Skip to content
Menu
  • Original Short Fiction
Menu

What the 2016 Presidential Candidates Get Wrong About the Future of War

Posted on 8 March 2016 by The Tactical Hermit

defense-large

They fail, they lack, they misunderstand, they pander, they don’t get, and they just don’t know national security – not according to our Future of War roster of experts.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief…”

This clause that leads Article Two, Section II of the U.S. Constitution is without a doubt the most important of the executive powers granted to the president by the Founding Fathers. But as today’s crop of presidential candidates seek that job, do they really understand the issues that await them tomorrow when it comes to the future of war?

If history is any guide, the answer is no. When George Washington took the oath of office for the first time, he didn’t expect he’d soon be leading a force of some 13,000 troops into Western Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion (the first and last time the president served as a commander in chief in the field). Abraham Lincoln, at his inauguration, expected conflict was on the way, as seven Southern states already had seceded since his election. But no one expected the Civil War would last four more years and introduce industrialized warfare. More recently, George W. Bush entered office lamenting “nation building” and would leave it presiding over two massive nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In turn, Barack Obama pledged to responsibly end America’s involvements in these wars. He will leave office not only with forces still there, but also having commanded air and drone war campaigns in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

The Future of War project is a joint effort of New America and Arizona State, in partnership with Defense One, that brings together a diverse group of experts, whose backgrounds range from Navy SEALs and scientists to historians, journalists, and lawyers. As a lead up to the project’s “Future of War” conference on Mar. 10—which you can livestream here—we asked them:

“What do the 2016 presidential candidates get most wrong about the #FutureofWar?”

Their answers covered areas that ranged from strategy to terrorism, but a theme that cut through was the need to be honest to the American people, and themselves, about what awaits. In an age of TV soundbites and Twitter trolling, let’s hope that whoever wins the upcoming election is the exception to the rule that presidential candidates just don’t get the Future of War.

Read the Remainder at Defense One

 

 

3 thoughts on “What the 2016 Presidential Candidates Get Wrong About the Future of War”

  1. Pingback: What the 2016 Presidential Candidates Get Wrong About the Future of War | Rifleman III Journal
  2. Pingback: What the 2016 Presidential Candidates Get Wrong About the Future of War | zooforyou
  3. Lisa the Infidel says:
    8 March 2016 at 18:12

    Reblogged this on The way I see things … and commented:
    The answer in part …

    “Too many of the candidates have painted ISIS and other terrorists as a quasi-existential threat, which has helped contribute to a climate of fear in the U.S. A large majority of Americans are today somewhat or quite worried by the prospect of a large-scale mass casualty terrorist attack in the near future. In fact, the chances of such an attack are quite small because over the past decade and half the U.S. government has dramatically hardened our defenses against such an attack, while at the same time imposing huge costs on the groups that threaten the U.S. As a result, the threat from jihadist terrorists has been largely managed and contained, though by the law of averages smaller scale terrorist attacks carried out by “lone wolves” such as the ones at Fort Hood, in Texas, and San Bernardino, Calif., occasionally will happen. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tactical Hermit Substack

Recent Post

  • Bee PSA
  • Evening Laugh
  • Race Reality in South Africa: Anybody Can Farm, Right?
  • How Putin’s new Drone War is getting Deadlier
  • Duckmen 3 & 4
General Franco (2008-2024)

Book of the Month

Fellow Conspirators

Area Ocho

American Partisan

Western Rifle Shooters Association

Brushbeater

Von Steuben Training and Consulting

CSAT

Politically Incorrect Humor and Memes

Freedom is Just Another Word

Prepared Gun Owners

Fix Bayonets

The Firearm Blog

BorderHawk

Cold Fury

Don Shift SHTF

NC Renegades

Big Country Ex-Pat

The Bayou Renaissance Man

Bustednuckles

The Feral Irishman

It Ain’t Holy Water

Evil White Guy

Pacific Paratrooper

Badlands Fieldcraft

Riskmap

Stuck Pig Medical

Swift Silent Deadly

Spotter Up

The Survival Homestead

Bacon Time!

SHTF Preparedness

Sigma 3 Survival School

The Organic Prepper

The Zombie Apocalypse Survival Homestead

Texas Gun Rights

The Gatalog

Taki’s Magazine

Defensive Training Group

The Trail Up Blood Hill

No White Guilt

Europe Renaissance

Vermont Folk Truth

The Occidental Observer

The Dissident Right

Daily Stormer

American Renaissance

Blacksmith Publishing

Arktos Publishing

Antelope Hill Publishing

White People Press

White Rabbit Radio

White Papers Substack

Viking Life Blog (Archived)

Identity Dixie

The Texian Partisan

Southern Vanguard

League of the South

The Unz Review

Dissident Thoughts

The Third Position

Renegade Tribune

COPYRIGHT NOTICE/DISCLAIMER & FAIR USE ACT

All blog postings, including all non-fiction and fictional works are copyrighted and considered the sole property of the Tactical Hermit Blog. The names, characters and incidents portrayed in the short stories and novelettes are entirely fictional and are of the author's imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, locales or organizations or persons living or dead is entirely coincidental, The information contained in the articles posted to this site are for informational and/or educational purposes only. The Tactical Hermit disclaims any and all liability resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained herein.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any of the companies that advertise here. 

Much of the information on this blog contains copyrighted material whose use has not always been specifically authorized by the rightful copyright owner. This material is made available in an effort to educate and inform and not for remuneration. Under these guidelines this constitutes "Fair Use" under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. The publisher of this site DOES NOT own the copyrights of the images on the site. The copyrights lie with the respective owners.

© 2025 | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme