Dear Mr. Obama,

I have no reason to suspect you are not a ManHusbandDad – and only you and your wife and God can make that determination anyway. You and I have different ideologies, but relative to the Natural Aptitudes, I can only presume that you are fulfilling those Aptitudes to your utmost, or at least making an honest effort to do so.

So I send you this letter in the interest of a Man sharpening a Man as iron sharpens iron. I speak specifically of informing your Mental Aptitude. I trust with your limited time I can be firm and direct with you, Man to at least man, and please recognize that I am attempting to inform your Aptitude to bring you more Moral Clarity, and commenting upon your behavior, not your character or actual intelligence or other inconsequential factors. I think you would do the same for me, so that we could both do better what we are doing; in your case, doing the job of Commander-in-Chief.

With that in mind….

You behave and speak like an incompetent boob. As the prima facie representative of the United States to the World, you have successfully expressed to every military enemy of the United States that we, collectively, are also boobs: An ill-prepared, thumb-sucking rabble that is ripe for the picking.

You have done this by expressing your total ignorance of a simple tenet of war. Something taught in Sun Tzu’s Art of War, a book that is required reading at every military institute and academy in the known universe. It’s the basic starting point of any student and practitioner of war. It’s the Bible of Warfare. And it’s ancient – 3000 years old.

Yet it is timeless – applicable to every war. I suggest you acquire a copy.

The Art of War makes a singular point – out of many – that you and your “advisers” seem to have never even come across. I mean, you talk and act as if you have never heard it and so I assume that is the situation. This isn’t a case of purposefully ignoring a well-established precept; it’s a case of your absolute incomprehension of the idea on your own and never hearing it from your advisers. If it is a matter of them not telling you or them not knowing, then you need new advisers, which is not a shame to admit.

The point that Sun Tzu makes and that you do not comprehend is simple:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Sun Tzu says it clear as day: You must know your enemy. It’s a basic fact that you can only know something if you name it, and name it correctly.

This is how you express your intelligence on the matter:

“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of ‘radical Islam,’” you said on Tuesday, June 14, 2016.

That language comes across as childish, certainly unbecoming of a Man, and denotes a playground retort, which is what your entire speech “pushing back” on people who are telling you to name the enemy was meant to be.

It almost sounds as if your Military adviser is William Shakespeare. You may think that “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” but Billy wasn’t known for his ability to prosecute a war.

And we’re not naming flowers, here. The purpose of naming the threat is to not make it go away. The purpose is to know who you are fighting!

Chronologically (and not complete), Americans have fought…

King George
The British Empire
Mexico
Yankees and Rebs
Spain
The Central Powers/Quadruple Alliance: Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria
The Axis Powers – Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan (and various puppet states)
Communism
Soviet Union
Iraq in Kuwait
Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban

All of these have names. The name implies a goal: Defeating that which has been named.

The goal implies that you know your enemy which, as Sun Tzu points out so succinctly, is half of the equation to not fearing the result of a hundred battles.

You, as a child would, do not even know who the enemy is, so you cannot name it. And while it may be a topic to elaborate on in another letter, you have consistently and constantly expressed and exhibited that you do not know who America is, either; so you condemn us to the third alternative in Sun Tzu’s masterful summation of whether to expect victory or defeat:

“If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

You make as a further claim for not naming the enemy the fact that you do not want to alienate peaceful Muslims. While laudable on its face, the argument is pedantic and circular in its logic:

What is fascinating is how such a supposedly accomplished wordsmith such as you does not recognize that in the term “Radical Islam” is the very acknowledgement that peaceful Muslims are not the enemy being named.

But it is not surprising when considering that you present yourself as an un-accomplished ideological sycophant cocooned by political correctness and absolved of responsibility by a complicit media and allied elite power-driven political class from both parties.

“Radical Islam” is a phrase combining an adjective and a noun. Adjectives specifically denote and therefore define a subset of whatever noun they are modifying – they do not define the noun. They define the subset. Ergo, the phrase “Radical Islam” denotes a subset of people who use Islam as their cover or excuse for radicalism and a disjointed definition of the religion. It’s like saying Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Fascist Italy – all subsets of the larger population who, for the most part, were not interested in war with us. “Radical Islam” no more defines Islam than “Nazi Germany” defines Germany. The use of those adjectives specifically separates the one from the other.

Incidentally, that historical list of enemies above was produced by my home schooled children, sixteen years old and younger. They have also named the current enemy “Islamic Terrorists” which even they see is a different group than regular Muslims – a subset, distinctly different.

They know that Germans, Christians, Japanese, Buddhists, Italians, Atheists and even Pastafarians aren’t going into crowds with bombs strapped to themselves or loaded semi-automatic weapons claiming to do it in the name of their country or religious belief. They know that peaceful Muslims aren’t, either. They know that Radical Islamists are. There’s that subset again.

It’s not just my children: Everyone knows this, including the peaceful Muslims. And Muslims want you to name the enemy so the entire Islamic faith is not damned by these outliers, which it is until you define the enemy as a specific subset of people known as Islamic Terrorists, Radical Islamists, or even Radical Islamic Terrorists.

By not singling out these radicals, you yourself are actually claiming all Muslims are terrorists. You are the one keeping every Muslim in the same group as their and our collective enemy.

Instead, you use the phrase “Violent Extremism.” This is a phrase that could be used to describe anything from the thought process of Kim Jong-un to explosive diarrhea. There’s no defined enemy, so there is no way to fight it. In these examples, one weapon is to isolate the lunatic and the other weapon is a box of Imodium. There’s no way you can defeat North Korea’s leader with a box of Imodium, but that is what you are asking our military to do when you define the enemy with such a loose term as “Violent Extremism.” Some might even call MMA “Violent Extremism.” Are we at war with a popular sport? Think you can take one of those guys out with a box of Imodium?

The enemy has named itself. It knows itself. And it has named infidels as the enemy. It’s is time for the United States to name its enemy, and know itself once again. We will continue to lose this war if the enemy is the only one who knows who it is, and who it is fighting. And here’s a thought: Donald Trump is doing so well because he knows who America is, and is telling everyone who we are: A nation meant for greatness.

Let me be clear: Until you name another enemy, your incompetent behavior will continue to make us unsafe and vulnerable and will expose to the world who is the real enemy of America and her way of life is:

You.

PS: You have no problem naming enemies. You say “right wing extremists” when t fits your agenda. Why doesn’t “Radical Islamic Terrorist” fit your agenda?

Read previous post:
How Many Times Will I Eat This Pie?

All of a sudden, the inconsiderate jerk was me. Shame on me.

Close