Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher

A question of judgment

In olden times, it was the duty of the commander-in-chief to join his troops on the field of battle. Nowadays the requirements for the post are not quite so severe. Today the people only expect the commander-in-chief to have the sound judgment to keep the nation secure and rely on effective diplomacy to avoid unnecessary wars.

Americans used to take it for granted that anyone running for president would most likely have the skills to command the armed forces. That confidence has been shaken by the successful terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the ill-advised preemptive attack on Iraq. Consequently, thoughtful voters now have to consider the military qualifications of the presidential candidates.

There is a considerable question about Hillary Clinton’s military judgment. She enthusiastically supported President Bush’s “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” That passed the Senate 77-23 with 21 Democrats voting against it.

She also voted against an amendment by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would restrict military action to the enforcement of a U.N. resolution to eliminate nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq. On the Jan. 13, 2008, episode of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Clinton said she opposed the Levin Amendment because “… in my view [it] gave the Security Council of the U.N. a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States …”

However, in the successful Operation Desert Shield in 1990, the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraqi troops in Kuwait pursuant to authorization by U.N. Security Council Resolution 678. The U.N. approval of the action enabled the U.S. to seek payment for the cost of the war from a number of other countries. The decision to go it alone in 2002 meant that the U.S. has to bear the financial burden of the war almost alone.
So far, the Iraq war has cost America more than $1.3 trillion, it has impoverished domestic programs, and it has contributed to the difficulties in the national economy.

Despite her pseudo-bellicose stance, Clinton is actually soft on terrorists. In an address on national security delivered Aug. 1, 2007, Obama said, “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains [in Pakistan] who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value targets and [Pakistan] President [Pervez] Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Clinton opposes this view. At the Feb. 26 Democratic debate in Cleveland, Clinton asserted erroneously that Obama had threatened to bomb Pakistan, “which I don’t think was a particularly wise position to take,” she said. Obama reiterated his August address to rebut Clinton’s assertion, then retorted, “Just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that [dropped guided missiles in Pakistan] and took out the third-ranking al-Qaida official.” A U.S. missile attack killed Abu Laith al-Libi in northern Waziristan on Jan. 31.

In defense of his opposition to the war in Iraq, Obama said, “On the most important foreign policy decision that we faced in a generation — whether or not to go into Iraq — I was very clear as to why we should not: that it would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment, that it would distract us from Afghanistan, that it would cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and would not make us more safe, and I do not believe it has made us more safe.”

Clinton can point only to her “extensive experience in foreign policy” as her qualification to be commander in chief. However, she has already demonstrated faulty judgment on a number of military issues, while Obama has been right on target. There can be no doubt that Obama has superior strategic military judgment.

“I don’t think this commander-in-chief gambit is working out.”