Now we know -- it really is Obama versus the Military.

This book will be one of the biggest news story of 2010 - certainly the most revealing news event of the Obama presidency.

We really hate to refer you to the Washington Post. Their journalists stand for nothing we believe in -- Marxist/Socialist to the core BUT . . . . . . it carries the most [only] detailed account of the Bob Woodard book.

What is of most interest to those of us who wish our president was someone else, is the divide that exists between Obama and his military generals.

No surprise here.

Back in the fall of 2009, during the three month period of time Obama took to decide on the "surge" request into Afghanistan, this editor thought the delay indicated a philosophical problem within the Administration.

It was during that time Obama's view on "victory" was given some attention. The Post article mentions his avoidance of the term "victory" but the issue was not news to this blog. He is Commander and Chief [like it or not] but has consistently refused to think in terms of actually "winning a war." Obama spoke of this early in his presidency, months before the surge request.

It was this thinking that caused Midknight Review to advise against joining the Obama Military. We have believed - from the beginning - that Obama has no sense of conscience with regard to lives lost in the war effort, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words, he is prepared to vacate the sacrifice of our soldiers for the sake of his ideology and his left-wing base.

With the Woodward book, we now know our suspicions and advice were spot on.

You have the hypelink to the article, above. We give you a few quotes from the Post article:

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward. Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday. According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

In discussing the Afghan strategy, Obama is quoted as saying this: "This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan" . . . . . Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years" .

We encourage the folks to read the Post's review of Obama Wars. Perhaps the single most stunning Obama comment revealed in the book is this:

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

His words demonstrate a detached ideologue as president and Command and Chief. It is somewhat chilling to know that we have a president who is capable of such emotionless analysis.