A few weeks back I raised the question: "Why study war?" Sometimes NPI contributor Richard Borkowski offers up some evidence as to why at comment #24 at this post on the recent MoveOn.org story:
"Wars are started by the military commanders. They are ended by the public. The public will end this one too."
A quick history lesson for Brokowski on how the major wars of American history were concluded:
American Revolution - ended when England failed to defeat the colonists militarily and said, "fine, give this self-rule thing a try for a bit."
The War of 1812 - ditto, except England was actually serious the 2nd time.
The Mexican War - ended with Mexico's defeat on the field of battle and resulting surrender.
The Civil War - ended with the Confederacy's collapse after the unconditional surrender of its defeated armies.
The Spanish-American War - ended when Spain said, "No mas!"
World War I - ended when Germany capitulated to the militarily victorious Allies.
World War II - ended with the surrender and complete occupation of the Axis powers following their complete military defeat by Allied forces.
Korean War - ended when see-saw fighting between Chinese and American forces eventually stabilized along a physical border that allowed for an acceptable truce.
Vietman War - the only war that even remotely fits Borkowski's statement about public opinion ending a war, though even that point has its own long, complex debate.
All of the wars above were started for a lot more reasons than simply by "military commanders." They sure as heck didn't end simply because the public wished it to be so, whatever the public's desired outcome.
Thus, we see a flaw in the far left exemplified by MoveOn.org: the inability to view military conflict beyond the lens of Vietnam. Listen to the fervent anti-war left these days complain about "the War" and you want to ask them which one they're talking about since the rhetoric between this conflict and Vietnam is almost identical. In failing understand their historical error, liberals aligned with the likes of MoveOn.org fundamentally fail to see warfare in its full historical perspective...which is most definitely not typified by Vietnam.
This sort of thinking has contributed in no small part to the current errant ways of MoveOn. So errant in fact the MSM is picking up the growing separation between MoveOn and the Democratic party (who by comparison is at least reality based). Washington Post staple The Fix explored the topic, which was picked up by the P-I's Strange Bedfellows blog. Quoting The Fix
"Simply put the MoveOn people are a gift to the GOP," said Republican direct-mail consultant Dan Hazelwood. "MoveOn are heirs to the same people who called the 19-year old soldiers drafted into Vietnam 'baby killers'."Democrats pushed back that Republicans were trying to drum up a controversy by focusing on MoveOn rather than the substance of Petraeus' testimony. But, privately, the controversy over the ad highlighted the real disconnect between how the party's base views the war and how the party establishment sees it.
Time and time again, Democratic lawmakers have acknowledged that many in the party's base expected or believed that the day after the party regained control of the House and Senate, following the November 2006 election, the U.S. would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. That, of course, is impossible given the rules of the Senate where 60 votes are required to close off debate, and Democrats remain unable to garner that sort of support for any legislative vehicle.
Now, the Republican base knows something about this last point. Sixty votes in the Senate was a major hurdle for Republicans even when it controlled Congress during George W. Bush's Presidency. Likewise, it was a point of immense frustration after the Republican Revolution in 1994, where a lack of sixty votes and an artful Bill Clinton foiled conservative legislative efforts time and time again.
In the midst of that frustration can come the error of overreach. If they aren't careful, MoveOn.org and the liberal base of the Democratic party are on the cusp of the same error Republicans made a little over a decade ago. Thus, we'll find out soon enough if Browkowski is right, that "MoveOn.org seems to largely echo the sentiments of the American public."
UPDATE: first paragraph fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 11, 2007 08:08 PM | Email ThisThere was too much turmoil for that to ever happen!
Yeh right!
Years and years later Germany put itself back together, Poland put itself back together, even Russia decided freedom was better than communism. etc etc
Damn Why the rush on Iraq in such a short time?
Dumbocraps political gains, pure and simple.
They have no plan for Iraq other than to use it for their gang of political hacks.
It is getting very tiring
I'll believe the generals in the field who live with the troops and situation any day before I can listen again to a know it all dumbocrap.
Discussion of the real underlying problems, and more importantly paths to solutions are absolutely verboten amongst these lefties. They love the term quagmire, because that's what they want. A quagmire of bureaucracy and rhetoric that attempts to turn back the clock.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 11, 2007 09:40 PMMoveon.crap would repeat that shamefull performance today. They are no better than traitors and deserve a traitors' fate: to be put up against a wall and shot.
Posted by: Mike S on September 11, 2007 09:47 PMHmm... Which category does the Iraq war fall under?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 11, 2007 10:22 PMWhat do you mean we don't care about our fighting men and women? We want them home on the next plane.
It makes me sick that any of these fine young peole had to die or get wounded--and unlike Brian Baird, the Republican Party and over half the Democratic Party, I intend to keep their blood off my hands.
and btw, Korea was ended by the people, who elected Eisenhower who promised he would "go to Korea." Which he did and ended the war against the military's (MacArthur's, anyway) wishes. On his way out, he warned against the military-industrial complex--a classic captured bureaucracy there, I'd say!
Best wishes and happy blogging, youall,
-- new left conservative #1
You support the troops and "want them home on the next plane." I interpret this as, "I support the troops, but I don't support what they joined the military to do, what they rigorously trained to do, and what they do every day. I want them to stop doing it. AND I SUPPORT THEM."
Defensive much?
Posted by: AD on September 12, 2007 12:14 AMWWII - Germany surrendered unconditionally, but Japan surrendered conditionally. The main condition was immunity for the emperor. Before Congress or the President could respond, MacArthur accepted.
I make a point of this because I've heard more than one history revisionist claim that we dropped the atomic bomb on japan because we insisted on "unconditional" surrender. Truth is, they had no intention of surrendering even after the bomb, but the emperor requested the govn't surrender, they agreed and thankfully for all so did MacArthur.
You can hardly compare this was with wars like WWII or other major wars. My Mother was a nurse in WWII and it affected her for the rest of her life. We have yet to fight the war at home. I hope you're supportive of the huge medical spending that will be necessary when our troops come home with limbs missing and mental disorders.
The difference between WWII and this war is that there was actually planning done. We didn't have a Secretary of War who thought we'd out of there in 6 weeks or 6 months. Further, my parents were both very loyal Republicans until Richard Nixon (tricky Dick) came along. They even had a photo of Nixon hanging in their bedroom. That was taken down, however, after he stepped down from the Presidency. It was that corruption that turn my parents into Democrats.
This war was launched based on dishonest grounds, or as George Will says in his recent Op-Ed, ficticious. He also says the surge has failed by the President's own standards.
Read for yourself this Op-Ed, titled "A War Still Seeking a Mission"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002065.html
From his Op-Ed:
What "forced" America to go to war in 2003 -- the "gathering danger" of weapons of mass destruction -- was fictitious. That is one reason this war will not be fought, at least not by Americans, to the bitter end. The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president's decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war -- the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.
And this foriegn policy hs the undesirable effect of making us less safe by inciting more hatred torwards america.
In other words... It may be that the troops signed up to go do nation build in an unconstitutional war, but that is not why they should have signed up for the military. You can support the troops and appreciate their sacrifice, but our foriegn policy should always be judged on it constitutionality not on whether the troops like it or not.
Travis
Posted by: Travis PahlIn on September 12, 2007 05:46 AMIt's worth takeing a look. It's going to take all of us to take these clown down!
Posted by: dcat on September 12, 2007 06:30 AMYou nailed it! The left hates George Bush because he is a social conservative. They will do anything, including selling out American interests, to see George Bush discredited and driven from office.
Leftists want socialism (so someone else pays the bills), abortion on demand (so no one see their "mistakes") and sodomite marriage (to destroy America's moral fiber).
This is NOT your father's (or grandfather's, judging by the immaturity of many of SP's recent contributors) Democrat party. Leftists: Read and understand American history, and not the revisionist crap the public schools teach, before you post.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 12, 2007 07:24 AM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Travis.
Give it up, we have been going to war since Korea. Like it or not, it's the way Congress does it.
Your point in meaningless.
kthxbye
Posted by: Aaron on September 12, 2007 11:30 AMSee: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_military_history.html
Posted by: Paddy on September 12, 2007 11:42 AMYour point is well taken and thanks for pointing out my incorrect generalization. I would point out that your conclusion that this war is somehow similar to WWI, WWII or the Revolutionary war is equally flawed. Those were wars against countries. This is a 'war on terror', however you may define that. It's not a war against a country since the terrorists aren't connected to any particular country.
Since there are over a billion Muslims vs. 160,000 soldiers, it doesn't seem to me that we're going to 'win' any war on terror anytime soon.
It also differs from other wars in the unchecked war profiteering that has taken place and is just beginning to be documented. It's simply stunning. $8 billion in cash bricks flown in on pallets, for instance. Over 360 tons in all. Most of it unaccounted for. That's just one example of many. I would think if you truly support the war, you would at least be speaking out against war profiteering, which I think everyone can agree hurts the military, our country's image and the safety of our soldiers as well as the Iraqis.
A major goal we had (and it was stated us a goal in just about all the statements from the whitehouse at the time) was to stop the spread of communism throughout South East Asia.
Looking back, I think that did happen. Am I wrong, or was North Korea the last country in the region that went red?
The stated goals of Iraq were to oust Saddam and set-up a representational government in the region that could be a model for others. Saddam is gone. They have a higher percentage of their adult population voting for leaders than we do in the states. Seems like things are on the right track.
Yes, there is still fighting amongst some factions. As I remember, we were still fighting indians well into the late 1800's, fought a civil war, and had a lot of skirmishes internally along the way both internally and with our neighbors. (Remember the Alamo? How about "54-40 or Fight" here in the Northwest.)
No, they don't have their political act completely together. Our country declared independence in 1776. I don't think most of the major documents we use today were ratified until 1787 and we still have some incredibly major divisions between our political factions that can be pretty ugly and damaging to our overall national interest. (Any remember the government shutdowns of the early 1990s?)
I agree that we aren't where we want to be in Iraq, but unfortunately Iran and Al Queda disagrees with what we are tying to do in that country and the enemy gets a vote. They are sending materials, funding and more to fight us and destabilize the country. So it Al Queda.
The real question now is do we let all of our progress go by the wayside. Do we surrender? I think most people are growing to understand that it would be pretty foolish too. IF we don't finish the job now, we'll just end up sending the next generation to fight it, and in the meantime the enemy just becomes more dug in and better equipped. (This is exactly what's happened in North Korea.)
The major media doesn't report it, but while YES, most Americans do want the war to end, most also don't want us to lose. They would prefer we win.
The only people that don't want that seem to be the democratic leadership, which beyond dispute puts thim in the same camp as Iran and Al Queda. Maybe if they worked to help win this war, it would be over by now and less Americans would be dying.
You would rather Iraq become what Afghanistan was and watch another thousand or so, or perhaps millions more, or your fellow citizens die in a fiery nuclear death?
As for me, I know what the price is of liberty: blood. It has always been and will always be that someone has to fight, someone has to die for liberty's sake. I am proud that our uniformed military is the best at what they do in the entire history of the world. I am proud that they do it selflessly, without just recompense, and as volunteers.
The alternative is captivity and death.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on September 12, 2007 02:49 PMIf there is a man or woman who is physically, mentally & emotionally strong and has been trained to perform some function in combat--and this describes all of our troops--I do not want to waste that person's life, I want them to be there for us if our country is ever in danger.
That's what supporting our troops really means.
You can't throw people's lives away in hopeless foreign entanglements and then make everything all right by saying, "I support you guys."
These troops are young, motivated to serve, and have unbelievably positive attitudes about what we tell them to do. That doesn't make it right, it just tells you how fine these men and women actually are.
Thanks all, new left conservative #1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on September 12, 2007 02:52 PMThe US came in, killed the Iraqi dictator, and gave the Iraqis a golden opportunity to set up a just, intelligent and moral government.
The Iraqis, unfortunately, were unable to rise above their own sectarian hatreds. They were unable or unwilling to come together to take their own destiny into their hands.
They have blown their chance. It is now too late. The American people have spent 10 times more than they wanted to pay for this, and have sacrificed 10 times the soldiers they were willing to sacrifice. It is only a matter of time before the bulk of the troops are withdrawn.
The result will be chaos and civil war. The Iraqis will share the blame for this.
The Iraqis do not want a free country. They want an Islamic state. They also want bloodshed of rival Muslim sect members. Soon, they will get what they want. In fact, they are getting it right now, whether we like it or not.
Why are we dying for them? Why are US taxpayers wasting the fruits of their working hours for these ungrateful people?
The sooner we get out and leave them to their own devices the better.
If we get out, al Qaida will be so busy killing other Muslims in order to set up a Taliban-like theocracy in their home countries, (especially Saudi Arabia) they will be too busy to plot to kill Americans on American soil.
The US occupation of the Middle East is the biggest recruiting tool that extremist Islam has.
As far as Viet Nam is concerned, see the documentary on John McNamara. He says that the US thought it was stopping the spread of communism. But the local VietNameese thought they were defending their homeland from an invading imperialist nation, just like the French in decades past.
This aspect is similar to Iraq. The radical suicide bombers think they are defending the Islamic holy land from infidel imperialist invaders who plan to occupy their homeland forever. (Now we find that our bases in Saudi Arabia and Iraq are permanent...) We think we are fighting the spread of Islamic Jihad. Nope, we've stumbled into the perpetual middle east civil war, which has been going on since before Laurence of Arabia, and will continue for decades to come.
Our presence there is worse than pointless. It is against our own long term rational self interest.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 12, 2007 03:11 PMYou think what they really want is continued war between factions? I don't think so. I think what they want (and need) is a way to work out their disgreements other than bloodshed.
Democracy is an amazing thing. I mean think about it, the most powerful nation in the history of the world changes hands without a shoot every 10 years or so and even some of the most ugly disagreements on property ownership, religious freedoms, individual rights versus the majority, etc. all managed to get settled without neighbors killing each other.
Democracy can work in the middle east - or at the very least it's worth trying and could be a lot more cost effective in the long run than what we have been doing. I mean think about it, we've tried for decades and spent billions on "negotiated peace" in the mid-east. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we given in foreign aid to the region? Still it's one of the most troubled regions in the world and plenty of blood is shed there with us or without us.
As for the number of soldiers we've lost, it's terrible, but we lost just about as many in about 4 hours about 6 years ago now because we've allowed the middle east to fester for decades.
I say again and I believe that taking a short view and giving up now only hands the problem to our children.
About the only one I see on that list that you could argue by a military commander might be the Mexican-American War, where General Zachary Taylor antagonized the Mexicans, possibly intentionally, by moving his troops into the disputed area between the Rio Grande and Nueces rivers.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on September 12, 2007 05:02 PMAnd you think that's what it means to "support the troops"? Pulling them out before they have completed their mission and achieved total victory is the WORST thing you could do--that does NOT "support the troops". They don't want to leave with their tails between their legs, they want to win. Why don't you stow your defeatist attitudes and REALLY support the troops by supporting their mission?
Richard Borkowski "Since there are over a billion Muslims vs. 160,000 soldiers, it doesn't seem to me that we're going to 'win' any war on terror anytime soon."
So you think that the plan is to start a war against every muslim in the world? What planet are you living on? Sure that is what the Radical Islamists would like to have happen--but it certainly isn't what any rational person would want to do.
Bruce Guthrie: "The Iraqis do not want a free country. They want an Islamic state."
Where did you get this idea? Sure there are some elements that would like that, but to generalize that to all Iraqis is ridiculous.
Bruce Guthrie: "The US occupation of the Middle East is the biggest recruiting tool that extremist Islam has."
No, the biggest recruiting tool would be the U.S. bailing out of Iraq before the job is done. If you don't think withdrawing, as the Left wants, wouldn't be spun as "The Mujahadeen has forced the Great Satan from the battlefield", you're living in dreamland. If we leave now, we drastically embolden our enemies and stab our allies in the back (LIKE WE DID TO THE SOUTH VIETMAMESE). We won't be trusted by any of our allies.
Bruce Guthrie: "Now we find that our bases in Saudi Arabia and Iraq are permanent..."
Huh? We pulled out of Saudia Arabia about 4 or 5 years ago..
Posted by: Bill H on September 12, 2007 05:56 PMO-please Bruce, do you really want to bring up Mr. Wiz-kid John McN.
One of the JFK kids who wanted to land F-111 bombers on the Navy carriers. Scary.
The left is trying so hard to rebuild that mans past.
Why is everyone so uptight about the idea of "permenant bases" in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
How many soldiers and permanent bases do we still have in Cuba, Korea, Germany, Japan and other "hot spots" 40 and 50 years after the wars that happened there. What makes Iraq special and different?
I can't help noticing that these places like Germany and France - the ones that used to be in wars all the time? Doesn't happen anymore!
Anyone see Japan attack anyone lately? Even North Korea is relatively behaved. (If you call starving and enslaving millions of their own people behaving, but at least they aren't at war with anyone.)
Why do we believe that once the government is stablized (or even more importantly before it is) it's not a good idea to keep the bases there?
Posted by: johnny on September 12, 2007 07:07 PMThis is not your fathers or grandfathers GOP either. Reagan admited as we left lebanon what a horrible mistake it was getting involved in the mideast. Conservatives have historically wanted a strong military for defense and tried to avoid wars. Bush has instead used it for offense and ignored Reagans lesson.
And then there are the domestic spending and regulation increases!!! Don't even get me started!
Posted by: Travis on September 12, 2007 07:07 PMJust because congress decided to stop following the constitution in the 50's does not mean it is right nor should it be excepted. It is wrong and not meaningless. Look at the results! Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia? Success? You might say Bosnia or Iraq 1 were successes, but look at how we still have troops there keepig the peace. WE do not have one victory in an undeclared war in most peoples minds. Yet constitutionally declared wars we are undefeated.
THere is a reason for the requirement in the constitution. The power to war should rest in the peoples representatives, not the executive branch. It is an important check and balance that has been forgotten to our detriment.
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 12, 2007 07:12 PMGood question... Here is a great speech by Ron Paul to congress before they violated the constition this way back in 2002 on the very subject you are interested in.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 12, 2007 07:15 PMTaking the long view, wouldn't it be fair to say that some of these "undeclared" wars stopped "declared' wars from being necessary int he first place?
If the communists had swept through southeast asia in the 60's, do you really no believe they would be sweeping through South America today? Once they hit Mexico, do you really think they would stop there?
If not for Iraq I, and the pounding we gave Saddam and company, do you really think Saddam would have stopped with Kuwait?
Couldn't it be that by fighting the small wars we avoid big wars?
After all, there hasn't been a major world war in half a century after two of them just a 1/4 century apart. We also had the total collapse of a world superpower (USSR) and the emergence of another (China) without a major war going on with the others. On a global scale, isn't that a kind of progress?
Yes, we lose soldiers in war. We're coming close to 4,000 in Iraq now after a half decade. In a world war, we could lose 4,000 in a single battle. (How many military lost their lives in just a few years of WWII? We have much bigger, more efficient and more lethal weapons now.)
Is losing a million of our grand children really more acceptable than losing 5,000 of our children? I don't think so.
Posted by: johnny on September 13, 2007 01:02 PMThe Axis nations (Germany, Italy and Japan) were so completely and utterly ruined in every category that they had no means whatsoever to "rebuild themselves" after being defeated in a war that they started and OUR MILITARY ended.
Furthermore, the people of Germany, Italy and Japan were not responsible for ending the war. Their military commanders (and Japan's Emperor) were the ones who surrendered, and not by the will of the people. They finally saw that they no longer had the military capacity to continue the war and that if they did continue, their nations would cease to exist altogether.
Poland and the other Eastern European nations occupied by the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 did not rebuild themselves, either. The USSR rebuilt them... and then enslaved them, ruining their land with toxic waste in the process.
(It's interesting how you people don't seem to have a problem with what the USSR did to its subjects and their land, while you roundly condemn the United States. I guess other than killing half a billion people over 50 years and destroying the soil, Socialism was a pretty good deal, huh?)
You would be more credible if you based your arguments on actual history rather than just pulling stuff out of your ass. Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it the truth.
Posted by: Nurse William on September 13, 2007 01:25 PMYou are wrong.
Part 13 of the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945 states:
(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.
We dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make something unmistakably clear to the Japanese: that we had the wherewithal and the resolve to turn all of Japan into a glowing, smoldering, uninhabitable graveyard if they did not surrender- and that we could do so without a single American boot stepping on the Japanese Home Islands.
Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito did not request that the military stop fighting. He declared his intent to stop the war and to issue an edict to the Japanese people to surrender. And the warlords in control of the Japanese government did not agree to it. The Japanese warlords fully intended to fight on, and they attempted to circumvent the Emperor by stealing his recorded message stating his declaration of surrender that was prepared for broadcast to the nation, and they also attempted a coup d'etat. Fortunately for Japan, the coup was put down and the recordings were broadcast.
Regarding Emperor Hirohito's preservation and immunity from prosecution for war crimes: this sole condition was not demanded by Japan; it was agreed upon by the allied powers that the preservation of the Emperor would allow the Japanese to save face, which in turn enabled the Japanese to surrender without dishonor.
But honor and face notwithstanding, Japan was in no condition whatsoever to contest the conditions of the Potsdam Declaration. If they did, the Allies could simply stand off and bomb Japan to cinders from land and sea without putting a single US Serviceman on the beach.
Now you tell me, Saxa: who is the revisionist here?
Posted by: Nurse William on September 13, 2007 01:58 PMYou are incorrect, sir. While there was a plan in place prior to WW2, as you say, that plan was obsolete, inflexible, and completely dismantled by the events of 12/7/1941. It was the wrong plan for the wrong war. I will explain:
In the years between WW1 and WW2, the US prepared a plan for war against Japan called Plan Orange. The plan was built on the foundation of naval doctrine dictated by Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, USN.
The chief Mahanian principle was of mass. Mahan posited that the most effective means of fighting a naval engagement was to bring the largest possible formation of battleships to the point of fire and to fight a decisive battle en masse. The key word here is battleships.
As history records, cracks in the Mahanian doctrine appeared when a mock sneak attack was sprung on Pearl Harbor by the US Navy's Carrier Battle Force ten years before Adm. Yamamoto began preparations. The lessons of this mock attack were ignored by the Admirals of the "Mahan Big Gun Club." They remained convinced that an airplane could not sink a battleship. (This in spite of the proof that it could be done when the British attacked the Italian fleet at Taranto with carrier-based torpedo aircraft- and those aircraft were obsolescent biplanes, at that.)
But as late as 1941, the battleship remained Queen of the Seas; the sole purpose of the aircraft carrier was to support the battleships through reconnaissance and gunfire spotting. Plan Orange also ignored the nascent threat of submarines, which could play merry hell on a huge gathering of unwieldly heavyweights.
Furthermore, the expectation among American Military commanders was that the the completion of Plan Orange (meaning the defeat of Japan) would be achieved in perhaps 6 months to a year.
But on Dec. 7, 1941, Plan Orange settled into the mud of Pearl Harbor as the last Japanese plane disappeared below the horizon. And the United States suddenly had no plan.
Only under the leadership of Adm. Ernest King and General George Marshall did a plan form- and the six months between Pearl Harbor and Midway were spent fighting for our lives and fighting a series of futile holding and delaying actions while we rebuilt our striking capability- with aircraft carriers and submarines taking the lead and the battleship taking a supportive role for the remainder of the war.
The lesson for you is that sometimes "having a plan" doesn't mean shit. Plans have an annoying tendency to fall apart at the point of fire- especially when those plans are predicated on how the last war was fought.
So you cannot sit here and claim to be more prescient than the Administration regarding their plans or lack thereof. Winning a war is one thing; being prepared for every potential complication can a sonofabitch. And if you were such an expert on these matters, you'd be Secretary of Defense, wouldn't you?
Posted by: Nurse William on September 13, 2007 02:57 PMAnd if you were such an expert on these matters, you'd be Secretary of Defense, wouldn't you?
Well, no, I wouldn't be Sec of Defense if I was an expert. Was Rummie an expert? Hardly. All of the people in this ADministration are politic hacks or hardcore political loyalists. They display a cult-like sense of loyalty. That's the only qualification. Being a subject matter expert is the biggest black mark in this Administration.
If we wanted to stop Saddam from invading Kuwait, we could have not given him the weapons to do so. Or we could have not kept Saddam in power in the late 70s and early 80s. Or we could have told Iraq it was not acceptable when they told us their plans before doing it.
I think SE asia being communist really did not matter and the vietnam war did not really stop the spread. I think the spread through S America up to america would suck for S America and mexico, but no it would not have spread.
If you are really concerned about the spread of communism into america than you should ENFORCE the constitution and not allow it to EVER be violated. The constitution is our best defense against communism.
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 13, 2007 09:33 PMI think the bomb was dropped on the poor innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for one reason only: to scare the hell out of Stalin!
Thanks all, New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: newleftconservative #1 on September 13, 2007 11:00 PMWe gave him those weapons to keep Iran in check, which he did quite effectively for a while.
You really think the spread of communism is no big deal? Go live in a communist country for a while. A place where you have no voice. No hope for a better life. No incentive to do more than you are told.
I did live in a communist country for a while as a child, and I believe that to allow any group of human beings to be forcably subjected to that is more repugnant than just about anything I could think of.
Posted by: johnny on September 17, 2007 09:28 AM