Mike Murray essay -- Discharge Obama?

17 April 2009

Discharge Obama?

--by Mike Murray

All who become President of the United States metaphorically wear two hats. One is civilian; the other, military. Although they go to work each day dressed in a business suit, presidents nevertheless function as head of the Armed Forces.

Serving as Commander-in-Chief involves a variety of duties. Presidents are civilian managers – and as such are required to apply (relatively) detached oversight. At the same time, they are responsible for making military decisions. Decisions that sometimes result in the deployment of troops to combat zones. While wearing his military hat, a president must be ready, willing, and able to send soldiers to places around the globe where shots are being “fired in anger."

The responsibilities and the burdens of serving as Commander-in-Chief are enormous. Critics – ones who callously assert that America's military men and women are cavalierly served up as cannon fodder by this president or that – are mistaken. It is improbable that any American president has ever frivolously sent soldiers into harm's way. More likely, each has agonized over having to make so tough a call.

Fact is, serving as Commander-in-Chief is for most people a humbling experience. Irrespective of personal background (served / didn't serve in the military), most presidents eventually come to respect those men and women who volunteer to "wear the uniform," who accept the many burdens that attend military service. Deployments, even routine ones, involve hardship. Long separations from family and friends are never easy.

And then there is the risk of injury. Or worse. Every serviceman and servicewoman knows that there is a possibility that he or she will one day be called upon to give “the last full measure of devotion." It takes a special kind of person to sign up for such hazardous duty. Precisely because they are tasked with the responsibility of making decisions that profoundly impact of the lives of brave men and women, most presidents develop deep levels of affection for them.

Which makes President Barack Obama's behavior as Commander-in-Chief unfathomable. It is inexcusable to many that he sought to remove the health-care coverage of veterans who had been wounded in battle. At the same time that he was announcing his desire to extend government benefits to millions of other U.S. residents (including, no doubt, foreigners living here illegally), Obama attempted to abandon citizen-soldiers who had been injured while faithfully serving their country.

Stunning.

Obama's explanation? Money. Even as he and his Congressional cohorts were committing trillions upon trillions of dollars in new spending – and funneling cash to scores of special-interest groups – Obama proposed leaving soldiers in the lurch. He instructed his aides to talk up the cost-saving benefits of removing wounded veterans from the rolls of the federally insured – and to scrupulously avoid addressing questions relating to the ethical implications of doing so.

Indefensible. Unacceptable. And wholly inappropriate behavior for a commander-in-chief.

Then there is the recent report issued by the Department of Homeland Security. The one that Obama Administration officials forwarded to law-enforcement agencies in all 50 states. The one that suggested, in effect, that anyone who leans to the right politically is possibly a racist. And potentially a threat to our nation’s security.

Did you refrain from supporting Obama during his "historic" presidential run? Do you believe that the federal government spends your money too freely (or taxes you too heavily)? Are you a defender of the 10^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the one that delineates “states rights”) or the 2^nd Amendment (which affirms your right to bear arms)? Did you attend any of the Tea Party events? Do you oppose abortion as a matter of conscience? Are you politically independent? A Republican? Or, worst of all, a member of a third party?

If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, you just might be an extremist – a "right-wing radical." And, as such, a serious threat to America. At least, that's what Obama and members of his inner circle believe.

And they believe even worse things about you. They believe that you might be attempting to recruit disgruntled military veterans to join you in your subversive ways. Former soldiers, combat-trained (and familiar with all manner of assault weaponry), could be enlisted by you to serve – in effect – as violent anarchists. (Obama doesn't see “terrorists” anywhere else in the world. But he sees them everywhere in America.)

Good Commanders-in-Chief know that they are required to act as an overseer of military men and women on some occasions, as an advocate for them on others, and as a comrade – always. Obama seems only interested in acting as their oppressor.

A president who seeks to cut off funding for the medical treatment of his country’s wounded warriors? Who sees soldiers returning to civilian life as potentially dangerous? Who believes that anyone who opposes him politically (and who is not named William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, or Rashid Khalidi) represents a threat to national security?

Barack Obama is off to a very poor start as Commander-in-Chief. If he doesn't “straighten up and fly right,” voters will do something about it. They will issue him a discharge. A dishonorable one.

< Back to Berea Bits