Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

h1

The Bad Theories of Supporting McCain (Part I)

February 1, 2008

With John McCain being the alleged GOP frontrunner, I find myslef inclined to put my thoughts on the table about the theories of why McCain should be the GOP nominee.

I could write for days on end about the inconsistencies of John McCain, but let’s face the facts without the tedious, but obvious, long list of McCain’s liberal viewpoint of the world. This post is intended to debunk the mythological premises of the support of John McCain, not argue that McCain is more or less of a conservative than Reagan or even Romney (although I must add that John McCain can never HONESTLY say he was a part of the Reagan phenomena and the reestablished Republican Party as Conservatives…but I digress).

Let’s look at the arguments:

(1) “McCain is the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.”

– Wrong. 20th century American history has proven time and time again that when Conservatives try to appeal to the left we lose. Conservatives are strongest and near unstoppable when we stick to our values and we are weakest and most vulnerable when we pander to the liberals. Besides, haven’t we already had a Clinton beat a RINO in a general election? Let’s recap…Clinton v. Dole. Who won that election?…oh yeah, that’s right, Clinton. Not only did he win, but he won by an extraordinary percentage…and McCainiacs believe that he is the best to beat the Clinton Machine? Sorry, but you can’t out-dem a democrat.

And what do we do if Clinton isn’t the nominee? What if it’s McCain and Obama? McCain would lose. Not that it would matter anyway, because to me they’re the same and at least at that point the Republican party would still be considered the Conservative party. Let the Democrats be liberal…not the Republicans.

(2) “In a general election debate McCain would show how Clinton is wrong on the issues, and he would ultimately ‘win’ the debate.”

– I can’t believe it. How can McCain win a debate against Clinton when he can’t even win any of the 15+ debates we’ve had so far? Every time I hear McCain speak he is slow, dry, unexciting, and uninspiring. Not to mention he can’t even defend his stances because he knows they’re “iffy” and inconsistent. And when he goes on “attack” mode, he does so with fake and skewed statements, then he claims to be “straight talk.” Just look at the last debate when he tried to say Romney was for a timetable of withdrawal. Everyone knew it was wrong and taken way out of context.

Romney, on the other hand, would DESTROY Clinton in a one-on-one debate. He has proven that he can gather his thoughts and deliver them without socially inept one-liners. Also, he can actually answer a question, rahter than avoid the question and swim around it. I know Romney isn’t perfect. I personally think that he’s too nice in debates. He could have questioned McCain’s liberal support and tactics in the last debate, but he didn’t…he’s trying to take the high road. Against a democrat, however, I think he can really “unload.”

(3) “John McCain is the best candidate for the War in Iraq and National Security.”

– This is one theory that is a trick. We are tricked into thinking that he is the best for foreign policy because he was a POW in Vietnam. McCain likes to pull the “war hero” card, but it’s misleading. I respect his service and I admire his strength throughout his imprisonment, but how is he by definition a “War Hero?” We let him get away with pulling this card a little too much. If he can’t answer a question, like a question about the economy, he pulls the card and starts talking about foreign policy. I don’t believe that you have to serve in a war to be a successful president during war time. Some of the best presidents never served in war.

Another thing, how is McCain the best for national security when he doesn’t have much interest in closing the border. Sure he says he wants a secure border now, but his record the past year disproves . In addition to the border, and just as important, is Gitmo. How is closing Gitmo and bringing terrorists to America to use our justice system good for national security? Someone please explain that to me.

These are just a few thoughts to derail the attempted justifications for uniting behind McCain. Next I will talk about the Economy (in which McCain has NO idea what to do about), China (which Romney is most prepared for), and the fate of our party as we know it.

h1

Contemplations over the Draft…

December 19, 2007

I’ve been thinking about the subject of the draft for some time now and I thought I’d share my views with those who would like to read.

I have mixed feelings about the draft. On one hand I think the draft would be a good idea. If instilled in times of peace AND war, it would ensure people that the country isn’t just implementing a draft because they need military personell for a war, but that the country just so happens to be in a war and we’re lucky enough to have the military that we need. Also, (now this is just a thought) what if one had to give military service in order to obtain a special benefit in the future, similar to obtaining a college degree?

In addition, if we had a draft now, the war in Iraq would less likely be the problem that it is. We wouldn’t need to authorize “troop surges,” we would just have the necessary troops needed to fight the fight. Why not…we had a draft throught WWII, Korea, and Vietnam? (Vietnam, arguably, destroyed the likely-hood of having a draft again, but had we kept it through peacetime, it might be acceptable to people).

On the other hand, we are the most powerful nation in the world; we’re able to figure out a way to fill our military with sufficient soldiers without implementing the draft. The United States is smart enough and rich enough to recruit enough people through benefits and incentives. The great thing about this country is that we find ways to be the most powerful nation in the world without having a draft. What other great power in the history of the civilized world pulled this off?

Historically remarkable…

On a side note, I believe that women should not be included in the draft…if they want to be in the military, they should enlist. Femenists would argue otherwise, but…what don’t they argue about?

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

h1

Liberal Media: Destroying The Will Of The People Since 1968

August 14, 2007

Here I go again; back to Vietnam. It’s interesting how many problems in this country started during the Vietnam War. *cough* hippies. What did hippies ever amount to than the liberal democrats that we see today? Anyway, the liberal media has destroyed the American way of life. Some may never admit that, but I think we can all agree that the liberal media has at least destroyed the American way of war. If we can’t all agree now, maybe this entry will change your mind.

Although the media has always played a major role in American wars it wasn’t until the conflict in Vietnam that it turned “anti-American.” Think about it. In all wars previous to the Vietnam War the media had been about continuing American patriotism. Always trying to band the nation together to win. But something changed in the 1960s. The media went from uniting the country, being patriotic, and supporting the military and the battles they fought to reporting that American soldiers were killing babies and innocent civilians, despite the United States being the most humanitarian, law abiding, military in the history of war. The media even went as far as flat-out LYING to the American people about the outcome of battles!

In Vietnam the United States had pretty much contained the insurgency (Viet Cong) in South Vietnam after 1969. In fact, the North Vietnamese had few, if any, successful strategic or operational attacks on U.S. troops. For example, In 1968 the North Vietnamese Army organized a mass attack on South Vietnam called the Tet Offensive. The plan of the North Vietnamese was not only militarily, but diplomatically and psychologically as well. The idea was to invade South Vietnam during a sacred Vietnamese holiday while many South Vietnamese soldiers were on leave. It was supposed to be a surprise invasion by the North Vietnamese simultaneously with an uprising of all of the insurgent Viet Cong in South Vietnam. The diplomatic side was to take advantage of the weak South Vietnamese government and convince them to give in to the Viet Cong and surrender to the North Vietnamese. The psychological side was to destroy the will of the American people, where the war was already so unpopular. To keep things brief, the Tet Offensive orchestrated by North Vietnam was a complete failure and a huge win for South Vietnam and the U.S. military. While the plan was executed perfectly by the enemy, the U.S. was ready for it and fought well in the 136 towns and cities that were attacked simultaneously. The U.S. had less than 1,540 KIA while the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong had up to 40,000 KIA. In addition, the Viet Cong was destroyed and didn’t really exist in South Vietnam. Also, the South Vietnamese government never got discouraged and didn’t give in to the Viet Cong. The North Vietnamese expected all of the South Vietnamese people to join with the insurgency and fight the U.S., but little did North Vietnam realize, the South Vietnamese people didn’t want to. They generally supported the U.S. involvement.

This all sounds like a great victory doesn’t it? Well, militarily it was. But while the battle was victorious, the war was lost. The most powerful weapon was used by North Vietnam…destroying the will of the people. But we ask ourselves: “How was the will of the people destroyed by such a victory?” The answer: The media. THIS IS FACT! No liberal or journalist (what’s the difference?) can argue this. It’s in all the history books. The press lied! They reported U.S. casualties without reporting the North Vietnamese casualties. They reported that there was a huge mass attack on U.S. forces, but reported the outcome as a loss. One journalist involved in this…atrocity is, yep, our very own Walter Cronkite, saying “the war is lost.” *gasp* Those are the exact words Senator Harry Reid used to describe the war in Iraq! tsk tsk tsk…Reid, think of something original.

Can it be that the same thing is happening now? What if the press took the stance that it did during WWII? Would this war in Iraq look more successful than they make it seem? What would happen in Iraq if the American people joined together to fight a more total war? WE NEED PATRIOTISM! Don’t let the media convince you that “the war is lost.”

h1

Iraq vs. Vietnam

August 11, 2007

Lately I have heard the left socialist liberals comparing the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. I pondered this for a while and, being a history major, realized that it is simply not true. In NO significant way is the military effort in Iraq related to the war in Vietnam.

Before I explain the reasons why, we need to have a small history lesson. After World War II, the United States inherited a new responsibility to fight for democracy and capitalism and against communism. It did take a while for the U.S. government to realize this and they found themselves unprepared for the fight in Korea…but I digress. During the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s he sent advisors to Vietnam, as did many other European nations, to see what was going on in French Indochina (Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam). After years of fighting between North Vietnam and France, the French decided that it was not worth the effort to try and contain Vietnam. After careful analysis of the situation, Britain decided that it wasn’t worth the effort either. Unfortunately, the U.S. had the Policy of Containment and wanted to try to stop the spread of communism and so felt that it was important to continue having advisors in Vietnam. When Kennedy took office, he sent more advisors to Vietnam despite having NO allies to help support them. Some people believe that Kennedy had plans to withdraw the advisors, but no one will ever know for sure because Kennedy was assassinated. When Johnson preceded Kennedy, he sent a marine brigade to South Vietnam to help guard an air base and hence the start of American forces in Vietnam. That’s the chronological events leading to the war in Vietnam in a simplified version.

The important thing to note about the brief history is that the U.S. had no allies to help support the war effort in Vietnam. Was Vietnam a mistake? Maybe, but that’s beside the point. The point is that while there was no support for the U.S. military effort in Vietnam there is overwhelming support from U.S. allies for the front in Iraq. Supporters include Australia, Britain, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, and Spain. Although not every supporter physically has troops in Iraq, they still support the movement.

Then the arguments come: “Well if the United States has so much support, then why did the UN deny authorization to invade Iraq?”

Here’s the answer: In the UN there are five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States). No matter what the UN votes on, any one of these five members can veto the proposal. Since one or more of the members of the Security Council vetoed the idea of invading Iraq, naturally the United States took matters into its own hands without the approval of the UN.

Next, during the time of the Vietnam War, there was an active selective service (draft) to fill the military. I do believe a draft would definitely help win the war in Iraq, but at this point in time we have a VOLUNTEER MILITARY! We always hear Speaker Pelosi talk about how “we are sending our boys into harms way” but she NEVER mentions that they are all volunteers. So until the draft is active again, Liberals should stop acting like they are sticking up for our troops in Iraq and saying that they had no choice to be in the military.

Most importantly, the political objectives between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq are vast and relate to the outcome of the two wars. The political objective in Vietnam was simply to defend South Vietnam and stop the spread of communism. It was strictly defensive strategy. The best thing a country can do on the defense is not lose the war. In order to win a war a country must go on the offense, which the U.S. did not. On a side note, the reason the Vietnam War was “lost” was because the North Vietnamese would enter South Vietnam through the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia. Once the U.S. troops attacked the invading North Vietnamese they would escape back to Laos and Cambodia where the U.S. military was ordered NOT to follow. Another contributor to the “loss” in Vietnam is the will of the American people. I would argue that one of the reasons the U.S. has problems in any war is because the American people (mostly the liberals) are too impatient thereby destroying the morale of the troops fighting. In Iraq, the U.S. is fighting a defensive and offensive war. It’s defensive strategy in the sense of maintaining a stable society within Iraq, it’s offensive in finding terrorists and searching for insurgency. Vietnam did have insurgents (Viet Cong) but U.S. forces were also defending against the attacks of the North Vietnamese. In Iraq, the U.S. is not defending one nation from the attacks of another. Also, despite Liberal efforts, the morale of the troops in Iraq is NOT destroyed. They know what they are fighting for, and generally agree with why they are doing it. While some soldiers may or may not agree with certain strategies set forth by officials, they do agree with the overall stances and efforts given.

By and large, In contrast to the war in Vietnam, the war in Iraq CAN be won. Despite the efforts and comments of top Democratic officials, the war is not lost. Hell, if liberal journalists for the New York Times can admit that the war can be won, it must be true. Frankly, I hope and pray that in September General Patraeus is able to give positive reports regarding the troop surge. Maybe then, the American people will see that it can be done.

David Cooper

h1

The Only Way To Win in Iraq

July 13, 2007

Understanding “Winning in Iraq” requires an understanding of the Unites States’ political objectives. When the United States committed military forces in Iraq, six political objectives were introduced:

1. A stable Iraq, with its territorial integrity intact and a broad-based government that renounces WMD development and use, and no longer supports terrorism or threatens its neighbors.
2. Success in Iraq leveraged to convince or compel other countries to cease support to terrorists and to deny them access to WMD.
3. Destabilize, isolate, and overthrow the Iraqi regime and provide support to a new, broad-based government.

4. Destroy Iraqi WMD capability and infrastructure.

5. Protect allies and supporters from Iraqi threats and attacks.

6. Destroy terrorist networks in Iraq. Gather intelligence on global terrorism and detain terrorists and war criminals.

Whether you agree with the war or not, these were the political objectives for Iraq. Unfortunately, political objectives can change according to the ground operations and conduct of the war. For example, in Korea the United States employed the political objective “Restore South Korea.” With the major victory at Inchon there was a major turning point in the war. Since the invasion was so successful, the United States changed its political objective to “Unify the Korean Peninsula and Roll Back Communism” and US forces crossed the 38th parallel. Upon near defeat of the North Korean Army, the Chinese intervened and forced the US X Corps and 8th Army back South, nearly defeating the United States Military. Finally, after General Ridgway was given command of US forces, they moved back up to the 38th parallel where the political objective was changed yet again to “Restore South Korea.” Forces never crossed the 38th parallel again. These were the political objectives of the Korean War in a nutshell. Now, looking back at the political objectives did we actually win the Korean War? I would argue, “yes,” but that’s another debate in itself.

Whether you feel that we should be in Iraq or not, I would argue that we still have not completed all of the political objectives set. In particular, number six; Destroy terrorist networks in Iraq. It may not be an easy task and may also be long and grueling, but I believe that winning in Iraq would be a result of completing political objective number six.

My assumption is that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq without a change in course. (No, I don’t mean troop withdrawal either!) There are terms called Total War and Limited War. Total war requires the will of the people. The American people have not had a total war since World War II. I don’t think that America will ever have another Total War, because the country is too divided. No, we resort to Limited War. Limited War is war where the government and military alone determine whether or not we go to war. It is the idea of keeping the American people out of war in order for Americans to go about their regular lives. The only problem is that America doesn’t really win Limited War. According to John Shy of Michigan, it’s not the American way of war. Americans do not understand the conduct of war. Americans want to see territory gain, a huge blood count of the enemy, and see it all happen in a short amount of time. The media has big play in determining the outcome of war, unfortunately. Especially, since all we hear about is how American forces die, but they fail to mention that 2 Americans died, while 50 enemy insurgents died. It’s pathetic. People complain about how “we are sending our boys to a blood bath,” but they don’t hear about the guy who lost his leg in Iraq, but is working on rehabilitation and a prosthetic leg to go back (yes, guys actually want to go back to Iraq to fight; I know two personally).

Also, we need a change of course, because American people cannot stand war that lasts more than four years. Think about it. Civil War – 4 years involvement, WWI – 2 years involvement, WWII – 4 years involvement, Korea – 4 years involvement, and then…uh oh…Vietnam 8 to 10 years involvement and the United States’ first loss. Then, Desert Storm – what…4 or 5 months of actual combat? God forbid a war that lasts over four years! The United States needs a change of plan to rally the American people again. THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT WIN THIS WAR IF AMERICANS CONTINUE TO FIGHT EACHOTHER! Although the war is not quite lost, we are well on our way. We can still win, though. We just need to fight a more Total war… that’s the only way.