How To Lose A War: Ralph Peters Gets It Right
Hat-tip: New York Post
November 21, 2005 -- QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.
Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.
Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.
Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.
While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.
Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)
America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?
Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"
You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.
The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.
Surrender is never a winning strategy.
Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.
We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.
As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.
If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.
And they won't all be conservatives.
Heh. I could not have said it better myself. The Democrats do have the "cut-and-run" mindset running on their platform right now. Rep. Murtha exposed the Democrats last week, and was slammed for his idea. And not just by the GOP, but by Rep. Pelosi, as well. She did call for the Democrats in the House to vote against the Murtha initiative.
The GOP is just as guilty about this, too. It was the Warner Amendment that passed the Senate last week, asking for more accountability from the White House. They jumped on the bandwagon the Democrats have been floating for some time, and that is "cut-and-run." But to them I submit just a couple of questions.
If we pull out now, if we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, are we truly paying tribute to the 2000+ dead that fought for the freedom of those nations? I do not think we are. A soldier never likes leaving in the middle of a fight, especially when innocent civilians will be left to fend for themselves.
And about the "cut-and-run" strategy, will this not invite further violence against the US and her interests abroad? Osama bin Laden stated the US was a "paper tiger" that could be sent home crying if they killed enough US soldiers. Surrendering will only bring us further violence. The Democrats might have been silently cheering Sept. 11th because we "deserved what we got," and I find it hypocritical that they claim to support the troops, yet they hamstring them and the administration in the prosecution of this war.
They do not want victory. America would be seen as a "bully" in the world. They have even stated that it is not America's job to act as the world's "police force," yet these same people had no problem playing UN games with our troops in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. I suppose, in their feeble minds, that those missions were warranted because they were under the auspice of the United Nations rather than defending our sovereignty, like we did after Sept. 11th.
Regardless of what they think--of which I could care less--this nation is at war. We have a president that is not bringing the troops home until the job is done. The job will not be done until the Iraqis have finished assembling their government, and finished training their new security forces. When that is complete, and the Iraqis are standing on their own two feet, then the job is done, and the Iraq Phase of this war is over. Instead of an enemy nation under the control of a ruthless dictator with ties to terrorists, we will have an ally in the region. And that ally is already starting to change minds in the region. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are already starting to make moves--grudgingly--to grant women the right to vote in their nations. Not an easy move, to be sure, but one that is occurring nonetheless.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer. The man knows war and warfare. Further, he knows what surrendering will do to the nation, it's morale, and the morale of it's soldiers. To pull out now, when the job is only half finished, will only bring scorn to the troops later. We have seen it with the Vietnam veterans when we see idiot media people claiming the soldiers in Vietnam costr us the war when they "cut-and-ran." They did not "cut-and-run." Congress cut the funding, and Pres. Nixon was left with no alternative but to bring them home. Those soldiers were winning the war. Even the Communists admitted it; that had we not pulled out, that we would have eventually won.
However, it was the distaste for the war at home that killed our efforts. And likewise, it is happening again. The antiwar Left from that time period has reared it's ugly (emphasis on the "ugly") head, and the politicians think they run the war. They do not. The president does, and as long as we are not finished, then we stay. We do not surrender, and to do so now would only invite disaster. If the Democrats want to roll over and surrender, let them. Step aside, and let the adults run things.
The Bunny ;)
Hat-tip: New York Post
November 21, 2005 -- QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.
Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.
Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.
Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.
While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.
Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)
America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?
Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"
You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.
The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.
Surrender is never a winning strategy.
Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.
We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.
As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.
If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.
And they won't all be conservatives.
Heh. I could not have said it better myself. The Democrats do have the "cut-and-run" mindset running on their platform right now. Rep. Murtha exposed the Democrats last week, and was slammed for his idea. And not just by the GOP, but by Rep. Pelosi, as well. She did call for the Democrats in the House to vote against the Murtha initiative.
The GOP is just as guilty about this, too. It was the Warner Amendment that passed the Senate last week, asking for more accountability from the White House. They jumped on the bandwagon the Democrats have been floating for some time, and that is "cut-and-run." But to them I submit just a couple of questions.
If we pull out now, if we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, are we truly paying tribute to the 2000+ dead that fought for the freedom of those nations? I do not think we are. A soldier never likes leaving in the middle of a fight, especially when innocent civilians will be left to fend for themselves.
And about the "cut-and-run" strategy, will this not invite further violence against the US and her interests abroad? Osama bin Laden stated the US was a "paper tiger" that could be sent home crying if they killed enough US soldiers. Surrendering will only bring us further violence. The Democrats might have been silently cheering Sept. 11th because we "deserved what we got," and I find it hypocritical that they claim to support the troops, yet they hamstring them and the administration in the prosecution of this war.
They do not want victory. America would be seen as a "bully" in the world. They have even stated that it is not America's job to act as the world's "police force," yet these same people had no problem playing UN games with our troops in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. I suppose, in their feeble minds, that those missions were warranted because they were under the auspice of the United Nations rather than defending our sovereignty, like we did after Sept. 11th.
Regardless of what they think--of which I could care less--this nation is at war. We have a president that is not bringing the troops home until the job is done. The job will not be done until the Iraqis have finished assembling their government, and finished training their new security forces. When that is complete, and the Iraqis are standing on their own two feet, then the job is done, and the Iraq Phase of this war is over. Instead of an enemy nation under the control of a ruthless dictator with ties to terrorists, we will have an ally in the region. And that ally is already starting to change minds in the region. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are already starting to make moves--grudgingly--to grant women the right to vote in their nations. Not an easy move, to be sure, but one that is occurring nonetheless.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer. The man knows war and warfare. Further, he knows what surrendering will do to the nation, it's morale, and the morale of it's soldiers. To pull out now, when the job is only half finished, will only bring scorn to the troops later. We have seen it with the Vietnam veterans when we see idiot media people claiming the soldiers in Vietnam costr us the war when they "cut-and-ran." They did not "cut-and-run." Congress cut the funding, and Pres. Nixon was left with no alternative but to bring them home. Those soldiers were winning the war. Even the Communists admitted it; that had we not pulled out, that we would have eventually won.
However, it was the distaste for the war at home that killed our efforts. And likewise, it is happening again. The antiwar Left from that time period has reared it's ugly (emphasis on the "ugly") head, and the politicians think they run the war. They do not. The president does, and as long as we are not finished, then we stay. We do not surrender, and to do so now would only invite disaster. If the Democrats want to roll over and surrender, let them. Step aside, and let the adults run things.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:45 PM
1 Comments:
Korea was the first time in our history, the politicians policy was we weren't to win. We retreated to the 38th parallel. The politicians were afraid we might offend the communists . Then came Nam. Again the politicians and anti war crowd didn't want us to win. The communists won. Now we are engaged in yet another war, the anti war crowd don't want us to win. But the enemy is different this time, They fight for their muslim "religion" and that's the bottom line. If we show we any weakness we lose the war. This is one war we must win at all costs. It's kill the terrorist or they will killed us. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home