Attention, whoever in the White House monitors this site. Google ‘Lyndon Johnson micromanagement Vietnam.’

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.


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.


  • BigGator5 says:

    “I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.”

  • Spegen says:

    Someone needs to tell them that failure is an option, and that’s the one they picked. The next president is going to have a hell of a time trying to rebuild the military while fighting a war.

  • Catseyes says:

    I think this is more along the lines of him thinking “He’s a better military advisor than his military advisors”

  • coondawg68 says:

    LBJ :I saw our bombs as my political resources for negotiating a peace. On the one hand, our planes and our bombs could be used as carrots for the South, strengthening the morale of the South Vietnamese and pushing them to clean up their corrupt house, by demonstrating the depth of our commitment to the war. On the other hand, our bombs could be used as sticks against the North, pressuring North Vietnam to stop its aggression against the South. By keeping a lid on all the designated targets, I knew I could keep the control of the war in my own hands. If China reacted to our slow escalation by threatening to retaliate, we’d have plenty of time to ease off the bombing. But this control—so essential for preventing World War III—would be lost the moment we unleashed a total assault on the North—for that would be rape rather than seduction—and then there would be no turning back.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      …You realize, of course, that absent a literally last-minute come-to-Jesus moment LBJ is burning in Hell right now?

      • coondawg68 says:

        burning. Repeatedly.

        The reasoning behind the quote I pasted is sick, and we could probably swap a couple of countries out and it could be in Obama’s memoirs.

    • Freddie Sykes says:

      We negotiated a peace based on helping the South when attacked… and then totally reneged on the deal once Democrats obtained a veto proof majority in congress. Millions died or were put in reeducation camps but at least the Democrats could say “See? We told you so.”

  • Herp McDerp says:

    … going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential sign-off for any strike in Syrian territory …
    Ah … I can see it now:
    “I’m sorry, but the President won’t be able to authorize that air strike until tomorrow at the earliest. He and Reggie Love are … um, busy right now.”

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by