Google that RIGHT NOW.
From Political Wire:
“The U.S. military campaign against Islamic militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Obama to exert a high degree of personal control over the campaign, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential sign-off for any strike in Syrian territory,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
To expand on something I said on Twitter earlier today: considering just how much the Left loves to describe every military action in terms of Vietnam, you would think that more of them would actually have a basic familiarity with the war, its origins, and how we fought it.
So the president is personally deciding every strike in Syria. What could go wrong? http://t.co/yl0YAuwrJF
— Brian Faughnan (@BrianFaughnan) September 18, 2014
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: Speaking dispassionately, you can understand – sort of – why LBJ and Richard Nixon both were very bad about trying to run the Vietnam War by themselves: it was probably the first real war we had where a President could, in something approximating real time. And it obviously was a major temptation, given the way that both men and their staffs succumbed to it. But also note that Presidents since have largely learned from that particular set of catastrophic mistakes and tried to keep their oversight restricted to strategic goals, not tactical ones. Largely. Most of the time. Good faith efforts were made.
Alas, nobody explained any of this to Barack Obama. Or, more likely? Somebody did, but he didn’t bother to listen, because whoever was doing the explaining wasn’t Barack Obama.