February 18^th

Today Cal Thomas headlines his column by calling President Obama “America’s Nero.” This characterization shows an enormous ignorance of history. Of course Thomas wants to parallel Obama’s policy toward ISIS with the popular, and incorrect, notion that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Current scholarship finds evidence that Nero himself had the fires set to deflect the public’s rage against his rule and allow him to channel that rage toward the Christians. This is supposed to be similar to Obama’s position toward ISIS? Please! (Cal may also believe that Washington, as a child, admitted to chopping down a cherry tree.)

His primary criticism of Obama seems to be that he has no “battle plan.” He didn’t outline one in his message to Congress. It is so important to have a battle plan and to broadcast it so that your enemy knows exactly what it is. All of our great war time leaders have presented their battle plans to the public and to the enemy. It is hard to imagine a more hopelessly stupid criticism of Obama’s request to Congress. But wait, there’s more!

Thomas quotes President Roosevelt’s message to Congress following the attack on Pearl Harbor. He compares Obama’s less memorable request to Congress with Roosevelt’s message after Pearl Harbor. Perhaps Cal is unaware that Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor caused 3500 military casualties of which there 2400 were killed, and there were 100 civilian casualties with about 70 dead. Now let’s see, how does this compare with the attacks by ISIS/ISIL on our soil. Except for the Boston bombing, a horrendous event that killed three and injured 264, and some foiled attempts, there haven’t been many. There have been lots of terrorist attacks but not many tied to ISIS/ISIL. (There was 9/11 but that was a one-time event well before ISIS/ISIL existed and our leadership responded by invading a country which wasn’t involved.)

In Cal’s extended quote of Roosevelt’s iconic message to Congress of which he clearly approves, there is no hint of a “battle plan.” Roosevelt does say that we will win the war but that’s hardly a battle plan. It seems unlikely that with Thomas’ severely limited military experience that he himself could tell the difference between strategic and tactical planning.

Again, Thomas says that Obama “Should act; he should lead.” But tell us exactly what he should do? When asked questions like this Obama’s critics are usually very quiet. Specifics are really difficult aren’t they Cal? Amorphous and vague suggestions get you in so much less trouble. We are so fortunate, as a country, Cal, that you have no involvement whatever with our military.