whoever supports Obama on the mere basis of his race. This will not, however, constitute a group large enough to lift his poll numbers from the basement or deliver him a second election.

The current market downturn has resulted in a nationwide fixation on economic issues, something a President has a real if oblique influence over. But foreign policy is another matter, a constant and immediate responsibility of any United States President that cannot be evaded, talked over, or prettied up with pleasant speeches.

Barack Obama is singularly unsuited to grapple with these responsibilities because of the very nature of his rise. His destiny is to either be a failed candidate for the presidency (if enough people realize this in time) or a failed one-term president who endangers both world stability and the people of the United States.