 |
By Ralph Peters
We're in trouble. We're in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven't forgotten how to fight. We've never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win.
Thanks to those who have served in uniform, we've lived in such safety and comfort for so long that for many Americans sacrifice means little more than skipping a second trip to the buffet table.
Two trends over the past four decades contributed to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses.
Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.
Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offer flawed or biased analyses, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.
This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.
Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.
This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.
Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?
Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.
Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.
Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.
And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.
One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.
Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."
And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."
Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.
Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.
The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.
Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.
In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.
The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.
Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.
When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.
Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.
Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.
It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.
Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.
Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?
The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.
Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.
Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we'd had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.
The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn't stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I've traveled around the globe since 9/11, I've found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota.
On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today's America really more fractured than it was in 1968?
Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.
This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.
Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours.
Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.
The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do. But we're not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that's what the developing situation warrants. But it's grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.
Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."
Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.
As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.
Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.
Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn't true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West's progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.
None of us knows what our strategic future holds, but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history. But we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of 22 books, including the recent "Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.
Comments (50)
Some truths mixed with a lot of BS.
Sad that this application of some truth is misapplied to the illegal invasion of a Nation not of a threat to us.
The misguided person is part of the problem we face as a Nation slowly moving toward fascism.
This type rhetoric is only good or untutored talking heads.
We might have pulled of this grab or Oil and ego with a real leader who listened to his Military Generals instead of draft dodgers, but at this point,having broken every rule of dealing with a guerrilla force, a win, as the misguided want to talk about, would only be wiping out most of the population we supposedly were going to free.
1 to 0 of 10 points for value and truth.
Posted by Melvin L Haun Sr, MSG USA Retired | 10/22/07 6:38 PM |
Where did the writer of the story get his facts?
Posted by Jason R. Denny | 10/23/07 11:25 AM |
I would rate the article 5 stars. It's amazing how misguided people like MSg Haun and Mr. Denny find it so easy to criticize those who are knowledgeable of military and political history. This is so typical of most left-wing loons who are ignorant of facts and unwilling to see the truth. These pinheads love to use unsubstantiated rhetoric and factless statements to bolster their uneducated views by criticizing others who scare them with the truth. I challenge these so-called critics to present a fact-based argument to counter Ralph Peters' valid commentary. I'm interested in what they see as BS about the commentary and what facts you have to back it up. It might be difficult for you since your comments have been inane thus far, but you might learn something with a little research on your own.
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 10/25/07 2:17 AM |
Excellent article, it debunks the defeatist garbage being foisted upon us by the mainstream media talking heads and the Democratic Party base.
It's a dirty shame that a former Marine has fallen for their inane propoganda.
Posted by Rick Partlow, former USAR infantry platoon leader | 10/30/07 7:14 PM |
Very well done. Too bad this can't be printed on every op-ed page in the US.
It's sad to see people like MSG Haun buy into the BS that is the primary product of the mass media.
Posted by Henry F. Smith GMC USNR Ret. | 10/30/07 10:52 PM |
Kudos to MSG Haun for telling it liken it really is. It is so unfortunate that we have an administration that DOES NOT BELIEVE in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Posted by V. Bevilacqua | 11/01/07 3:08 PM |
Hahaha. You can write an article entitled, "What's wrong with Americans?" all you want. If you could actually cite your reasons, you'd still be, "Anti-American".
Posted by Beerdo | 11/01/07 9:07 PM |
Here we go again! Another left loon blowhard making a pinhead statement to bolster an unsubstantiated position. Mr. Bevilacqua, I have but one question for you. Show me one example, by name, of any innocent individual, or group, whose Constitutional rights have been violated by this Administration? If you can, then you should make this publicly known so we can prosecute the one's responsible to the fullest extent of the law! However, since no one to date has been charged or even accused, I doubt you can cite even one example. This is such a typical pinhead statement of the perverse far left that gains far more attention by the liberal press than it deserves. I suggest you move to Venezuela. This is where most people like you, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and many more, would feel most comfortable. You would have the luxury of living under a regime that has completely thrown out their Constitution in favor of total control of all people, laws, businesses and resources under one autonomous dictator Hugo Chavez. Let us all in the US know how wonderful life is there once you're settled in. By the way, make sure you don't say anything bad about Mr. Chavez while your there. If you do you can expect a lengthy jail sentence or even death. Good Luck!
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/03/07 12:15 AM |
Here we go again! Another statement to bolster an unsubstantiated position. I have but one question for those of you that have views similar to Mr. Bevilacqua. Show me one example, by name, of any innocent individual, or group, whose Constitutional rights have been violated by this Administration? If you can, then you should make this publicly known so we can prosecute those responsible to the fullest extent of the law! However, since no one to date has been charged or even accused in the Administration, I doubt you can cite even one example. This is so typical of the far left,
which gains far more attention by the liberal press than it deserves. I suggest those of you who feel your rights are being violated, move to Venezuela. This is where people of your standing would feel most comfortable. You would have the luxury of living under a regime that has completely thrown out their Constitution in favor of total control of all people, laws, businesses and resources under one autonomous dictator Hugo Chavez. Let us all in the US know how wonderful life is there once you're settled in. By the way, make sure you don't say anything bad about Mr. Chavez while you're there. If you do, you can expect a lengthy jail sentence or much worse. Good Luck!
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/03/07 2:42 PM |
The Conviction of Scooter Libby is only the first indication of the contempt this administration has for the Constitution and the rules that have served this country so well for 230 years.
Also, a 24% approval rating says everything that needs to be said.
Posted by V.Bevilacqua | 11/06/07 9:05 AM |
Mr. Bevilacqua named one person in the Bush administration, aide to VP Cheney, Scooter Libby, who was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury in the left-wing led weak attempt at getting at this administration. An example he uses to justify an entire administration's supposed abuse of the Constitution. Is this the
basis for your position? How about this? 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. Bill Clinton, himself, was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury, although acquitted by a slim majority. Is this what you'd rather have? This is what we can look forward to in another Clinton administration. As for Bush's popularity, it has nothing to do with any violations of Constitutional rights. His sink in the polls is based soley on the war in Iraq, even though the vast majority of Americans and Congress agreed to go to war with Saddam, based on intelligence that proved faulty in part. War is not popular, and no president during war has fared well in the polls. Were it not for the war, Bush's approval rating would skyrocket. The alternative: The left-wing's cut and run policy would inevitably lead to mass annilation of a democratic nation by Iran and Al Qaeda elements. Is this what you want? Wake up people!
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/09/07 2:59 PM |
neoconfascism
Posted by Anr (Hungary, Europe) | 11/14/07 7:33 AM |
What I would like to know is what are all these International Socialists:
Melvin L Haun Sr
Jason R. Denny
V. Bevilacqua
Beerdo
Anr (Hungary, Europe)
doing here in the first place? I think you mistakenly made a right handed turn at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground or whatever rock you live under.
Oh and "Anr" you must have such melancholy daydreams about the big comforting blanket of the USSR. Such a shame that you have to work and fend for yourself now. Hungary much be such a hell hole since it's independence. You might want to take Robert Bryson's advice and try Cuba or Venezuela if you prefer Utopia over Liberty.
Posted by | 11/14/07 10:49 AM |
What I would like to know is what are all these International Socialists:
Melvin L Haun Sr
Jason R. Denny
V. Bevilacqua
Beerdo
Anr (Hungary, Europe)
doing here in the first place? I think you mistakenly made a right handed turn at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground or whatever rock you live under.
Oh and "Anr" you must have such melancholy daydreams about the big comforting blanket of the USSR. Such a shame that you have to work and fend for yourself now. Hungary much be such a hell hole since it's independence. You might want to take Robert Bryson's advice and try Cuba or Venezuela if you prefer Utopia over Liberty.
Posted by Doug | 11/14/07 10:49 AM |
What exactly are we fighting for in Iraq? What does it mean to "win" this war? I just got back from Iraq and I still have no clue.
Iraq never attacked us, this is an illegal war of aggression, and DO NOT give me that BS about freeing the people of Iraq.
None of the Iraqi people want to be free. They do not even know what freedom is. It is not part of their culture or tradition.
articles like this seem to be so tangential as to be actually funny. This author is delusional....
Posted by David Frederiksen (just back from Iraq) | 11/14/07 10:55 AM |
Where did the conviction of Scooter Libby come from? It was from the "outing" of a CIA operative, namely Valerie Plame-Wilson. She and her husband, Joseph Wilson are real patriots.
That action could legally be construed as treason.
Posted by V.Bevilacqua | 11/14/07 1:26 PM |
The Wilsons may be patriots, but I'm not so sure you are Mr. Bevilacqua. For one thing, Libby was not convicted of "outing" Ms. Plame. The "outing" was "accomplished" by journalist Robert Novak, who stated that no one from the Bush administration called him to "out" her and that no crime was committed in doing so since she was not in a classified covert position at the CIA. You might want to smarten up before you make any more stupid statements minus the facts. So far you haven't made an intelligent statement yet. If you can't do better, please spare us from your plethora of vacuities. In order to make allegations, you need to back them up with facts. This keeps things fair and balanced. I'm still trying to figure out what your point is!?!
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/15/07 2:51 AM |
Wait Mr. Bevilacqua, I think I now understand your position. Let's say someone in the large Bevilacqua family is convicted of a crime. Based upon that, we can conclude conclusively, that you and the rest of your family are also criminals. That's it! Now I see your point!
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/15/07 6:13 AM |
Most of these "Myths" are just strawmen. Nobody makes these definite statements.
For example...
Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.
I've never heard anyone make this patently false claim.
Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.
Your first sentence is "In most cases, the reverse is true".
Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.
Again, I've never heard anyone make a statement like this. I've heard people say things like "If we strike out blindly at random people, we'll create new enemies."
Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.
Another ridiculous strawman. Nobody say this. Everyone agrees that American can fight as "fiercely" as it wants. But it must, and does, operate under a set of self-given rules. For example, the US will never use suicide bombers, publicly behead prisoners of war, etc..
Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.
This is simply false (it being a myth I mean). There's countless pols by creditable orgs published that show Anti-Americanism has risen sharply since Bush came to office. Your little anecdotes prove nothing.
Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.
Again, nobody makes this statement. Here's what people say.. Our invasion of Iraq created MORE terrorist problems
Im bored now. I guess your article is an interesting look at the "black and white" view of the world held by right-wing authoritarians, but as a piece of analysis its very poor indeed.
Posted by bpower | 11/15/07 1:27 PM |
Apparently "bpower" lives in a shell and only comes out when prodded by the loony left. I'm sure this person is as well travelled in the Middle East and educated in military history as is Lt. Col. Ralph Peters. Unfortunately, because bpower has never heard anyone make claims he's listed, we're to believe they never happened. Awaken bpower, the far-left makes these claims on a near daily basis. Just stay tuned to your heroes Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi and you'll catch up on current events quickly. Nice try, but you've bloviated with little to no substance.
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/15/07 2:23 PM |
Robert W Bryson. That, by request, is one name of an individual whose Constitutioanl rights have been violated by this administration. It seems that you either aren't familiar with the Constitution or perhaps, the "Patriot Act" which dismantles the Constitution and the rights given to EVERY citizen of the USA. It is you Mr. Bryson who have lost your rights. You are just too short-sighted and ignorant to know so.
Posted by Request Granted | 11/16/07 6:02 AM |
To Request Granted. Notice the "poster" is anonymous--a gutless ghost who doesn't have the courage to identify themself while throwing out diatribes. Won't waste any more time on this spineless idiot!
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/16/07 12:27 PM |
"That, by request, is one name of an individual whose Constitutioanl rights have been violated by this administration."
Um, no - it was a Democratic witch hunt that did that. Wilson was so proud of his wife he identified her as a CIA employee long before she was supposedly outed. And Libby's rights were violated by the Democrats - not under the Patriot act or any other legislation.
By the way, Bpower - I've seen your supposedly refuted claims on Democratic Underground, Metafilter and other sites. Oddly enough, they've been shoved out hard by the left since about, oh, 2002.
Posted by JLawson | 11/16/07 12:56 PM |
Good stuff.
RE: Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.
I would have added the point that the anti-American PMs in Germany and France have been replaced by pro-American politicians. England has changed their PM, but haven't shifted policy much at all.
The idea that we need to patch up our relationship with our allies is a dated idea.
Request granted:
If the Constitution had been dismantled, then you would be locked in an insane asylum, sent to a People's Re-Education camp, or dead. The fact that you are writing useless, unsupported hyperbole is a tribute to the fact that freedom of speech is alive and well in the USA.
Posted by kevino | 11/16/07 12:56 PM |
Let all the fools fight for their loss of personal liberties. Surely it is a battle they can win.
Posted by Request Granted | 11/17/07 4:38 AM |
The revelations by former press spokesman Scott McClellan's forthcoming book are VERY INTERESTING.
It does totally refute the comments by JLawson.
I guess only time will tell as far as the eventual outcome of "PLAMEGATE".
Posted by V.Bevilacqua | 11/21/07 10:38 AM |
Seems easy for V.Bevilacqua to believe one Bush aide over another only to fit his warped views, even before all the facts and the book have come out. Who's to say McClellan is more credible? When McClellan was pressed by the media, he stated that he did not mean that Bush knew anything about the Plame "outing". What other revelations did he "not mean"? How about letting all the facts surface before we judge! Isn't that how the US justice system is supposed to work? This is so typical of the left loons to rush to judgement. I had a feeling you would pounce on this non-story!
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/21/07 4:08 PM |
Let's see! Does Scott McClellan have an agenda? He's no longer in the limelight, he's out of a job and needs the money, his mother is an avid Bush hater. You make the call!
Posted by JLB | 11/21/07 4:36 PM |
The election result in Australia is very interesting, isn't it?
Enlightening, too.
Posted by V.Bevilacqua | 11/25/07 11:56 AM |
I've read all the comments on this page and frankly I find the ones coming from V.Bevilacqua the most "uninteresting" and boring and off the subject matter of this article. For one thing "interesting" comments normally come from someone with little-to-no intelligence with an inability to say something substantive. This article is about the "12 Myths of 21st-Century War". Try sticking to the subject matter or find a blog where others, of your minimal IQ, will find your "interesting" comments interesting.
Posted by GLWoodhall | 11/26/07 1:37 AM |
You find it easy to complain? Got it tough? In keeping with the spirit of this article, try exuding some patriotism and support our troops in harm's way. After all:
You stay up for 16 hours. He stays up for days on end.
You take a warm shower to help you wake up. He goes days or weeks without running water.
You complain of a "headache", and call in sick. He gets shot at as others are hit, and keeps moving forward.
You put on your anti- war/don't support the troops shirt, and go meet up with your friends. He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.
You make sure your cell phone is in your pocket. He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.
You talk trash about your "buddies" that aren't with you. He knows he may not see some of his buddies again.
You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls. He patrols the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.
You complain about how hot it is. He wears his heavy gear, not daring to take off his helmet to wipe his brow.
You go out to lunch, and complain because the restaurant got your order wrong. He doesn't get to eat today.
You make your bed and wash your clothes. He wears the same things for weeks, but makes sure his weapons are clean.
You go to the mall and get your hair redone. He doesn't have time to brush his teeth today.
You're angry because your class ran 5 minutes over. He's told he will be held over an extra 2 months.
You call your girlfriend and set a date for tonight. He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.
You hug and kiss your wife or girlfriend, like you do everyday. He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.
You roll your eyes as a baby cries. He gets a letter with pictures of his new child, and wonders if they'll ever meet.
You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything. He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting.
You hear the jokes about the war, and make fun of men like him. He hears the gunfire, bombs and screams of the wounded.
You see only what the media wants you to see. He sees the broken bodies lying around him.
You are asked to go to the store by your parents. You don't. He does exactly what he is told even if it puts his life in danger.
You stay at home and watch TV. He takes whatever time he is given to call, write home, sleep, and eat.
You crawl into your soft bed, with down pillows, and get comfortable. He tries to sleep but gets woken by mortars and helicopters all night long.
How's your day going? It's not like you know the men and women that are dying to preserve your rights.
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 11/27/07 3:24 PM |
I don't get it! I notice a few people like V.Bevilacqua and Request Granted keep saying our Constitutional rights have been violated or eroded by the Bush administration. I'd like to know what rights they and I have lost to Bush other than the right to be a terrorist. Seems to me I'd be more concerned with loons like the food police who tell us what we can eat, the smoking police who tell us that we can't smoke, those who want to ban spanking, those that want to give illegals driver's licenses, free health care and college tuition, those that oppose religious freedom, those that want to take away our guns, the transportation police who tell us what and when to drive and where and how to sit, and much more. These are basic freedoms that have been or are trying to be taken away by loony liberals who have nothing better to do than mess with people's rights in a "free" society. Now I'm not the smartest person in the world and neither are you, but I do maintain a level of common sense. I know that Amerians young and old have a right to live in peace and freedom, and those who want to harm us should have no rights. So, please help me out here. Tell me what rights I have lost because of Bush. You've never given any facts to back up your claims. I guess if you are a terrorist, I'd complain too. Other than that I sleep good at nights knowing that the Bush administration, Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are helping to keep me and my family and friends as safe as humanly possible.
Posted by JLB | 11/27/07 8:21 PM |
"We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself."
Odd that his fourth-to-last sentence is the best criticism of his rhetoric....
While I may agree with some of his points, he seems quite guilty of a tactic the Republicans have used all too often: anecdote supercedes fact.
There, I just did it myself. I have real 22 books, at least, and know when the snow is blowing.
Posted by RB | 11/27/07 10:33 PM |
RB? I take it most of the books you have read are in the Harry Potter series. I'm curious. What kind of "Republican" ARE you? Obviously one without substance. Bloviation reigns on....Duh!
Posted by GLWoodhall | 11/28/07 1:49 AM |
I think all of the "blame-America-first" and America-haters out there should engage in the democratic process that determines public policy in our country and try to persuade enough of their fellow citizens to achieve a majority opinion and turn that majority opinion into public policy at the ballot box. Some of the more articulate ones, in the Democrat party, have tried to do so, but without success. Most Americans love their country and want to protect their way of life and preserve all the good things about America for future generations, and do not engage in such self-loathing, self-centered and harmful world-views as the left upholds and displays. Because the America-haters are unable to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to enact their power-hungry, freedom-limiting goals of the left-wing agenda, they resort to attempting to have their wills imposed on the majority of Americans via sympathetic judges in the U.S. Court system, circumventing the democratic process. Thank God our founding fathers had the intelligence, desire and vision to create what was then, and still is, the best country to have ever have existed on this earth.
Posted by Tom Disbro | 12/06/07 2:08 PM |
Excellent article, very good analysis of the diesease that plagues the Western world today, named LEFTISM. There could be much more to add to it, especially regarding the economic and social aspects of leftism and its role in the undeniable decline of the Western world.
Posted by Lucian Enescu | 12/12/07 10:10 AM |
I have noticed that no one has commented on #11.
Could it be that #11 is the most accurate and is definately the most undeniable paragraph? The Saudis are the most two-faced hypocrites ever. We should remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. There is also the fact that they demand "respect" for their religion while having none for any other. They need to be reminded that respect is a "two way street", and you are only entitled to receive the amount of respect you are willing to give.
Posted by V. Bevilacqua | 12/14/07 9:01 AM |
Great Stand Up article.
I served in Vietnam and I would serve in this War too. However; I am past the age limit.I support the troops, their loved ones and our president. I remember what it was like to come home to a divided country. The pain it created is still endured by many Veterans and their famlies. Do the right thing ...support our country...Truth,Honor,Courage,and liberty is the American way. This is what
our enemy hates. The USA is the best thing going.If, you do not like us leave.. JRC
Posted by Rex Clark | 12/23/07 3:44 PM |
My hat is off to Mr. Peters!
I sent his message to everyone on my email list.
Posted by Rick Neighbors | 12/26/07 5:58 PM |
What is a 'campus slogan', and it what University textbooks can we find the apparently often repeated false 'campus slogan' that 'war never changes anything' ?
Or did the author just make it up?
Posted by Dominic Marcello | 01/02/08 6:43 PM |
In fact, the phrase 'war doesn't change anything' returns references to this very page as the top three hits. You'd think if it were such a popular 'campus slogan' it would deliver some university related hits, wouldn't you?
I would submit that the idea that, given the evidence, 'war doesn't change anything' isn't really popular among any group of people,and that the author merely fabricated this 'campus slogan' as a non-existent 'myth' in order to further his political agenda.
Posted by Dominic Marcello | 01/02/08 6:49 PM |
In fact, the phrase 'war doesn't change anything' returns references to this very page as the top three hits. You'd think if it were such a popular 'campus slogan' it would deliver some university related hits, wouldn't you?
I would submit that the idea that, given the evidence, 'war doesn't change anything' isn't really popular among any group of people,and that the author merely fabricated this 'campus slogan' as a non-existent 'myth' in order to further his political agenda.
Posted by Dominic Marcello | 01/02/08 6:50 PM |
I submit that the word "popular", used by Dominic Marcello in his comment above, was never used by Col Peters in Myth #1 and was solely fabricated to further this person's agenda. The fact that the "war" phrase does not appear in the top three hits, in your search, does not demean the fact that it's said by ultra-liberals or advertised on bumper stickers across the country. Other hits on search prove otherwise. Still it does not detract from the content of the myth which makes a logical point that is irrefutable. Perhaps you should refrain from such comments in the future since you've failed to make a point or are unable to substantiate one.
Posted by Robert W Bryson, CMSgt USAF Retired | 01/07/08 8:57 PM |
We in middle Virginia just had this hack piece by ralph peters in our Sunday paper (Fredericksburg Free Lance Star).
What a disgrace to the US military that he views the on-going travails as a neo-con, as though the rest the country is stupid enough to believe his shilling hackery/lies.
The only statement I agree wholeheartedly with is regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where I spent much too much time, and of the 7 years I spent living and working in the Middle East (most of it with my family, so it wasn't tent-duty only), but living amongst the local populaces. KSA was one of two places that I consider corrupt as the day is long and evil to US and US interests. The other one is Israel, bar none the most corrupt nation-state in the modern world. But Mr. Peters, being a JINSA hack, gets his 'air time' by shilling for AIPAC, JINSA and the neo-cons. So he has to avoid that israel is absolutely no real friend or ally of America.
And that makes his entire piece intellectually and historically (and wholly) inaccurate. That is: I personally trust ALL countries in the Middle East before Israel, excepting, of course, for KSA.
Posted by Schlomo (CMSgt, USAF retired) | 01/13/08 9:08 PM |
I'm sorry Schlomo, I have no idea what you are talking about and what your point is! KSA, JINSA, AIPAC? Are these fast-food restaurants? You know like KFC? Speak English and maybe your point would have an ounce of validity!
Posted by JLB | 01/15/08 3:39 PM |
JLB: I'm sorry that you are handicapped.
JINSA: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
AIPAC: c'mon, surely you're not THAT handicapped to now know what AIPAC stands for.
KSA: ever been to the Middle East? I mention this in the 1st line of the 3rd paragraph, Saudi Arabia (the "K" part being: "Kingdom of." I'm sorry that you've not been to the area to have a better grasp. That is indeed a handicap as well.
Point being: If mr. peters even had a fair view of the situation, he'd not be allowed anywhere near Legion magazine, AIPAC or JINSA hacks.
Posted by Schlomo | 01/20/08 10:25 AM |
Schlomo: For someone who was an alleged Chief in the Air Force, a supposed leader, teacher, and role model for subordinates, I'm extremely disappointed in your condescending choice of words to explain your position and define your use of acronyms. "Handicapped"? If you wish to get across your point, a bit of diplomacy on your part would be a more effective teaching tool don't you think?! Sorry we're not all as smart as you! I'm happy I never had to work for you. I just lost all respect for your position when you labeled me "handicapped"! Please spare us from further diatribes.
Posted by JLB | 01/29/08 4:01 PM |
Let's place aside the myths that have already shown to polarize even the members of the AL.
It is difficult to refute that the generals who have thus far directed this effort in Iraq were given insufficient forces to start with. Our current policies on the ground are a step in the right direction (increase the number of troops on the ground is a good idea? *gasp* Who'd have "thunk"?!), but have now placed an inordinate amount of strain upon the military forces pursuing a stable Iraq. Had we stepped into the ring - so to speak - with overwhelming numbers in the first place and had not made foolish mistakes of policy all those years ago, we would undoubtedly be in a different situation than we are now: an Iraq years away from stability that demands a vested U.S. interest should such a stability become possible, and an Afghanistan that still faces an insurgent problem which has recently called for a resurgence in U.S. forces (3,500 Marines?).
The road ahead is long and difficult, and a volunteer military that must make gigantic sacrifices to chase a condition we can call "victory" is the one that will have to walk it, thanks to an American population that no longer possesses enough civic responsibility to grow a backbone and step up to the plate in times of need by obeying a military conscription draft.
Imagine the wonders we'd accomplish in Iraq with 500,000 soldiers on the ground. A wet dream. Too bad.
Iraq CAN be "won". Unfortunately, the civilian population does not possess the conviction to do so.
Posted by Ray Gillespie (SGT, US Army) | 01/30/08 5:12 PM |
Mr. Peters is totally correct. This great nation which has been defended by America's finest and bravest is slipping away from duty for country and service and honor. From our class rooms to our own living rooms here in America, many young Americans have no idea how this nation evolved, or what it took to keep this country strong, safe, and free. The United States of America has been nothing but an agent for good in the world always standing taller then all other nations in times of disaster, or in times of war. We have liberated millions of people across the globe, from Europe, to Asia, the Middle East, and Central America. Generations of people owe their own freedom to the United States. We learned valubale lessons through years of bloodshed, that the only way to maintain the peace, is through America's overwhelming strength. We must remember that this nation never went to war because our country was too strong. This great country can never be too strong, it must always be a work in progress. The basics need to be brought back in our schools and quickly. It is an honor to serve the United States, and thousands died defending that honor. Our country used to have heroes, people we all looked up to with pride and awe. Much of that is lacking today, and in a time of war, when thousands under arms are fighting far away, we could use these heroes to begin to bridge the gap between those who really care and those who pay little or no attention. We all know here that freedom is not free. Unfortunately today, we have too many Americans, and too many young Americans, who believe and think otherwise, and who give back little or nothing, and who contribute nothing to our American way of life. All this needs to end.
Posted by Kirk Polizzi | 02/13/08 12:30 PM |
I totally agree with Cmsgt. Bryson's comments. However, in one he referred to "faulty intelligence" as a basis for the Iraqi War.
That may be correct, or the intelligence may have been made "false" when Saddam hustled his bad toys to Syria and Iran. It's a thought.
Posted by Wallace Todd | 06/30/08 4:31 PM |