Recently I was teaching some probability to young students, where I told them how you can increase the odds of predicting the future by factoring in past patterns.  Then I thought about how you can predict people in the same way, by looking at previous patterns.  So I thought about our new president and his common ground with some past American presidents, who had managed some major wars and were also strong members of the Democratic Party.

“Remember,” I more-or-less said, “the last four Democratic presidents who had no real personal experience in war were Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bill Clinton.  But when the opportunity came, all four were very aggressive warriors in the wars of their time.  Even Bill Clinton dumped more bombs in Europe on the Serbian/Bosnian conflict than anything since World War II. But thank goodness Wilson and Roosevelt were such relentless armchair warriors.”

To be more historically accurate, Lyndon Johnson who heated up the Vietnam War was awarded a Silver Star for services in World War II.  But that was a totally political medal awarded by a pandering General Douglas MacArthur because Congressman Johnson had once traveled in a plane that was fired on by Japanese zeroes. 

Jimmy Carter never actually fought in a war, but his years as a Navy officer in a nuclear submarine gave him more exposure to risks than such as World War II Navy swabs Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Of course, PT Boat Navy Commander John F. Kennedy was a certified World War hero.  Harry Truman – the final Democratic president in this time group — was in the thick of combat as an Army captain in World War II.

Truman, Kennedy and Carter – the Democrat presidents who had taken the most personal risks in the military – were decidedly less enthusiastic about full-scale war than Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Clinton.  Truman’s reluctance even led to the firing of MacArthur over widening the war in Korea.

This history of non-military Democratic presidents being all geared up for war is probably tied to psychological as well as political reasons.  For example, it is often the kids who are the least aggressive baseball players who later as adults are most drawn to baseball fantasy camps.

For this reason and others, I think 2008 press portrait of Barack Obama as the peaceful man who will sing “kumbaya” to all the world is upside down, as was the picture of John McCain as the great military hawk.  I believe both Obama and McCain would readily respond to the call of arms if necessary. 

But I think Obama’s response to war would be somewhat based on his watching Hollywood movies of battles and would be geared up on a high pitch.  In contrast, I believe McCain’s reaction would be grounded in his real-life memories of the suffering caused in war and would be somber and on a much lower key.

In any case, it looks now like we are may get some real war in the Obama administration, especially in Afghanistan.  And if there is anything different from that and how the Soviets battled the Afghanistan Taliban in the 1970′s and 1980′s, it is that the Soviets had the advantages of shorter supply lines and better access and connections for infiltration.  After all, around Afghanistan were a host of Islamic Soviet republics that – unlike Americans — understood Islamic Afghanistan. 

On the other hand, no matter how problematic Afghanistan will become, Obama is sure to get the kind of support from the Democrat blockheads in Congress that they would have never thought of awarding George W. Bush.

Certainly there will be Democrats in Congress who will start to say, “What the hell are we now getting into a major war in Afghanistan for?”  But then their Democratic House or Senate leader will remind them:  “It’s okay, it’s okay.  Our DEMOCRAT president says it’s okay to go to war. Our DEMOCRAT president, you idiot.” 

Still, there are more real reasons why there is a movement of our military to the East – not just to Afghanistan, but also toward Pakistan.

During the presidential campaign, Obama some times sounded more like a war hawk than did McCain.  At the beginning of 2008, Obama recommended that we more or less drop everything in Iraq and go after Osama bin Laden – his specific recommendation is that the United States can begin by bombing Pakistan.  Of course, Obama felt that Bin Laden is in Pakistan, protected by Pakistanis who refuse to let Americans in their country to look for him.

Why wouldn’t Bin Laden choose to be in Pakistan?  He has millions of Pakistani’s there and a Pakistan government pointing guns at American soldiers keeping them out of the country.  Plus Afghanistan has no infrastructure and lousy restaurants, and we all know that former Saudi playboy Bin Laden prefers good Islamic restaurants.

In any case, Obama’s widely circulated recommendation that American beginning smart-bombing Pakistan provided an effective cover for America in January of 2008 to launch a smart missile that very nearly killed Bin Laden in Pakistan – but killed his number two man n instead. 

The American smart missile was magnetized to a cell phone of an American traitor who worked closely with Bin Laden.  When it was launched it was timed for a period when it was believed the traitor would be with his friend Osama.  But the traitor was with the number two man instead, and both he and the traitor died instantly.  The Pakistanis protested, but to no effect.  After all, aren’t we giving them a billion dollars a year in military aid to supposedly do the same thing? 

Obama’s early support for this kind of American pinpoint targeting inside Pakistan helped create a more consolidated effort against Bin Laden.  To understand why Obama stepped to the right in front of even John McCain on this issue, I think it is helpful to look at Obama with human eyes as well as mental eyes.

Obama knows that Bin Laden came this close to destroying the White House on September 11, 2001.  We may have lost this picture a little after being overwhelmed with the spectacle of the collapsing twin towers.  But that very same day Laura Bush was running for her life from the White House with her shoes off while both husband and the assassins trying to crash into the White House were circling in the air.

The assassins then hadn’t done enough homework to know how to sight the White House from all the other little white buildings in Washington DC.  But Bin Laden also failed his first time when he tried to destroy the twin towers in 1993.  It is again eight years later, and the White House is now inhabited by Michelle Obama and two young daughters.

This is the real Cape Fear

So the war against Bin Laden for President Obama isn’t just a legal one, but a personal one.  Obama has been put in the Gregory Peck position from the 1962 classic movie, “Cape Fear,” thinking and worrying about his home and family that is being stalked by the criminal invader played by Robert Mitchum.  Beyond that personal note, Obama’s name is on an entire nation that he is protecting.

There is really so much going on here that my tiny mind can hardly do it any justice in one piece.  I am looking at running it for my next two commentaries.  My commentary next week will be “You are Bin Laden, and you are in Pakistan.”

Chris Sharp- Commentary

Chris Sharp is an Educator and a prize-winning professional writer. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.