Obama Needs 'Troop Deployment' Lessons From FDR

On the campaign trail Senator Obama has been quick to invoke the names of the great Democratic Presidents: Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, but in reality, perhaps its time that Obama opens a history book and begins to learn why these men were great leaders. Obama's position on Iraq has morphed from a 4 year long stance of 'we cannot win, bring our troops home' to a position of 'we are winning, time to redeploy our troops to Afghanistan'.

First, let me state that I personally do not know how Anti-War groups can pledge support to Obama, considering that their sole purpose is to oppose any military action and to "bring our troops home". Senator Obama is no longer proposing a plan designed to support the positions of these fringe groups, instead he is calling for a "redeployment" of our troops. But that is a different issue.

Our nation has fought a multi-front war in the past, it was a military action I like to refer too as WWII. But unlike today, American attitudes were much different. During World War II, the "greatest generation", the generation of my grandfather, refused to consider defeat and defined victory as 'absolute'. They wanted their sons, husbands, and fathers back home, but understood that there was a cost to freedom and that the quickest way home was victory. This generation made sacrifices that few of us will ever fully understand and never be able to fully appreciate.

At the onset of our involvement in WWII, Roosevelt and Churchill made a simple decision that victory would be achieved In Europe before the full force of allied forces would be thrust into action in the Pacific. It was a plan designed to assure total victory and to end the military actions as quickly as possible. Although we simultaneously fought battles on both fronts, Roosevelt was unwavering in his belief that we must achieve total victory on one front before proceeding to the next.

Imagine the chaos that would have ensued if after reaching the outskirts of Germany, Roosevelt had made the decision that the situation had improved, we had effectively pushed the Germans out of France, and that we should redeploy troops to the Pacific front where chaotic and devastating battles were occurring. The move would have been a mistake, and the unexpected and unthought of German counterattack, later known as the "Battle of the Bulge", may have produced very different results. Roosevelt understood that there was inherent danger in shifting troops from one theatre to another without achieving victory first.

Obama's new position on Iraq, which by his own admission is opposed by our military commanders on the ground, is inherently dangerous. To begin redeploying troops into Afghanistan without assuring the security and victories we have established in Iraq, is dangerous. The American people and the media should ask a simple question: What happens if Iraq begins to fall back into chaos? I'll tell you what would occur: Obama would have to redeploy troops from Afghanistan back into Iraq. Suddenly we caught in a game of musical chairs. Only the stakes are higher, and our troops will pay the price. The situation in Afghanistan is dangerous and the Taliban has continued to restrengthen their attacks upon NATO forces. But it makes no sense to risk the gains we have made in Iraq only to redeploy those troops to a new theatre of operations. Secure our victories in Iraq and then begin a redeployment. It's a simple concept, a concept that has worked, and a concept that was exercised by one of our nation's greatest presidents.

Roosevelt's beliefs also differ from Obama on another front. Roosevelt never believed that it was his job to micro-manage the war. He was heavily involved and always made the final decision, but they were decisions that almost always followed the recommendations, advice and expertise provided by field commanders and experienced war planning staff. Following the outbreak of WWII, Roosevelt crossed party lines, subjecting himself to criticism from Democrat partisans, by appointing Republicans Frank Knox as the Secretary of Navy and Henry Stimson as the Secretary of War. Roosevelt also extended much of his delegated authority to Eisenhower, Nimitz, MacArthur and others. Roosevelt valued and depended heavily upon the operational advice and expertise of these leaders.

Obama, on the other hand, with no military experience has made it clear that he is unwilling to rely upon the delegated authority of our commanders in the field. This week, within just hours of his first-ever visit to Afghanistan and first visit in 2.5 years to Iraq, Obama announced that his position on Iraqi troop levels would not change, although he noted General Petraeus' opposition to his plans. Obama made clear in his Iraq speech that he considered "tactical desicions" to be of little importance. This is not the behavior of a leader who respects and relies upon the experience, judgement, and expertise of field commanders.

The greatest danger to our troops fighting overseas is a Commander-In-Chief who believes that he is better equipped to run our military than those who have a committed a lifetime to protecting our nation. President Bush's biggest mistake was his failure to recognize the concerns of and rely upon the planning expertise of our field commanders, prior to and immediately following the invasion of Iraq. President Johnson led our military into an unbearable and lengthy war, when he overrode General Westmoreland's military strategy for Vietnam and failed to fully deploy troop levels that Westmoreland and other field commanders were requesting early in the war. Obama has already established that he is doomed to repeat these mistakes and that his judgement, not the judgement of the commanders in the field, is right.

History has taught our nation an infinite number of valuable lessons. The question remains as to whether we will learn from these mistakes and successes. Obama's plan for Iraq is not built upon sound military strategy; it is built upon political expediency and a resolve to quench his thirst for power. Obama's Iraq propaganda is built upon a belief that the $10 billion per month we spend on funding would be better spent here in the US. Yet, Obama has failed to acknowledge that part of that $10 billion funds our troop commitment in Afghanistan and a redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan will result in no savings. Obama has also committed billions on the campaign trail to increased funding for the securing of nuclear weapons and an increased US presence in Africa (that's right, visit his website). Obama's $10 billion per month savings will never be realized under his proposals and is hypocritical considering that he has proposed no plan for reversing the $60 Billion per month that we are currently transferring to foreign nations to meet our energy needs.

Today, I leave you with one quote:

"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required..."
John F. Kennedy - Inaugural Address 1961

J. Brown
July 23rd, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Please Be Sure To Join Our: Drill Now Congressional Email Initiative
Democrats & Independents Please Be Sure To Join Our: 'Last Stand' Stop Obama Email Initiative

Want to contribute to PDOP: Click Here to submit your own article.