Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Reagan's Rules for Military Engagement
Reagan Rule 1: The United States should not commit its forces to military actions overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
Reagan Rule 2: If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
Reagan Rule 3: Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
Reagan Rule 4: Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
These rules seem no more than plain common sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I assume these were rules he learned over his 8 years? I certainly agree with them. Tis a shame no POTUS since seems to have learned from history.
I have become convinced that we are now a constitutional republic in name only. The Constitution clearly states "Congress shall have power to...declare War" (Article 1, Section 8). This is because the Founders believed that the decision to engage our military and place our men in harms way was far too big for any one man to make. It must be decided by the people through their representatives. Obama is playing a semantics game, on the one hand saying he's looking for an authorization from Congress and on the other saying he doesn't really need such an authorization. This is quasi-constitutionalism, not the real thing.
yes, and congress has not declared a war since WW2, yet we have had the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Grenada, two Iraq's, Afghanistan, Libya, and any others I may have missed. Congress may have given their blessing on some of these, but what they did was create the War Powers Act so they could abdicate their immediate responsibility and then come in later after the fact with their politicalization and authorization or not.
August 27th Sean Hannity says Obama has to go to congress for this Syria stuff. "Only congress can declare war". On August 31, Hannity asks, "Why now? Is he trying to push the blame if this goes wrong onto you guys in the House and Senate?" Stunning hypocrisy, even for Hannity.
I am totally against us doing anything militarily in Syria, but good grief, the senate resolution is much more towards us getting into a true war versus Obama's resolution just wanting to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. It's no wonder POTUS' in the past have wanted to bypass congress until after the fact.
Why do you think so many Democrats (along with some RINOs) are so bent on attacking Syria? It has not even been proven conclusively that Assad ordered the gas. I just read about a rebel who claims that they used gas. Are we going to bomb the rebels too? Which ones? How do you tell them apart? Goodness, why the rush to arms? What do you think is really driving this?
IN August of 2012 Obama was asked a question about Syria use of chemical weapons and if he envisions using our military if they did. His answer, in part was, "....I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That's an issue that doesn't just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
Nowhere in this new conference did he say he would use the military, but you would not know that today from our wonderful lefty or righty media. Every interview with Obama after that, Obama said he had not decided what action to take. On August 31 Obama announces he wants to use the military and at the same time says he wants congressional approval, so it seems to me he is trying to do what the founders wanted, but he does have the War Powers Act if he so chooses. But here is our media again, both right and left wanting to know why go to congress? It's pathetic on how badly the all misreport or fail to report this stuff accurately. And I am not even going to bother to talk about how the press seems to feel they should know the targets, the date and time of any attack, and how it will be carried out.
So you believe this is being driven entirely by some moral sense that it is our responsibility to punish the Syrians for using chemical weapons?
Unless the real plan is to kill Assan by using cruise missiles, I have no idea what the driver is. I have no doubt that Obama finds it repugnant to use chemical weapons, but I do doubt repugnant enough to use our military without having other reasons that are not being advertised.
Mark Levin says he is doing it to distract us from defunding of Obamacare.
Military Industrial complex request?
Maybe Exxon found oil reserves in Syria. Your guess is as good as mine.
We are kind of off kilter in our responses. My long diatribe was just a "vent" by me of what Obama said, versus what gets reported by our incompetent, scoop oriented media. Listening to both Fox and MSNBC they both are saying that in that press conference, Obama said he would use the military if this red line was crossed, and he never said that. Dweebs like me that pay somewhat attention to this stuff knows what is said, but for the average guy who flips on the news or reads something in the net, he is getting misinformation from our media and it just drives me nuts.
I think people assumed that when Obama said crossing the red line would change his "calculus," he meant it would take the situation to the level of a military response. Perhaps this was not what he meant at all. But if it wasn't, then why is he now so gung ho for firing a few missiles into Syria? And if it wasn't, then what exactly did he mean? It would sure be helpful if he would be more clear about what he means when he says such things. It leaves me with huge unanswered questions about the whole affair.
When this whole thing broke loose a couple of years ago, it seemed like a UN or NATO ordered no-fly zone might have been helpful. It could have been patroled by the Europeans, Israelis, and Turks. We didn't even need to get directly involved. But that didn't happen and now we have this utterly chaotic situation that seems to have no answer at all. My prediction is that within three years we have a People's Islamic Republic of Syria. Then the Middle East will really get dangerous.
Remember one thing about Syria. They have the latest Russian technology. They are not a Libya or even an Iraq of the 90's. To establish a no fly zone would have resulted in planes being shot down and
NATO/american casualties.
You could assume he meant military, but again, that's an assumption. Maybe, as you pointed out in an email, his calculus at the time was more towards the world court. I dunno, it may have been military, but had he said it, it would be all the more politicized than it is now. These guys never talk clear. Helps keep all their options open. :)
I have never heard one person other than miyself mention the World Court as an option.
Post a Comment