Leadership starts at the top. When a commander lacks the foresight to adequately define a mission thru his Commander's Statement, follow-up directives at each level of subordinate command inevitably lead to oft-timed inconsistent and arbitrary directives that is weighed in the measure of spilled blood. Our current Commander-In-Chief, this President, has no clue about military protocol and how his decisions impact our military and its missions. His mission statement lacks clarity. His directives change almost weekly. He has diluted the normal chain of command protocols by infusing that lineage with politicos who obviously do not know the difference between maneuver warfare and unconventional warfare; yet, it is they, the politicos,...

woof! woof!

Was re-reading one of my old history books, "The Soviet Achievement" by J.P. Nettl, reprinted in 1970. Came across a rather timely statement that I think draws an interesting parallel to events occuring in Washington today. Quote: "...By 1918 the Bolsheviks were not only governing alone, but treating all their former opponents and allies as potentially hostile. The concept of exclusive power to one party thus sprang not primarily from doctrinal predisposition, but from a revolutionary situation in which neutrality or indifference was meaningless. Those who were not with the Bolsheviks were against them. The notion that power might be shared outside the Party was buried for ever..."

Ouch!

Look for the Center for American Progress, Move-On, and other Soros' funded Progressive left organizations to attempt to muddle the messages of the peasant masses. Their method? Split the movement by establishing and funding (via means of numerous cutouts) seemingly innocuous, dissident groups within the movement that, on the surface, appear to express legitimate concerns over some of the many dominant issues. Yet, in reality, they will or are being designed to divide and dislocate the many varied and interested groups of the movement. It's an old story. Create divison, disrupt continuity of message, weaken the whole of the movement. There are numerous issues of choice. Just gotta' pay attention...follow the money. It's a common tactic...

Well stated Msr. Phillips. Facts are indisputable when one chooses to listen. Yours ring clearly. Insofar as Mr. Obama is concerned, the facts underwriting his direction and intent are either glossed over or diffused by hiding them deeply within that splendid maze of Obama oratory skills, quite adroitly to be sure. Still, when one investigates the painting he brushes with those near magical images, I for one see the red flag of a counterfeit product. His facts are there. However, the meanings are more often than not in direct contradiction to the words that skim the surface of his dialogue. The man's oratory skills are without question. He is skilled, and much like the mystical Warlocks of period cultures past he has cast a spell on...