Obama recently ordered the release of 4000 insurgents from US military prisons in Iraq.
Since then violence has predictably escalated as these former prisoners return to their previous activities.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_terror0365_05_07.asp

Even Democrats are now starting to question his closing of Guantanamo Bay as they face pressure from their constituents against the prisoners being released into their backyards.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo-politics7-2009may07,0,3870315.story

Is Obama fit to be Commander-in-Chief?

'ere we go!, 'ere we go!, 'ere we go ohhhh!!

Dear KMB,

You ask, "Is Obama fit to be Commander-in-Chief?"

I suppose that depends on your point of view -
and what qualities you feel a Commander-in-Chief
should possess.

Obviously, President Barack Obama is very different
from the previous US President, George W. Bush.

President Obama believes that protecting Americans
is crucial but not at the expense of US values and ideals.
He seems to feel that somehow using threats, coercion,
physical abuse, waterboarding - in other words - torture
and cruel treatment - is not the "American Way," of doing
things. Therefore he's taken action by closing Guantanamo
Bay and other detention centres - as a move towards
restoring US moral authority and international standing.
As well as meeting key promises he made in his election
campaign.

It's a new era with this new US President - he's sent
George Mitchell to the Middle East to pursue a two-state
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It seems that this US President is interested in pursuing
diplomatic solutions to military ones. Personally, I
feel that this is a very commendable approach in today's
troubled world - where we live in the shadow of nuclear
warfare that would push our species into extinction.

While diplomacy does not always prevent war, it surely
helps make it less likely.

Foxy,
I believe that you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone is as well-intentioned and pacific as you are.
What if you're dealing with an enemy that uses a truce as an opportunity to gain military advantage?
What if you're dealing with an enemy that sees compromise as a sign of weakness?
Commander's-in-Chief must know their enemy if they are to fulfil the role of protecting their citizens.
Does releasing 4000 prisoners in Iraq only to have them re-engage in warfare sound like the actions of a Commander-in-Chief who knows his enemy?
Or did Obama imagine that his gesture would win their respect and establish US moral authority?
The enemy the US is dealing with accepts no authority but that of Allah.
<<While diplomacy does not always prevent war, it surely
helps make it less likely.>>
I'm sure that Chamberlain thought much the same way when he returned from establishing a "peace deal" with Hitler.
The spectre "of nuclear warfare that would push our species into extinction" is surely much closer since the Pakistani government struck a "peace deal" with the Taliban and handed over the Swat valley, emboldening the Taliban to move closer to the capital.
Diplomacy holds little hope when dealing with such an implacable enemy.
As for "torture", the US Navy Seals undergo waterboarding as part of their training.
Let's be honest, Foxy.
Would you rather be held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay under the Americans or would you choose to be held prisoner by an Islamist with a dagger at your throat as he prepares to fulfil Allah's command: “Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks" Quran, Sura 47:4
Obama doesn't know his enemy.
Obama doesn't even recognise that the US is at war.

Dear KMB,

I don't have all the answers, and you could well
be right. But I do have hope, and I do believe
in diplomatic solutions in preference to military
ones. Maybe that makes me naive - but that's the way
I am.

I feel that human society has survived thus far not
because we are fundamentality aggressive as a species,
but because we are a fundamentally sociable and
a cooperative one. The reason that I believe war occurs
is a result of a political decision - usually a decision
by older men that younger men should fight for what older
men believe to be worth fighting for. There can be no war
unless the leaders of at least two societies with
conflicting interests decide that they prefer war to any
alternative means of settling their differences.

Obama believes in alternative means of settling differences.
The people you speak of- are fundamentalists - they do not
make up the entire Islamic people. And if President Obama
can reach the moderates - through diplomatic means - then
peace does have a chance. The alternative is more of the same
of what we've had to date - or worse - and as the saying goes -
"You can't keep on doing what you've been doing, and expect
different results..." That's insane.

Obama is trying different tactics - because the ones his
predessor used - did not work.

Lets face it, the Pres' is the Chief for very good reasons, that's why the Yanks Founding Fathers made it that way, after all.
Bush(s) and Obama are poles apart in their respective approaches, but given the nature and scope of the problems confronting the world, I see it this way-
With the Bush militaristic approach, WWIII was assured, inevitable.
With the Obama approach, we all stand some sort of chance, albeit small, that we can avoid the worst of the turmoil ahead.
There's no guarantees in this universe, but at least one world leader, however naive, is trying, it's far better than the alternative at the moment.