I agree. It is no guarantee of anything. However, military experience does give you signs of what they will do.

Take FDR. Before he was President…before he was Governor of NY…he was Asst. Sec of the Navy. Not war experience, but FDR developed an intense love of the Navy as a result…and a great interest in personnel issues. Consequently, despite the rabid GOP isolationists, FDR protected his cherished Navy from cutbacks and took personal interest in making sure the best people, such as Marshall, were in place when the war came.

Again, McCain's military experience guarantees nothing. However, he comes from generations of military commanders. He knows what the people he will send into combat can experience. Obama doesn't. (Obama could excel in defense as President…just going on what's there).

Thus, on defense, I simply concluded McCain trumps Obama.

ChrisWWW: “And that difference being?”

The difference is being in war changes you, in ways other jobs don't. The grandfather of one of my closet friends was (is…he's still alive) a pilot with 8th Army Air Force in WW II. It was a transformative experience. I find it amazing how his group has kept in regular contact and meets continually. Their children all absorbed this with mother's milk almost, with many following in their parents footsteps.

One reads of this extending across generations and centuries in some cultures. Prussian Junkers or Japanese samurai.

“That difference being.” What can I say? Being a samurai, or a member of any military caste spanning generations, is more than a job. There is culture involved. Ah well…no point….

I agree. It is no guarantee of anything. However, military experience does give you signs of what they will do.

Take FDR. Before he was President…before he was Governor of NY…he was Asst. Sec of the Navy. Not war experience, but FDR developed an intense love of the Navy as a result…and a great interest in personnel issues. Consequently, despite the rabid GOP isolationists, FDR protected his cherished Navy from cutbacks and took personal interest in making sure the best people, such as Marshall, were in place when the war came.

Again, McCain's military experience guarantees nothing. However, he comes from generations of military commanders. He knows what the people he will send into combat can experience. Obama doesn't. (Obama could excel in defense as President…just going on what's there).

Thus, on defense, I simply concluded McCain trumps Obama.

ChrisWWW: “And that difference being?”

The difference is being in war changes you, in ways other jobs don't. The grandfather of one of my closet friends was (is…he's still alive) a pilot with 8th Army Air Force in WW II. It was a transformative experience. I find it amazing how his group has kept in regular contact and meets continually. Their children all absorbed this with mother's milk almost, with many following in their parents footsteps.

One reads of this extending across generations and centuries in some cultures. Prussian Junkers or Japanese samurai.

“That difference being.” What can I say? Being a samurai, or a member of any military caste spanning generations, is more than a job. There is culture involved. Ah well…no point….

Granted, there may not be a large enough pool to draw a trend from, but history certainly seems to show that military and/or combat experience isn't a top factor in the success of a president who leads the nation in war.

Granted, there may not be a large enough pool to draw a trend from, but history certainly seems to show that military and/or combat experience isn't a top factor in the success of a president who leads the nation in war.

There is a world of difference between having a parent in a job, and being a part of a military culture extending for generations.

That difference being? And just what are the manifestations of this valued experience of McCain's? It didn't help him foresee the blunder of Iraq. It hasn't stopped him from joking about the bombing of Iran. It hasn't kept him from lying about a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iran.

But Obama has NO military experience! None! Nada! He has never been under fire, or known what it means to see people die in combat.

“You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” – McCain, on the serious consequences of war

There is a world of difference between having a parent in a job, and being a part of a military culture extending for generations.

That difference being? And just what are the manifestations of this valued experience of McCain's? It didn't help him foresee the blunder of Iraq. It hasn't stopped him from joking about the bombing of Iran. It hasn't kept him from lying about a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iran.

But Obama has NO military experience! None! Nada! He has never been under fire, or known what it means to see people die in combat.

“You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” – McCain, on the serious consequences of war

Not “extremely nervous”…they (unnamed Pentagon officials – don't know uniformed or not) were quoted as just saying they had no idea what Obama intended were he president (aside from leaving Iraq which, as you know, many would have no problem with).

I suspect…given McCain's long time in Washington…that even if they hate his guts, they have some inclination as to his thoughts, favourites etc. They seem to have great respect for Obama's adviser, who was a Human Rights specialist actually, who contributed innovative thinking to anti-insurgency theory. But Obama has not made military contacts a priority of his campaign to date. I am sure this will change soon.

Regardless of one's views on Iraq, counter-insurgency seems to be what will be demanded in the foreseeable future. If there is a President Obama, and he gets out of Iraq…will he want to intervene in Darfur? In Pakistan's northern provinces?

Petraeus ideas have relevance far beyond Iraq. But he is poison to many Democrats, as I noted. HRC went out on a limb at the Senate hearing, and sawed it off behind her (I gather she has been privately patching things up since).

Will the Democrats under President Obama throw the baby out with the bathwater…then have a D'oh moment years later? Or will President Obama buck the Koskids and go with his advisor and counter-insurgency?.

Not “extremely nervous”…they (unnamed Pentagon officials – don't know uniformed or not) were quoted as just saying they had no idea what Obama intended were he president (aside from leaving Iraq which, as you know, many would have no problem with).

I suspect…given McCain's long time in Washington…that even if they hate his guts, they have some inclination as to his thoughts, favourites etc. They seem to have great respect for Obama's adviser, who was a Human Rights specialist actually, who contributed innovative thinking to anti-insurgency theory. But Obama has not made military contacts a priority of his campaign to date. I am sure this will change soon.

Regardless of one's views on Iraq, counter-insurgency seems to be what will be demanded in the foreseeable future. If there is a President Obama, and he gets out of Iraq…will he want to intervene in Darfur? In Pakistan's northern provinces?

Petraeus ideas have relevance far beyond Iraq. But he is poison to many Democrats, as I noted. HRC went out on a limb at the Senate hearing, and sawed it off behind her (I gather she has been privately patching things up since).

Will the Democrats under President Obama throw the baby out with the bathwater…then have a D'oh moment years later? Or will President Obama buck the Koskids and go with his advisor and counter-insurgency?.

Anyway, I think that Petraeus is completely correct about many military strategies and he, along with Nagl, give the Obama adviser (sorry, forgot her name) a lot of respect for her work in developing it.

But I also think that they know that in order for their ideas to work we will have to be there another 10-20 years at least. Heck, they have said this outright I don't have to think it.

The question is not whether Petraeus is right on military tactics, but whether the overall strategic objectives justify our presence on such a scale for so long. On this, I think it's not only clear that the American people would say not, but that many military officials think so too. Petraeus has been very careful to stay out of that debate (appropriately) but I've read there is a huge debate about this in the military and whether he should stand up to the civilians more.

I'd also like to point out that “the Pentagon” isn't very specific. After all, “the Pentagon” is technically the headquarters of the Defense Department, which is a civilian branch. Were all the concerns from actual uniformed members that worked at the Pentagon or military advisers or what? I would say that I can see why they would be extremely nervous about what Obama would do, but considering the generalities of McCain I don't see why they wouldn't have similar questions about him.

Hand wringing about one person doesn't necessarily imply support for another. From what I've read, the military is more concerned about getting hung out to dry by the government on both sides as much as any particular policy.

Anyway, I think that Petraeus is completely correct about many military strategies and he, along with Nagl, give the Obama adviser (sorry, forgot her name) a lot of respect for her work in developing it.

But I also think that they know that in order for their ideas to work we will have to be there another 10-20 years at least. Heck, they have said this outright I don't have to think it.

The question is not whether Petraeus is right on military tactics, but whether the overall strategic objectives justify our presence on such a scale for so long. On this, I think it's not only clear that the American people would say not, but that many military officials think so too. Petraeus has been very careful to stay out of that debate (appropriately) but I've read there is a huge debate about this in the military and whether he should stand up to the civilians more.

I'd also like to point out that “the Pentagon” isn't very specific. After all, “the Pentagon” is technically the headquarters of the Defense Department, which is a civilian branch. Were all the concerns from actual uniformed members that worked at the Pentagon or military advisers or what? I would say that I can see why they would be extremely nervous about what Obama would do, but considering the generalities of McCain I don't see why they wouldn't have similar questions about him.

Hand wringing about one person doesn't necessarily imply support for another. From what I've read, the military is more concerned about getting hung out to dry by the government on both sides as much as any particular policy.

Obama's temper? I think you mean McCain(?) The comments from the Pentagon were questions about what Obama's defense policies will be. They don't believe he will slash the budget or anything (he probably couldn't if he tried…given how it is spread around Congressional districts). They just don't know what he wants to do specifically. For example: there is a debate between a Petraeus clique and a more traditional army clique.

Petraeus is poison to many Democrats. However, many in the military believe his ideas are correct. One of Obama's key advisors worked on the Counter Insurgency Manual with Petraeus' team. Will Obama listen to her…or will he cave to liberal rage, cashier Petraeus and gut counter-insurgency? This might not seem to much outside the Pentagon…but they simply have no idea where he will go.

ChrisWWW said: “Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant. I'm not more qualified to be police chief because my father was a police officer. Being in the military does not mean you have the capacity to command the entirety of it, or the capacity to think on grand strategic terms.”

I utterly disagree. There is a world of difference between having a parent in a job, and being a part of a military culture extending for generations.

Being in the military does not mean you have the ability to command its entirety of it.

But Obama has NO military experience! None! Nada! He has never been under fire, or known what it means to see people die in combat.

In quoting Obama, you are, unintentionally, echoing HRC's famous comment:

“John McCain has a lifetime of experience…Senator Obama has one speech in 2002.”

Obama's temper? I think you mean McCain(?) The comments from the Pentagon were questions about what Obama's defense policies will be. They don't believe he will slash the budget or anything (he probably couldn't if he tried…given how it is spread around Congressional districts). They just don't know what he wants to do specifically. For example: there is a debate between a Petraeus clique and a more traditional army clique.

Petraeus is poison to many Democrats. However, many in the military believe his ideas are correct. One of Obama's key advisors worked on the Counter Insurgency Manual with Petraeus' team. Will Obama listen to her…or will he cave to liberal rage, cashier Petraeus and gut counter-insurgency? This might not seem to much outside the Pentagon…but they simply have no idea where he will go.

ChrisWWW said: “Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant. I'm not more qualified to be police chief because my father was a police officer. Being in the military does not mean you have the capacity to command the entirety of it, or the capacity to think on grand strategic terms.”

I utterly disagree. There is a world of difference between having a parent in a job, and being a part of a military culture extending for generations.

Being in the military does not mean you have the ability to command its entirety of it.

But Obama has NO military experience! None! Nada! He has never been under fire, or known what it means to see people die in combat.

In quoting Obama, you are, unintentionally, echoing HRC's famous comment:

“John McCain has a lifetime of experience…Senator Obama has one speech in 2002.”

Anyway, what did you read about the Pentagon because I've read the exact opposite. I've read that he isn't that respected by the military brass and they are concerned about his temper. And like you've said, they want out of Iraq but McCain is going to keep them in there a long time.

Anyway, what did you read about the Pentagon because I've read the exact opposite. I've read that he isn't that respected by the military brass and they are concerned about his temper. And like you've said, they want out of Iraq but McCain is going to keep them in there a long time.

His father was an Admiral. His grandfather was an admiral. He was a pilot. His POW years were exemplary, and impressed even the N. Vietnamese

Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant. I'm not more qualified to be police chief because my father was a police officer. Being in the military does not mean you have the capacity to command the entirety of it, or the capacity to think on grand strategic terms.

McCain would put the “chickenhawk” meme to rest. There is simply NO WAY in the world folks at DailyKOS could apply this to him without being ridiculed.

He's not a chicken, but he is a hawk. I would think that term alone would carry enough negative connotations given our current predicament in Iraq. And for the record, being a hawk doesn't make you “better on national security.”

You might not like his views on Iraq. But give him his due: McCain trumps Obama on defense.

McCain's views on Iraq show that he is trumped by Obama on defense.

“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” – John McCain, Jan. 2003

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” – Barack Obama, Oct. 2002

His father was an Admiral. His grandfather was an admiral. He was a pilot. His POW years were exemplary, and impressed even the N. Vietnamese

Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant. I'm not more qualified to be police chief because my father was a police officer. Being in the military does not mean you have the capacity to command the entirety of it, or the capacity to think on grand strategic terms.

McCain would put the “chickenhawk” meme to rest. There is simply NO WAY in the world folks at DailyKOS could apply this to him without being ridiculed.

He's not a chicken, but he is a hawk. I would think that term alone would carry enough negative connotations given our current predicament in Iraq. And for the record, being a hawk doesn't make you “better on national security.”

You might not like his views on Iraq. But give him his due: McCain trumps Obama on defense.

McCain's views on Iraq show that he is trumped by Obama on defense.

“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” – John McCain, Jan. 2003

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” – Barack Obama, Oct. 2002

McCain has more experience and knowledge of defense than Obama. The Pentagon has floated a number of balloons in recent weeks which were noted by some defense commentators. They are not getting involved in politics but are worried about Obama because – apart from withdrawal from Iraq (that many have no problem with) – they have NO IDEA what Obama's thoughts on defense specifically are. This unsettles them. Obama is obviously weak in this area.

You don't like the Iraq War. Lots of people don't. But it isn't one of the “biggest blunders in our history” by any measure. McCain's background informs him of that, in a way, that it doesn't for most.

Not to start a Flame war: but the 4,000 casualities in Iraq are miniscule in historic terms. The US lost 10,000 in one week on the Batan Death March. Or the bizarre “Three Trillion Dollar War” – a figure reached by the imaginary “opportunity costs”. Fine. Then the Second World War – unlike Iraq, a Total War – by that measure would cost the US. 10, umpteenquadrillion zillion dollars…and don't even try to calculate the opportunity costs to the US of the Civil War.

Iraq has been costly. But in a longer frame — that McCain has — it may be seen as potentially worth the cost. Certainly not the worst blunder in US history (which probably belongs to Lincoln for tolerating the cretin McClelland and prolonging the Civil War).

McCain has more experience and knowledge of defense than Obama. The Pentagon has floated a number of balloons in recent weeks which were noted by some defense commentators. They are not getting involved in politics but are worried about Obama because – apart from withdrawal from Iraq (that many have no problem with) – they have NO IDEA what Obama's thoughts on defense specifically are. This unsettles them. Obama is obviously weak in this area.

You don't like the Iraq War. Lots of people don't. But it isn't one of the “biggest blunders in our history” by any measure. McCain's background informs him of that, in a way, that it doesn't for most.

Not to start a Flame war: but the 4,000 casualities in Iraq are miniscule in historic terms. The US lost 10,000 in one week on the Batan Death March. Or the bizarre “Three Trillion Dollar War” – a figure reached by the imaginary “opportunity costs”. Fine. Then the Second World War – unlike Iraq, a Total War – by that measure would cost the US. 10, umpteenquadrillion zillion dollars…and don't even try to calculate the opportunity costs to the US of the Civil War.

Iraq has been costly. But in a longer frame — that McCain has — it may be seen as potentially worth the cost. Certainly not the worst blunder in US history (which probably belongs to Lincoln for tolerating the cretin McClelland and prolonging the Civil War).

Since then, it is “Pick and Choose” with the Presidency I believe. I am not sure why this is. I mean:
Kennedy was inspirational…but his Civil Rights views were appalling. He wouldn't even let Sammy Davis Jr. into the Convention.
LBJ was a great bizarre man…a Cracker who believed in Civil Rights and uplifting the poor and marginalized to the core of his being…yet got tangled in Vietnam, knowing (as recording have shown as early as 64) that it was a mistake.
Ever since…Yada yada…. pick and choose….