US military and Israel both show great uncertainty over Obama


Military Times survey showed that 60% of US service members feel pessimestic or uncertian about Obama as the nation’s military chief. The New York Post reports that Isreal leaders may be acting in haste before Obama takes the White House;

“Ordinarily, Israeli leaders would only need to ponder battlefield costs and counter international pro-terror propaganda. But the rise of President-elect Obama complicates matters gravely. Even the timing of Israel’s strike at Hamas has been driven, at least in part, by the coming power transfer in Washington.”

What Obama does in the first 30 days will help either reassure people’s confidence or fears.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:16 | Posted in Measure 37 | 20 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • dean

    The survey is flawed. It should not claim “60% of US service members” think this or that because it was a self-selected poll of the readership of the military Times. Not all, or even most service members are subscribers.

    • Brad Rydman

      That survey is no more flawed than any other survey out there simply because you claim that “Not all, or even most service members are subscribers.” Following your logic any survey taken without 100% participation of any given group or demographic would be flawed. Not everyone is as confident or enthusiastic about the incoming President as you apparently are, get over it…..

  • dean

    This is a quote directly from the article in teh Military Tiems about the survey:

    “The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.

    The *responses are not representative of the opinions of the military* as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

    It is not a representative survey of the military “as a whole.” Period.

    • cc

      Of course, if deaner is commenting, he’s being careless, thoughtless, disingenuous or lying – or all of the above. His “…quote directly…” proves nothing and he never closes the “quote”.

      Never mind that the findings are not held out to represent anything other than what the survey says. The last two paragraphs are simply deaner’s *opinions* – and we all know what that “over-represents”, don’t we? His assumption that he can channel the responses of “…minorities, women and junior enlisted service members…”. is laughable, if typical. Or is that typically laughable?

      A joke either way…

      Period.

      • dean

        Very tiresome cc. How about just reading it yourself and dealing with reality.

        https://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/

        As you can see, it is the poll authors who state that their readership underepresents minorities, etc…not Dean.

        It’s a poll drawn only from the readership of the Military Times, not a poll drawn from all servicemen and women. It is as valid as a poll of Fox News watchers or Wall Street Journal subscribers, which would have shown an overwhelming McCain-Palin victory.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Sounds like the poll is about as valid as the numbers from the American Wind Association regarding wind power.

    And by the way, you might want to actually read a few news outlets before quoting them. Fox had several polls during the election and I don’t recall a single one of them showing an overwhelming victory.

    Actually, I’m not sure I saw one showing a victory for anyone other than Obama out of Fox.

    Oh well, not exactly a revelation. I’ve met few liberals who read much on their own in the way of news outside of propaganda that preaches to the choir. Looks like more of the same here.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    However I will say that it is really curious that the Big O still hasn’t commented on the Gaza situation. Its weird, this guy seems to love to jump up in front of the camera daily with some cabinet appointment and make a big deal of it even when no one gives a rip. I mean Secretary of State, chief of staff, ok, but when its the dog catcher cabinet appointments give me a break.

    You know, now that I think of it, this seems an awful lot like the first bailout package during the campaign. Obama was no where to be found for two or three days on that one.

    I’m kind of beginning to see a pattern here. Obama loves the image of “hitting the ground running” but doesn’t seem to look far enough down the track to enable him to go at a very fast clip. Gaza has been boiling for weeks. It represents a real nice opportunity to differentiate his upcoming foreign policy from Bush, something he has said he cant wait to do in the region. He certainly has no qualms undercutting Bush on issues such as this, remember his whirlwind Iraq Europe tour. But yet now, like with the bailout package, we hear nothing but silence. Strange, given the lead up, you would think BO would have had a position in place.

    • dean

      Rupert…if you had read just a bit more carefully, you would have seen that I compared the Military Times poll to a poll of Fox news *watchers* , not a poll of the general public by Fox. If the Military Times had polled from among *all service members* rather than j*ust from their readership* then they could fairly claim the results represented the views of all service members.

      Obama is cautious about spouting off and going with his gut without first thinking and examining a situation, then analyzing the options and consequences. That reliance on analysis is what distinguishes him from Bush. In some cases he may conclude the same thing Bush would. He concluded that Gates was the best person for defense secretary as one example.

      Gaza has not been “boiling for weeks.” It has been boiling since 1948. Sometimes it boils over the top of the pot, as it just did.
      What is your recommendation Rupert? Kill enough Gazans until they give up?

      As for Obama’s ability to “look down the track…” he already proven that ability with his campaign and with his preparations to appoint his cabinet well in advance of his wining the election.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Rupert…if you had read just a bit more carefully, you would have seen that I compared the Military Times poll to a poll of Fox news watchers

        Hmm, true. You are correct. My mistake. See how easy it is Dean?

        >Obama is cautious about spouting off and going with his gut without first thinking and examining a situation, then analyzing the options and consequences.

        Owwwwww, Weak Dean, Weak. Obama cant wait to jump in front of the camera and spout off when its something he feels has no consequence to a voting constituency. That’s how we had the “Id invade Pakistan” flap during the campaign as well as the “Yes I know raising capitol gains taxes results in lower revenues, but Id do it anyway” fiasco during the primary debate.

        The point is the lead up to this was quite protracted, he saw it coming as did everyone else on the planet.

        Woops I made a mistake again.

        I was wrong

        OK, just to head you off at the pass, yes Dean, you are right and I am wrong, there is probably one person in a jungle in Uruguay who was unaware of the situation.

        Wheew…. now that that’s out of the way, the point is the situation is hardly a surprise. The fact that BO did not have a position thought out shows a real lack of foresight and anticipation.

        Not good, and definitely not “hitting the running ground running”.

        >That reliance on analysis is what distinguishes him from Bush.

        Good lord, what are you people going to do when you finally have to take responsibility for your guy? Are you seriously going to blame Bush for everything for the next 4 years? I am bored already.

        >Gaza has not been “boiling for weeks.” It has been boiling since 1948.

        Stop trying to deflect and answer the point. The rocket firing is what we are talking about and you know it. I am unimpressed with your trying to puff yourself up with the usual non sequiter history display.

        You are one who seems to think the troubles in the Mideast started with the founding of Israel. Please, go get a book and read up on this before commenting on the history in the matter. You are ignorant as hell if you are going to start yammering about 1948.

        If you are going to try and puff up with the Dean History Weasel with this childish going back further in history thing (typical liberal condescension, no one is aware of obvious things such as mid east troubles but them) then at least get your dates right. Hint, you are about 5,000 years off.

        >What is your recommendation Rupert? Kill enough Gazans until they give up?

        We are not talking about what I would do. Why are you trying to deflect from the point? Is your argument so weak you have to try and start something you think you can win?

        In case you didn’t notice:

        1 – I am not president, I don’t need to have a policy in place

        2 – I am not the one running around talking about hitting the ground running and then having zero position in place.

        We are starting to see a pattern here that when its a tough call, BO is a lot less quick to jump up. This is somewhat excusable with tough decisions that come on the fly. This is not the case here. BO had plenty of lead up to this, its been going on for weeks. If he wants to “hit the ground running” this is certainly not that. I would think you could at least admit that.

        Oh, but wait, BO is a Democrat. So, for Dean we move into the “Napoleon is always right” zone.

        • dean

          “…there is probably one person in a jungle in Uruguay who was unaware of the situation.”

          You will hate me even further for this, but I don’t think Uruguay has any jungles. It is well south of the tropics,a similar latitude as southern California, and has a temperate, Mediteranean climate. Very pleasant place from what I hear, especially now that all the old Nazis who fled there have died off. Nevertheless, there is probably an Uruguayan Gaucho somewhere out there unaware of the Gaza conflict.

          Sometimes good decisions are made from the gut and bad decisions are made after good analysis. I promise I won’t blame Bush for everything that happened over the past 8 years. I was contrasting their decision making styles, not the quality of their decisions. For Obama, beyond a well run campaign and transition, we have to wait and see how well he does or doesn’t make the big decisions that lie ahead. I’m sure we are both hoping he does good things for the sake of our shared nation. Aren’t we?

          Yes, Gaza has a long history…very long. I started with 1948 because that was the year Israel was established, their first territorial war fought, and many Palestinian refugees created. The present list of grievances of Palestinians does not seem to extend farther back than their displacement in 48, but I may have missed something.

          Since Obama is not president yet, and Israel is going to do what it wants regardless of what Obama says or thinks…what would the point of his jumping in be? The US has a long standing bi-partisan policy that pre-dated Bush, which is to back Israel publicly, arm them, help fund them, and try to talk them down privately. It’s never worked very well, but we seem stuck with it and I expect Obama won’t vary much from it at the end of the day.

          By not jumping in. Obama is being prudent. Given our present international standing and lack of resources, maybe *he is hitting the ground running by exercising prudence* Rupert.

    • David from Eugene

      Rupert

      We only have one President at a time, until noon on January 20th George W. Bush is it. It is only he and his administration who should speak for and negotiate on the part of the United States. It appears that President-elect Obama recognizes that reality as well as the fact that any utterance on the subject of the Middle-East has the potential of undermining any effort on the part of the current administration in regards to the crisis. Even an admission that he has or is working on a policy undermines the current administration because some could interpret that as an indication that US policy towards the region would change with the new administration and thus they should disregard the overtures of the current administration.

      Given the caliber of his foreign relations team I find it hard to believe that the President-elect does not have a developed policy regarding the current crisis. But whether I am correct or not will not be clear till after the 20th of January.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >The present list of grievances of Palestinians does not seem to extend farther back than their displacement in 48, but I may have missed something.

    Seriously, read a book on the subject, you really are missing something in order to be able to make this statement.

    >By not jumping in. Obama is being prudent. Given our present international standing and lack of resources, maybe he is hitting the ground running by exercising prudence Rupert.

    Ok, I was taking it easy on you because of the uncanny timeliness of the Richardson withdrawal.

    Given that you made this statement after the Richardson withdrawal, all I can do is laugh.

    Hitting the ground running? A good transistion? Not with Rahms current problems, the Richardson debacle ( yeesh, who the hell appoints a commerce secretary that his own partys Senate leader personally hates and has banned from the senate and is under any number of kickback investigations )

    Please, Dean, I’m begging here. don’t play into my hand like this, for the love of god please read up a little on the news before commenting.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Oh my God, this is just too good to be true. Apparently even The Guardian, not exactly a conservative paper, is saying BO’s lack of preperation on the Gaza issue is probably going to hurt him.

    https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/obama-gaza-israel

    I just L-U-V it.

    • dean

      Oh…yeah…Richardson…Gaza….Richardson….Gaza….I get the connection. How did I miss that? Thanks Rupert.

      And what is it you L-U-V? That the Guardian is critical, or that Obama was unprepared to do whatever it is you or they think he should have done with respect to this latest outbreak of head bashing in every-2-years-its-time-for-a-head bashing land?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Oh…yeah…Richardson…Gaza….Richardson….Gaza….I get the connection. How did I miss that? Thanks Rupert.

        Oh Good God you absolute ninny! Please, think before you write, this is getting way too easy.

        I didn’t make the connection, you did.

        Here’s the quote, from you:”For Obama, beyond a well run campaign and transition, we have to wait and see how well he does or doesn’t make the big decisions that lie ahead. ”

        So lets see, you brought up a well run transition. I brought up one of the first genius appointments has just withdrawn because of scandal that was known well ahead of his appointment, and now you forget you brought it up in the first place and try and be funny Talk about a boomerang coming back to slap ya. .

        Now that’s what I call a classic Dean Pratt fall.

        >And what is it you L-U-V?

        The fact that a major lefty paper was backing up my contention that BO is in trouble on Gaza? I mean that’s like a freakin cherry on the cake. You seem to be just about the only one on the planet ( oooppps except for that guy in a forest in Uruguay ) who thinks Obama’s silence on this isn’t weak as hell.

        What I also love is that you were yammering on about how BO thought deliberately and carefully about making decisions and then right on cue the Richardson story broke.

        I mean that one just landed in my lap, here is Mr. Careful, and he appoints a guy with more ongoing kickback investigations than the average Teamsters Local who Robert Byrd has sworn hatred of.

        And then he drops out.

        Gotta L-U-V it and I know I sure do.

        • ninny

          Oh….duh! The Richardson appointment clearly cu the rug out from the entire Obama transition. Probably just the first domino. We”ll be pining for Bush to come back in no time. Right.

          Obama, by all accounts, has thought carefully and deliberatively about his appointments. That doesn’t mean he did not or will not make errors or bad choices, which I also pointed out. Richardson, in my view was a bad choice for that job irrespective of his legal problems.

          Rupert…doesn’t a “left” paper (one that supports Hamas by the way) criticizing Obama undercut your previous arguments that the left media is in Obama’s pocket? I mean…which is it? Are they in his pocket or not?

          And how do you see their position as backing up your contention that Obama is “in trouble”? In what sort of trouble? That some people want him to do one thing…others another thing…and others nothing on this issue? That is the sort of trouble he is bound to have on every issue of importance for the next 4-8 years. It goes with the job. Declaring him to be “in trouble” can keep you very busy by that standard. He is bound to be criticized from somewhere for any decision he makes. Today the Guardian, tommorow the NY Times.

          He is not president yet. When he is, and assuming the Israelis and Gazans are still going at it, then he needs to deal with it. I’ll predict the shooting will miraculously stop just before January 20th. And if it has not then I’ll predict that he will step up and push the parties to a truce within days….something the Bush Administration will not do, since they still see head bashing as the solution to whatever the problem is. Negotiating is clearly for wimps.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Oh….duh! The Richardson appointment clearly cu the rug out from the entire Obama transition

            No, it just simply undercuts your statement that the transition was well run. That’s all.

            It also undercuts your skill at arguing a point as clearly you cant even keep track of your own words. In addition I found it funny how clearly you had stepped in it in an attempt at humor.

            Look, its funny, you making the transition being well run statement just hours after the Richardson withdrawal was hilarious. Sometimes things just line up like that and I just love it, and that’s spelled L-U-V, when they do.

            As for the rest of your argument:

            Left leaning media – Dean Weasel #2, attempt to deflect through changing subject combined with Dean Weasel #3 attempt to extend some instances to all instances – sorry not interested in arguing this with someone who to this day insists the word “all” means the same as the word “several”.

            What sort of trouble? argument – Dean weasel #1, attempt to deflect through feigned inability to read – oh good lord, you don’t expect me to pick this one up do you?

            He is not president yet. – How convenient. Are we still talking about BO? This is the man who ran around with his own fake presidential seal during the campaign after all. Oh and wait, he also had his own silly little “office of the president elect” seal on the podium whenever he spoke over the last few weeks didn’t he? Now all of a sudden he is Mr. One President at a Time? I’m not sure what’s weaker, that argument coming out of the BO bunch, or the screw up on Gaza in the first place. I think I’m beginning to see what Biden meant during the campaign about BO going to be tested pretty severely real early on.

            >something the Bush Administration will not do, since they still see head bashing as the solution to whatever the problem is.

            Yep, ok, and this is coming from the guy who said the problems in Gaza started in 1948. You just simply don’t have the familiarity with the region in general or the issue in particular to comment on it, so now you are hoping to skate on a slam Bush comment.

            Kinda sad in a way, at least to my mind.

          • dean

            1 minute you are giddy…the next sad. You are giving my writings to much sway over your emotions.

            Rupert…Israelis are killing Palestinians and the other way around because of the creation of a European dominated Jewish state in an Arab land in 1948. Arabs and Jews were living more or less peacefully in that region prior to that time. So yes…1948 is when “the problems” began for all practical purposes. One could chose the creation of the Zionist movement a few decades earlier since that was the idea of a return, but turning the clock back to the Romans kicking Jewish people out is not a useful starting point, in my opinion.

            If Obama were to give any hint that he disapproves of Israels actions, then he would in effect be encouraging Hamas to keep fighting until the 20th. If he said otherwise, he would be encouraging the Israelis to continue their assault. Its a Hobson’s choice and by not making it he is making the right decision.

            Richardson’s appointment means Obama’s transition is less than perfect. It does not mean it has not been well run. unless one defines well run as meaning perfect.

            And for the record…and for the final time…I would like to say that I do not define “all” as meaning the same as “several.” OK? Can we both put that silliness to rest now?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)