Tag Archives: David Petraeus

The Party of Retreat and Defeat Declares Victory

Posted on by
Reply

The most common takeaway from President Obama’s speech last night was that it was meandering and boring. While that is true, as Obama somehow managed to talk about the economy and Afghanistan in a speech allegedly marking the conclusion of the Iraq War, it misses the point of one of the most galling speeches in presidential history. In his address, the President announced:

…tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq.  We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security…

It is truly sickening to see this man, President Obama, who stood against the troops, against the mission, and against his country, take credit for the work of the previous administration and the sacrifices made by the genuine heroes that comprise United States  and coalition forces.

Hoping to score cheap political points, the Democrats demoralized and demonized the men and women defending freedom in Iraq. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid famously said “this war [Iraq] is lost.” 2004 Democrat nominee for president, Senator John Kerry, accused American troops of “going into the home of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women…” There was John Murtha who described American Marines in Haditha as “murderers.” Murtha’s “murderers” were all later exonerated. Senator Dick Durban compared U.S. troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings..” And of course there was candidate Obama in 2008, who said that U.S. troops were “air raiding villages and killing civilians.” The video below documents who supported the troops – and who did NOT:

The party of retreat and defeat opposed the surge in Iraq, lambasted General Petraeus when he testified to the success of the strategy, and spread vicious lies about the previous administration. The Democrats have called the troops stupid, they’ve maligned Americans who put their lives on the line every day as torturers and common thugs. Now President Obama wants to take credit for their great work. Last night’s victory speech came from the man who represents the greatest obstacle to American militarily victory: the Democratic Party. The United States succeeded in Iraq in spite of Obama and in spite of his treacherous party.

Afghanistan: There is no Substitute for Victory

Posted on by
2

From the time Allied boots set foot in Afghanistan, pundits have been eager to draw comparisons between the wars ins Afghanistan and Vietnam. The most common refrain is that just like Vietnam, Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. In reality, that is the wrong conclusion. In fact, Vietnam was absolutely a winnable war, and in fact was won, for a time. Likewise, Afghanistan is also a winnable war. However, the two wars do share some commonalities.  The most striking similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is the criminal incompetence of the Democratic Party.

One of the most often used quotes about war comes from William Tecumseh Sherman, who said “war is hell.” Going to war is always a difficult decision, yet sometimes it is a necessary one. In his farewell address before the Congress, General Douglas MacArthur explained:

I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting.…

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

General MacArthur made those remarks after he was relieved of duty for expressing his frustration that the President would not allow him to win the Korean War in 1951. Sadly, his remarks fell upon deaf ears. America’s next major military confrontation came in the jungles of Vietnam. There, under President’s Kennedy and Johnson, the United States military was severely shackled, once again not allowed to win.

Under President Johnson, most famously, the United States subscribed to the idea of ‘limited war.’ The ‘whiz kids,’  a group of highly educated liberals with no military experience, who ran the Defense Department, did not believe in ‘victory.’ Instead, the Johnson administration sought to ‘communicate’ with the Vietnamese through a series of contracted military engagements, with no intention of obtaining outright military victory. While this view may seem enlightened in the West, it was seen as weakness in the East. The Vietnamese communists knew all they had to do was out-wait the Americans and they would win. Until Nixon took over, the American military was forced to fight a war that was only unwinnable because of the constraints put upon them by an incompetent president.

Picture that – a group of over-educated liberals ignoring military advice, refusing to state that victory is the objective, turning a war into a quagmire. Hard to believe.

There are two real lessons people should take from Vietnam. First, let the military win. The United States military could win, if only politicians would allow them too. It is entirely unacceptable for politicians to declare wars, then constrain the military. The Lemay doctrine should always be employed:

“a nation should think long and hard before it goes to war. But once that decision is made, then that nation should be willing to hit the enemy with every conceivable weapon at its disposal to end the conflict as quickly as possible. If a nation is not willing to do that, it should not go to war in the first place.”

(Lemay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis Lemay, p.96-97)

Any time this doctrine is not used, the result is a disaster. It was not used in Korea, it was not used in Vietnam and it has not been used in Afghanistan. It is time for President Obama and his whiz kids to get out of the way. If Afghanistan is the “good war,” as Obama and the Democrats said throughout the 2008 election season, than the only acceptable conclusion to the war is victory. However, when asked, President Obama said, “victory” is not necessarily the goal in Afghanistan.

Over the weekend, Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the McChrystal controversy has forced us to focus on Afghanistan. With his renewed focus, President Obama should examine what General MacArthur said, that, “in war there is no substitute for victory,” and allow General Petraeus to craft his strategy around that principle.
The second lesson is much simpler – Democrats should never be put in a position of public trust. They are weak, arrogant, and incompetent – a lethal combination.

Weakness Personified

Posted on by
2

Barack Obama has placed a fluorescent neon “kick me” sign on the United States. It has been the policy of the United States to reserve the right to retaliate to a chemical weapons attack or a crippling cyberattack with a nuclear strike. To those of you who voted for Obama, that is known as a deterrent. In other words, the threat of flattening a city dissuades a country from using chemical weapons or launching a crippling cyberattack against the United States. Welcome to the age of Obama where decisions are made to curry favor with international despots and European losers. The Obama regime’s (H/T el Rushbo) new policy is that the he will only retaliate with a nuclear strike if the United States is hit by a fellow nuclear power. This move invites an attack on the United States.
Sadly, I believe there is another dimension to Obama’s decision. There are currently five declared nuclear states: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. According to Obama’s new position these are the only countries the United States would consider using nukes on. It is highly unlikely that there would be a scenario in the foreseeable future in which the United States would even consider using nuclear weapons on any of these countries. However, when it comes to Iran some have concluded that the only way to take out the nuclear program is with nuclear weapons. While using nuclear weapons is not in any way a desirable option, it is one that must remain on the table. As I have written about in detail, Obama is willing to accept a nuclear Iran. It would appear as though his new nuclear stance is a further affirmation of the Democrat’s willingness to allow the world’s foremost enabler of international terrorism to acquire the most deadly weapons known to man. Don’t forget that General Petraeus recently told congress that Iran is working with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Iran has missiles that can already strike Europe. Iran has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and hosts an annual ‘Holocaust didn’t’ happen’ conference. And there’s that little organization financed by Iran called Hezbollah. Now Iran knows for sure that Obama is not serious about stopping them.