Where does Obama get his advice on military matters? He has no experience in military affairs.

[bigtree]

He'll have to completely rely on some adviser or some running mate to help him make the critical judgments needed to manage and utilize our military forces. I'm not suggesting this can't be done effectively, but, who will he rely on to give him all this advice. Who's he relying on now as he criticizes his rival and the opposition?

[polpilot]

1. He'll only need to ask Hillary & Company for advice...

and do the opposite. In the past this strategy would have worked perfectly!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. ROFL

:rofl:

[cali]

2. That's absurd.

Hillary will also rely on advisors, though she certainly has more experience. And let's be clear, judgment is as important as experience. She's demonstrated flawed judgment.

[bigtree]

8. I think you just used 'absurd' to be snarky. It's not absurd.

Obama hasn't had to deal with the type of situation he's criticizing her for, so we don't really know HOW he would react in that case, with the responsibility of a sitting Senator, except for his WORDS.

What's absurd is his comment in the speech last night that he didn't vote to authorize the invasion. Slick. He knows many folks think he was serving at the time. I really see little value or credibility in his opportunistic speech made from his safe, liberal, state seat.

[KittyWampus]

35. Well, at least he had the good sense to hire the Clinton advisors who were RIGHT about Iraq

and it says a lot about the Clinton Machine they stuck with the people who were WRONG.

[H2O Man]

3. Unlike BC in '92?

[bigtree]

10. You can see that I've accounted for that. How about an answer to the question?

WHO is he relying on for this advice. We should know. The question is made even more important because of he's postured as having better judgment than Clinton on these matters, because of the Iraq vote she cast (that he wasn't around to take responsibility for, or be accountable to his constituency for.) It's a fair question.

[H2O Man]

21. Actually, I do not

see that at all. I've re-read your OP several times, and found nothing that appears to account for that.

His positions on both Iraq and Iran would seem to indicate better judgement for those who want to deal with the Middle East in a manner that takes military action as a last approach. Senator Clinton's approach does not, in my opinion, show that same approach.

I would also note that neither of the two has military experience. It can not really be seriously debated that both rely on the knowledge and experience of those with military experience.

[bigtree]

26. The question was mostly about who is advising Obama,

while trying to reveal what I think is important. Certainly Clinton had no military experience, but I already know who he relied on. Who Obama relies on or trusts may give us clues to how he would manage military affairs. Those choices would also be fair game for questions about his own judgment, since his background offers very little guide to his level of understanding of these issues, his level of interest, or his ability to manage.

I knew the minute I posted that you'd hold me to the letter of this post. But, I'm actually making a different point and offering a little of my own bias up front. Your answer about Clinton is indeed valid to that point.

[H2O Man]

33. Both Hillary Clinton

and Barack Obama are far superior to the republican candidates when it comes to the future of our country. And your question is a valid one. I would, however, suggest that we consider the opposite question: which of the two democratic candidates would offer a greater chance of moving in the direction of civilian control of the military? I think that I will make a post out of the question -- not to compete or disagree with this OP, which is important, but rather to further the discussion.

[bigtree]

34. also, if I may,

Sen. Clinton has had (extensive?) experience in military affairs from exercising her responsibilities on the Armed Services Committee. I don't know what level of access Sen. Obama has had in his term to military or intelligence sources in Congress, or, even, what interest or intensity he exhibited toward these issues, outside of his votes and speeches.

When Sen. Obama makes these critical judgments and makes the criticisms he has of Sen. Clinton's own judgment in military matters, it's fair to ask where he gets his expertise or knowledge. Now, you may say, as someone in this thread did, that there may be value in a non-military perspective, but, there will be many instances where the president will have to exercise that authority with some expertise . . . in appointments, reorganizations, managing our foreign deployments . . .

I would argue, from the start, that Sen. Clinton has not forfeited the benefit of the experience she has gained on that committee because of those votes you disagree with.

[JCMach1]

4. ZBig and Co.

Foreign policy expert stumps for Obama
Posted: 04:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Providing a much-needed boost to a candidate whose judgment in international affairs has been called into question, former President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski, introduced Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, during a campaign stop in Clinton, Iowa on Wednesday.

“I’m here today because I strongly believe that the next election is not just to choose a new president,” Brezinski said. “The choice that you will be making will define America’s role in a historically new era. We have elections every four years, but only once in a while is a new president facing the opportunity to shape a new sense of direction for America,” explained Brezinski.

Brezinski, who stood out for his relatively hawkish views in an administration that often emphasized human rights, told the crowd that by invading Iraq the “United States has become engaged in what is essentially a colonial war in the post-colonial era.” He also opined that the Iraq war “has discredited America worldwide,” and warned that the conflict in Iraq might spread to Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/12/foreign-policy-expert-stumps-for-obama/

One of the reasons I am not for Obama... :(

[bigtree]

18. thank you.

[stellanoir]

5. How much did BC have ?

Ever heard of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

And he knew the case for this dumb war had not been made.

[bigtree]

11. It's fair to know where he gets the 'expertise' to make these judgments and decisions.

Just pointing to Bill Clinton isn't an answer. I can tell you who he relied on during his campaign, and on into his presidency for advice. I see the lady named Rice as his foreign specialist. Is she his military adviser as well? Or, don't you know?

[stellanoir]

16. If it's Susan Rice (I think that's her name) she's a foreign policy specialist.

I first saw her interviewed when she was one of Kerry's advisors in '04 and I was totally wowed.

She was so impressive, knowledgeable, and insightful, especially in contrast to all the idiotic blather we've been subjected to in recent years coming out of the other Ms. Rice's mouth.

[bigtree]

19. I like her. She is much more rounded and grounded than her namesake . . .

[stellanoir]

25. I think they're too close in age for her to be a namesake

and have no clue as to whether they are at all related. I just thought it ironic that they both had the same surname similar career paths and TOTALLY contrasting energies and approaches.

Just for the heck of it, I wikipedia'd her to see if I could find out her age or of any familial connection but neither was listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice

[bigtree]

28. no. I used 'namesake wrong. She's not related.

lazy word usage

[stellanoir]

37. When I first saw her in '04, I spoke with a friend from the South who

really loathes Condoleeza and knows quite a bit about her. I was telling my friend about the stark contrast between the two Rice women and she may have said the two were distant cousins. Not sure she did though. That's why I wanted to check it out to see if it was true.

Then again if Cheney & Obama are distantly related. . .ya never know.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

6. So does every president

:shrug:

[bigtree]

12. I would note Sen. Clinton has spent a great deal of time on the Senate Armed Services Committe

not an insignificant responsibility or experience.

[jeffrey_X]

17. Perfect. Maybe she can pitch in and help.

eom

[TomClash]

7. He can call up Zbig or Richard Clarke

Both are Obama advisers. On the Middle East he runs the gamut - from Robert Malley to Dennis Ross. General Tony McPeak and Lawrence Korb also favor Obama.

Everybody relies on advisers on military matters.

Bill knew almost nothing about the military when he was elected.

[bigtree]

15. I really don't need the comparison to Bill. I'm a student of his presidency.

but, I thank you for the names. I really had no idea.

[TomClash]

22. I might know a little about it too

but not exactly from a student's perspective.

[slor]

9. Maybe it is time to move...

away from touting "military experience" as such an important measure. Hell, McCain has more of it than anyone in the race on either side, and he wants to be in Iraq "100 years". So it is safe to say that such experience does not prevent flawed thinking.

[bigtree]

13. I don't think anything has changed the need for a commander-in-chief who understands the military

how it functions, what it's needs in terms of management, support, restructuring, etc.

[blogslut]

14. Whoever wins

All I hope is that the person goes back to getting advice from the joint chiefs instead of having the SecDef run interference like Bush did with Rummy.

[bigtree]

20. They actually are charged with making those appointments, so . . . .

[blogslut]

23. As some have noted

Obama is getting advice from Brzezinski. I have no idea whom he will choose. I would also assume that Hillary might choose Wes Clarke as Sec Def. but your guess is as good as mine.

As for the folks on the Joint Chiefs, I simply don't know enough about the armed forces to say. All I know is that they were shut out when Rummy was in charge.

[hughee99]

27. I do not believe Wes Clarke can be Sec Def until at least 2010

Clarke retired from active duty in 2000, and by law, can not be Sec Def. for at least 10 years.

"There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force. "


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000113----000-.html

[bigtree]

29. wow. great info.

:thumbsup:

[blogslut]

32. thanks

I didn't know there was a waiting period.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

30. My personal hope if Obama takes the nomination is that

he chooses Wes Clark as his VP, i am fairly sure I've heard Obama state that he wants the most competent people around him as well as that he wants his VP to have military knowledge and i can't think of anybody better suited using those two criteria then Wes(and no, i don't see the fact that he supported Hillary to be a hindrance in regards to Obama choosing him just to cut of that question before its asked :P )

[boricua79]

31. because, of course, Obama is unable to EVER or has never talked to generals or military advisers

and nobody would come to his aid would he be president...

and he's a moron about the world, so he couldn't make sound, smart decisions on his own.

And the military establishment that always communicates to every President would shut their doors to him.

yep...we would be doomed! :sarcasm:

[bigtree]

38. Of course, WHO he relies on is open to question

and would reflect on his judgment. There will be those who will look to measure his judgment on military matters who will claim to have more experience, making them more self-reliant on these issues.

[mtnsnake]

36. Well....if he starts yelling, "I will seek out those terrorists and KILL them" then you know

who he's getting his advice from :evilgrin: