Obama's War Policies

This is why Obama himself is dangerous to the American people.

Step 1: Backtrack on the commitments we've already made:

Shocked, Stunned, and Otherwise Staggered: Obama Announces the War That Hitherto Was Known as "The War That Must Be Won" Doesn't Necessarily Have to be Won At All

From The Politico:

President Barack Obama is warning U.S. commanders that he’s “skeptical” about whether more troops will make a difference in Afghanistan, saying he’ll approve an expected request only if the forces fit into a strategy to beat back al-Qaida and protect the United States.

U.S. generals are preparing to seek as many as tens of thousands additional troops for the increasingly unpopular conflict, but in several of his five Sunday talk show interviews, Obama made clear that he’s far from convinced about the need for a massive infusion of forces and won’t be rushed on the decision.

“We’re going to test whatever resources we have against our strategy, which is, if by sending young men and women into harm’s way, we are defeating al Qaeda–and that can be shown to a skeptical audience, namely me, somebody who is always asking hard questions about deploying troops— then we will do what’s required to keep the American people safe,” Obama said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Who could have seen that coming.

Step 2: Attack our allies:

Last year Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to former US president Jimmy Carter, described the Bush administration's policy of maintaining the option of military action against Iran as "counterproductive."

Now Brzezinski, who advises Obama on foreign policy, is calling for the US to shoot down Israeli jets.
Brzezinski is known to be anti-Israel.
The Weekly Standard Blog reported:

In a little noticed interview with the Daily Beast (presumably little noticed because serious people don't read the Daily Beast), Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Barack Obama do more than just refuse to support an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites -- the American president must give the order to shoot down Israeli aircraft as they cross Iraqi airspace:

DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

This is insanity. Serious, literal, full-fledged insanity. How can one of Obama's top advisers actually advocate attacking one of our allies as it tries to defend itself from an aggressor? More to the point, how much influence does this wackjob have with the President?

One cannot play these games forever without any repercussions. It's only a matter of time until this foolish insanity costs lives.

But there's a step 3, too: allow international condemnation of our own soldiers.

If we needed a reminder why the International Criminal Court is a bad idea, we have one. The ICC plans on investigating U.S. actions in Afghanistan. Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation report:

the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) stated that investigations into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan may result in the prosecution of U.S. policymakers or servicemen. The potential prosecution of U.S. persons by the court over incidents that the U.S. deems lawful is one of the prime reasons why the Bush Administration did not seek U.S. ratification of the treaty creating the court, rejected ICC claims of authority over U.S. persons, and sought to negotiate agreements with countries to protect U.S. persons from being arrested and turned over to the ICC.

The investigation is not complete, the prosecutor has not determined if he will seek warrants against U.S. officials or servicemen, and Afghanistan is constrained from turning over U.S. persons to the ICC under existing agreements. However, the potential legal confrontation justifies past U.S. policy, emphasizes the need to maintain and expand legal protections for U.S. persons against ICC claims of jurisdiction, and should lead the Obama Administration to endorse the Bush Administration's policies toward the ICC.

The Obama administration reportedly is prepared to increase cooperation with the ICC.

This man's policies will cause death and destruction. Woe to the innocent who will pay the price for his radical ideology.

There's my two cents.