Tag Archives: Vietnam War

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.

Another Democrat 'War Hero'

Posted on by
3

Will they ever learn? In 2004 they nominated ‘war hero’ John Kerry. How did that go again? Did he throw away the medals, or the ribbons symbolizing what they meant? 6 years later, the Democrats have found a new ‘war hero’ to tout – Connecticut Attorney General and Senate candidate, Richard Blumenthal. Turns out Richard’s got some some splanin to do. Blumentahl received 5 deferments during the war and eventually joined the Washington based Marine Reserves, said things like:

(H/T HA)

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”…

In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”…

The New Haven Register on July 20, 2006, described him as “a veteran of the Vietnam War,” and on April 6, 2007, said that the attorney general had “served in the Marines in Vietnam.” On May 26, 2009, The Connecticut Post, a Bridgeport newspaper that is the state’s third-largest daily, described Mr. Blumenthal as “a Vietnam veteran.” And The Shelton Weekly reported on May 23, 2008, that Mr. Blumenthal “was met with applause when he spoke about his experience as a Marine sergeant in Vietnam.”…

It does not appear that Mr. Blumenthal ever sought to correct those mistakes…

Mr. Blumenthal has made veterans’ issues a centerpiece of his public life and his Senate campaign, but even those who have worked closely with him have gotten the misimpression that he served in Vietnam. In an interview, Jean Risley, the chairwoman of the Connecticut Vietnam Veterans Memorial Inc., recalled listening to an emotional Mr. Blumenthal offering remarks at the dedication of the memorial. She remembered him describing the indignities that he and other veterans faced when they returned from Vietnam.

Small problem – Blumenthal never set foot in Vietnam.

Blumenthal has described his lie as “a few misplaced words.” When he said he served “in Vietnam,” what he really meant was that he served “during Vietnam.” Further, Blumenthal claims that any misconstruing of his war record was “totally unintentional.” He did say “when we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered.” I’m sure he remembers that – he was probably the one doing the taunting and abusing! Richard Blumenthal is just another Democrat phony soldier.

P.S. I couldn’t resist: