The Commander Who Has Never Been To Battle

There was a time when leaders became leaders because of their heroics, their prowess on the battlefield. The most respected leaders were those who fought alongside their troops, suffered the same defeats and overcame the same obstacles.

In these times however, choosing leaders based upon their ability to, er, lead, seems foreign. So long as a monkey gets a legacy degree from Harvard, has the correct ancestral lineage and is willing to do the bidding of the business interests, he can become president of the United States. And has.

Our Chimperor outdid himself yesterday, illustrating the depths of his ignorance, stupidity and overall refusal to grasp reality. Asked by an ABC reporter whether he thought Iraq was roiled by civil war, Bush offered this gem that sums up his entire presidency -

It's hard for me living in this beautiful White House to give you an assessment, a first hand assessment. I haven't been there. You have, I haven't. But I do talk to people who are and people whose judgment I trust and they would not qualify it as that. There are others who think it is.

A so-called commander-in-chief who has not seen the battlefield; a so-called commander-in-chief who does not use his own brain, but relies on the judgment of others; a so-called commander-in-chief who cannot provide a first hand assessment of those things for which he is asking his people to sacrifice their lives, security and money.

Leaders now are chosen not because of their actions, but by the appeal of their hollow, meaningless words; not by their ability to lead but by their ability to follow others; not by their ability to understand the world around them, but by their stubborn refusal to learn. History tells us that these are the trademark characteristics of every boy king who singlehandedly destroyed the empire he inherited. And we are seeing it yet again in our commander who has never been to battle.