Letters to Editor - bLetters

We welcome your opinion on public issues, in either of two ways. You can submit a letter to the editor for possible publication in the printed edition. The Virginian-Pilot welcomes letters to the editor on all topics, although concise letters (150 words or less) on public issues will receive priority. Letters may be edited for length, style and clarity and writers are limited to one published letter every month. Please add your name, city, street address and daytime telephone number for confirmation.

The other way is to comment on the published letters in this blog. In this online forum, you can comment as much as you want by using the comment box at the end of each entry.

By e-mail: letters@pilotonline.com

By mail: Letters to the editor - P.O. Box 449 - Norfolk, VA 23501-0449

By fax: (757) 446-2051

Category: Readers' Opinions

■ 17 November 2009 | 5:00 AM

The generals versus the presidents

JEREMIAH DENTON ('Former Vietnam POW fights to restore his ideal of moral nation,' front page, Nov. 11) said that President Obama is not qualified by experience or knowledge to be commander in chief. But only three presidents have had the qualifications Denton deems necessary for a commander in chief: George Washington, Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower.

By his definition, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were not initially qualified by experience or knowledge to act as commander in chief. I would counter that no person is truly qualified to act as such.

But they do learn by experience and being skeptical of the advice from their advisers. If Denton is going to give a pass to George W. Bush's lack of experience as commander in chief, then his criticism of Obama seems more like a Fox News commentary than that of a statesman.

Denton said the nation is in danger every day unless the president listens to those who are qualified in the arts of warfare and statesmanship.

Would these experts be the same types who encouraged Kennedy to send troops and use nuclear weapons after the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs, to press Lyndon Johnson to use nuclear weapons over North Vietnam or George W. Bush to invade Iraq?

I feel more secure that President Obama is pushing his national security team to rethink all assumptions on Afghanistan and not be satisfied until all his questions have been answered. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy refused to send combat troops into Vietnam against the wishes of their own civilian and military advisers. Certainly Gen. Stanley McChrystal can request more troops, but only the president makes the final decision. It has served our country well for more than 200 years.

Daniel Koach

Virginia Beach

View 13 comment(s) Link to post

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

The Table

Submitted by johnnym72848 on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 3:44 pm.

Obama would probably have difficulty deciding the shape of the table where "war strategy" discussions take place. His august experience as an insignificant "Community Organizer" and mediocre performance as a senator is becoming crystal clear to those who can see beyond the facade.

Qualifications of leadership

Submitted by markk33831 on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 3:10 pm.

It should never become a requirement that candidates have to have military experience before becoming President or holding any other civilian office. America has a history of having great leaders in wartime that didn't have such experience. The real test is whether or not they will LISTEN to their advisors and not be rushed into quick judgements. Colin Powell's counsel to President Obama was good: he needs to take his time and make the RIGHT decision.

Somewhere we forgot what we went into Afghanistan for in the first place: to take out Osama bin Laden and his henchmen. Somehow the mission turned into another attempt at nation-building in a country that has NEVER succumbed to such efforts.

Ironic

Submitted by steveh3 on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 1:42 pm.

I just find it ironic that Obama is saying that those who are criticizing his tactical decision delay aren’t in the room and don’t know yet he had no problem criticizing Bush despite not being "in the room". It is also interesting that he seemed to have the answer to everything while campaigning yet now that he’s in office it’s just more of the same stuff from this president – do as I say, not as I do, don’t criticize me, and it’s not my fault

The Criticism

Submitted by mapatty on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 2:43 pm.

The criticism of Bush was going into Iraq and neglecting Afghanistan, the real war. The strategy now is how to get out.Bush did not have a plan going in or coming out. So the job rest on President Obama's shoulder.

Not quite

Submitted by steveh3 on Wed, 11/18/2009 at 8:45 am.

"WASHINGTON and ALBUQUERQUE – Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that overall U.S. interests have been hurt rather than helped by the Bush administration’s decision to increase troop strength in Iraq 18 months ago, and vowed to stick to his plan to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of becoming president.

Obama said his White House rival, Sen. John McCain, “has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.”

These statements show he criticized the strategy without being in the room. But it flies in the face of what you believe so you probably think I'm fabricating facts again despite evidence to the contrary.

What did Eisenhower state about the military?

Submitted by am81430 on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 12:02 pm.

something about an industrial complex? Oh yeah, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." And I'm pretty sure that he was a general, but what did he know?

Daniel

Submitted by johnbo on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 10:42 am.

Good for you but you really need to put down the NOBAMA Kool-Aid and step away. The only thing this administration is doing is following the peace at any cost leftist agenda. How do you support this mans decision to delay sending troops when during his campaign he decried time and time again that the focus needed to be put back on Afghanistan and not IRAQ. Now he is trying to pander to the peacenik left base by Not supporting the very man he placed in charge and who's advice he sought out. This type of wishy-washy attitude is the very thing that is embolding al-Qaeda and all the other Terrorist groups to refocus their efforts due to America being seen as weak on Defense. This President is to busy bowing to emperors and Saudi kings to care enough about our homeland security. We have returned to a pre 9-11 mentality and this lapse will once again cost American Blood to be shed needlessly and it will be due to the peace at any cost Liberals when this happens again. When will you Liberals learn to listen to the Experts you place in charge? How many lives need to be lost before you wake up and learn some people in this world just do not like us simply because we have freedoms they never

"pre 9-11 mentality"

Submitted by keithb64840 on Wed, 11/18/2009 at 1:17 pm.

Bush ignoring national security as he led America into 9-11.

Uh, Johnbo, please come with a real criticism

Submitted by am81430 on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 6:11 pm.

Big deal, Obama showed respect to another world leader. You act as if he is the first president to ever do so. And Obama demonstrates that he is concerned about our national security, and the point is made by his handling of Afghanistan. I did not see you crying when Bush totally neglected that theater. What was the name of that general who conceded that we hadn't had a strategy in Afghanistan for over 7 years? And if you pay attention to the story, Obama is not pandering to peacenicks, but is considering what the top diplomat in Afghanistan reccommends. The government is corrupt. Obama is developing a strategy. Remember, this is not a board game. You should put down the kool-aid and drop that 'pre-9/11 mentality' tagline. It is old and tired.

Johnbo, it is pretty obvious that Afghanistan

Submitted by Len Rothman on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 3:02 pm.

is not going to work at all.

That country will never leave the 15th century no matter how many troops we put in there. And a lot of that information has come forth after the rigged elections a few weeks back.

I found it interesting that you said:

"President is to busy bowing to emperors and Saudi kings."

Bush I and II both practically slept with the Saudi royal family. "W" even held their hand for a photo op. And this was the country that provided 19 out of 20 9/11 terrorists.

Bowing, indeed.

"President is to busy bowing to emperors and Saudi kings."

Submitted by keithb64840 on Wed, 11/18/2009 at 1:24 pm.

"President is to busy bowing to emperors and Saudi kings."

Bush got much more friendly than just holding hands.

http://prophetofdoom.net/pics/Islamic_Clubs_Taliban/George_W_Bush_Prince_Abdullah_kiss_hold_hands.jpg

Commander-In-Chief

Submitted by Prairiedog on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 9:53 am.

There is no "versus" between the military and the president. The president is the Commander-In-Chief, like it or not. He speaks....we comply! Unfortunately we now have Hussien Obama, but we survived Jimmy Carter for four years....we can survive Hussien Obama. (I hope)

Dang that Carter

Submitted by markk33831 on Tue, 11/17/2009 at 3:17 pm.

Dang President Carter for getting the only lasting peace agreement in the Middle East signed (Remember the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel signed in 1978? Still going . . .) Dang him for coming up with the Carter Doctrine (outlining American policy toward the countries surrounding the Persian Gulf), which every President since has backed and used as reasoning for American involvement in region, including both Gulf Wars. Carter may have had his errors, but he also accomplished things in the Middle East that few other leaders have been able to match.