As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama Leads “One of the Greatest” Militaries Ever

Some may think this is a small thing, but I believe it is emblematic of a bigger thing.

Here’s a line from Obama’s remarks on Memorial Day, pointed out to me by Miranda, one of our readers. She saw it at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace.

It’s one of my highest honors, it is my most solemn responsibility as President, to serve as Commander-in-Chief of one of the finest fighting forces the world has ever known.

First of all, this is factually incorrect. It can be stated without question and without resort to excessive chauvinism that the U.S. military IS the finest fighting force ever, not one of them. It can destroy any other military currently or previously deployed. Assuming decisive leadership, that is.

So what could cause our president to make such a mistake? It reminds me of Obama’s now infamous resort to relativism early in his presidency on the question of whether America is the best place on earth.

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

This implies of course that the superiority of America is just one man’s opinion, and not a fact. I think it is a fact; others may disagree. But there really shouldn’t be much question in the mind of the man who is actually leading the country. Perhaps after two and a half years as president, there no longer is.

Now, for the commander in chief to have to qualify his opinion of the armed forces, when no qualification is necessary by anyone, shows . . . well, I’m not really a psychoanalyst.

I just know that the president needs to do some research.

16 Responses to Obama Leads “One of the Greatest” Militaries Ever

  1. There’s no doubt that we are the best equipped military today or that our soldiers are dedicated and brave. The best ever? maybe.
    The Roman Legions were unstoppable in their day, the British military conquered most of the civilized world, the Huns weren’t slouches, either.
    Not being a historian, there might be more fighting forces of greatness.

    We know what MrO means and how he might be the first POTUS who finds America as flawed and needing corrections. His ‘apology’ tours were outrageous and caused the first doubts about his stewardship of our country.
    The O’s newfound love of our military is suspect and might just be a political ploy to pander to, well, just about everyone in the US.

    • Correction. The Roman Legions were NOT unstoppable: they were defeated in numerous conflicts, which is why Rome was sacked multiple times. Remember Hannibal? the Huns? Even the Germanic barbarians defeated them periodically…and the Romans NEVER conquered the Euskadi of northern Spain, nor some areas of Great Britain.
      The US military has only been defeated when the politicians forbade them from fighting to win…let me rephrase that: they only accepted a “truce”, or a “defeat”, because certain politicians did not believe in the possibility of VICTORY.
      Does that not sound familiar? Obama cannot use the word.

      • We were not allowed to defeat the Vietnamese Communists; we could not invade North Vietnam; we could not strike back north of the Ho Chi Minh trail … we were not allowed … and like the gallant French before us (who lost 92,000 killed) our men went down fighting. Politicians like Ted Kennedy (whose remains are currently filled with small creatures), Comrade John Kerry, Jane Fonda and other human detritus made sure of it. 56,000 men paid the price. One of my relatives body parts are scattered across a small, abandoned foot path north of An Khe. He wasn’t political astute enough to understand how liberalism worked.

        Mr. Obama will, when the political winds blow his direction, say nice things about our troops, take credit or send them into battle when it BENEFITS him. But when the winds change, he will go back to calling our troops thugs, murderers, madmen and baby killers, since liberal political opportunism demands it.

        It’s Tommy this and Tommy that…
        Chuck him out, the brute.
        But its Tommy, Savior of the Land,
        when the guns begin to shoot.

  2. Keith,

    We understand and appreciate your view, but he’s not entirely incorrect. True, we have the structure, technology, and doctrine that make us second to none. However, if Alexander’s Greeks or Scipio’s Legions or Ghengis’ Tumen (amongst others) were brought to the modern era and similarly equipped, we’d be hard pressed to beat them and it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that we’d lose.

    Now, clearly we’re the best in the modern era, but across the broad sweep of history? Ummmmm……

    • William, I understand, you make a good point, it does depend on how you want to look at it. As a relative matter, you can start arguing about Genghis Kahn, Caeser, Napoleon or even Hitler circa 1940. But I think the most direct interpretation of the words is as an absolute – whether due to armaments, strategy or training, the current U.S. military is the most potent – the finest – ever assembled. And at the very least, a president making such a statement should use the absolute interpretation rather than the relative.

      • In unqualified terms: yes. There’s no question that a single heavy brigade from today’s US Army could obliterate the entire British Army of Queen Victoria’s day, to say nothing of the pre-firearm militaries. And there’s no single military that could go toe-to-toe with us in a slug fest (maybe if several ganged up on us and we received no support from our allies, which is impossible to imagine). I guess I can see your point in terms of the type of rhetoric a president should use.

      • I fear one thing, very much: our enemies (Russians, Chinese) know that they cannot defeat our military on our terms, our technology is too great.
        But our technology is also our achiles heal. If they were to successfully attack us with high altitude nukes that emitted EMPs and disabled all our electronics, and then attacked us with traditional military might, our technological advantage would be neutralized, and their superior numbers (chinese in particular) and their willingness to fight war with BRUTALITY rather than our insane delicacy, would likely defeat us.

  3. Obama “dosent like” the US Military.

    Just look at Barack Hussein Obama’s “background/life” Obama NEVER Worked or Served for a cause greater than himself…(re: NO ONE knows how Barack Hussein Obama attended/floated thru Columbia Univ. & Harvard Law?) -Yet I had to use my G.I. Bill just to attend college…

    Obama has no UNDERSTANDING-KNOWLEDGE-RESPECT for the US Military (1776-Present)

    BTW: I want to puke over the fact the US Navy will be naming another Aircraft Carrier for “John F. Kennedy” (CV-67/CVN-79)… Being a USN VET & History Major I can think of at least a Dozen! better names for a new Aircraft Carrier…

  4. Thanks for the hat tip Keith! And thanks even more for writing about this – one more example of Obama attempting to social justice-engineer America – even our military – by decreeing that we’re just one of many fine fighting forces, and to redistribute our value by leveling the playing field.

    So glad you are in the briefing room, day in & day out. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be surrounded by Obama’s de facto PR corps. I don’t suppose they’re very appreciative of your challenging the Obama propaganda machine.

  5. Good article. The biggest shame is that Obama doesn’t respect the military. Frankly, he doesn’t seem to respect America. It has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with his upbringing. and his worldly cultural relativity
    I am not an American, but shudder everytime that he undermines your fine country and attempts to remake it into something else that reflects anything but heartland values

  6. The exceptionalism line is the most troublesome. If you use O’s logic, if everyone is great then no one is great. Which we know is not true. I think, although he is educated, he really is not smart at all. By any stretch of the imagination, Obama is not a serious intellectual. Scary really scary.

      • Bingo, Keith.

        Moral relativism.

        Post modernism destroyed the ability to clearly adjudicate individual morality. Obama’s compass is not Godward or establishment oriented … its *moral consensus.* If we all agree with ‘it’, then ‘it’ is correct. Whatever we determine is moral and just, is, or is not. If all seniors over 80 need to be gassed (we’ll save a hell of a lot of money on health care) and 51% believe we should, then its *morally right and just.*