It is tempting and certainly very easy to point out that Obama’s war (or Obama’s “kinetic military action,” or “time-limited, scope-limited military action,” or whatever the latest ever more preposterous evasion is) is at odds with everything candidate Obama said about U.S. military action before his election. And certainly every attempt the president makes to explain his Libyan adventure is either cringe-makingly stupid (“I’m accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also somebody who aspires to peace”) or alarmingly revealing of a very peculiar worldview:
“That’s why building this international coalition has been so important,” he said the other day. “It is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.” [emphasis mine] Mark Steyn
You read that right, boys and girls. Our military is “being volunteered by others to carry out missions.” What does the mean exactly? Our soldiers are conscripted by other governments, NATO and/or the UN for service – on their whim? And our soldiers serve under foreign commanders?
This is really mind boggling. I’m not sure too many have picked up on this statement. But the ramifications are staggering.
He’s wiling to sacrifice our soldiers for use by foreign powers. They call soldiers who do that, mercenaries.
Does anyone, NOW, have any question about this man’s world view?