Just a thought, since we elected Obama as our Commander in Chief and with recent "low morale" amongts his officers towards him: Who would make a better Commander in Chief? A) Barack H. Obama on November 1st, 2008 B) A cadet at West Point or the Naval Academy 1 day before his graduation C) A Marine Corp infantry grunt with 4 tours of combat D) A top-5 world military historian E) New England Patriots football coach Bill Belichek Now, I'm prepared to argue anyone, B, C, D, E, would have made a better Commander in Chief than Barack H. Obama just before his election. Why? Experience and relative skills. B) A military academy graduate would have military leadership, discipline, and a working knowledge of military practices. He would be a member of the military, and maybe have a deployment under his belt. C) A USMC grunt would have combat experience, leadership skills and a working knowledge of just how war works, how it is fought, and how morale is affected by homeland issues. D) A military historian would be better with global foreign policy, having a knowledge of how war works, past conflicts, ethnicities and their past battles, and long-term consequences of military decisions. E) Patriots coach Bill Belicheck. A football coach in the NFL who has won several Super Bowls with many different players. He's a natural leader, has led men into adversity and through it successfully. No military experience at all, but, neither had Obama had any. So, in my opinion, his experience organizing and leading a group of 100 men in a physical struggle is closer to leading a military than anything Obama had ever done. So, thats my premise. That we elected a man in 2008 to Commander in Chief who was less qualified to that position than a military historian, a West Point cadet on graduation day, any USMC grunt infantryman, or even an NFL football coach. And we wonder how this McChrystal thing happened, and why other countries no longer fear us.