Recently in Military Category

"Protecting the Force: The Lessons from Fort Hood" is now in. After a quick perusal, I'm devastated. The military has brought political correctness nonsense to obscene lengths and made insipid bureaucratic pronouncements of dubious relevance. It's a surrender to Islamic jihad.

Ft. Hood is the largest US Army base and a jihadi had 15 or more minutes of unimpeded firing. Nothing in this report will prevent the next attack.

First off, the POTUS should remand the order by that Clinton fellow who turned our military bases into gun free zones (except for the MPs scattered in obvious locations). It's disgusting. That's one lesson still left to be learned.

Lawrence Auster is as worried as I.
In Afghanistan there was palpable fear recently over the deaths of American soldiers and Marines by an apparently highly trained Taliban sniper.

Well, it may have been as many as four guys from other Muslim countries, trained talent, who were tracked down by the British SAS and lit up by lasers for the planes to drop a load on their foreheads.

I love this stuff. I recommend Stephen Hunter's books, esp. this one. I don't remember ever having read a better book.
George Santayana once warned us about not learning the lessons of history: "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Over 6 of the past 7 decades I've seen this axiom proven again and again, yet somehow we still ignore history and go on to repeat the mistakes of the past.

One of the biggest mistakes we, meaning the US, have made over and over again during the past 234 years of our nation has been cutting defense spending too deeply and too quickly after a conflict has ended. Every time we have done that we have been caught with an unprepared and undermanned military that ended up causing much greater loss of American lives than if we had been prepared. That presumes, of course, that such an event would even have occurred if we'd still had a credible military. History abounds with examples where we made the wrong decision and ended up paying the price for it, sometimes for decades.

The prospect of an exit from Iraq and Afghanistan has sparked rumblings on Capitol Hill that it's time to cut the defense budget.

If there were ever evidence that it's impossible to learn from history -- or at least that it's difficult for politicians to do so -- this is it. Before they rush to cut defense spending, lawmakers should consider the consequences of previous attempts to cash in on a "peace dividend."

After the American Revolution, our armed forces shrank from 35,00 men in 1778 (plus tens of thousands of militiamen) to just 10,000 by 1800. The result was that we were ill-prepared to fight the Whiskey Rebellion, the quasi-war with France, the Barbary wars and the War of 1812 -- all of which might have been averted if the new republic had had an army and a navy that commanded the respect of prospective enemies, foreign and domestic.

After the Civil War, our armed forces shrank from more than a million men in 1865 to just 50,000 in 1870. This made the failure of Reconstruction inevitable -- there were simply too few federal troops left to enforce the rule of law in the South and to overcome the ruthless terrorist campaign waged by the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. Segregation would remain a blot on U.S. history for another century.

The same thing happened after World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Gulf War. And each time it ended up crippling our military and causing far more problems and costing more than if we'd maintained some semblance of a strong military.

As the old saying goes, "If you want to preserve peace, prepare for war."

With a weak military, or one perceived as weak, enemies are more likely to push the limits, up to and including an attack on American forces or civilian targets. That has been the pattern throughout history, where an aggressor takes advantage of nation's weakness. Just because it's the 21st Century doesn't mean there aren't nations or ideological groups out there waiting for us to cripple ourselves, allowing them to move with impunity. But if they know without a shadow of doubt that we would retaliate with the full force of our superior military forces, such an attack would be far less likely.

It's too bad our present occupant of the White House and the members of Congress are choosing to ignore the lessons of history and will be trying to send us down the same path to the same ends as many of their predecessors have.

STFU SOTU Address

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.


He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.


On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)


As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.


I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.


And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.


After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)


I. GOT. BORED.


ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........


UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

The WSJ's William McGurn writes an article praising Woo Poo, mentioning
Doug DiCenzo, the Plymouth, NH, native who was killed several years ago in Iraq from an improvised explosive device (IED). Make sure to read it.

HT: Hugh Hewitt

The new bridge in that town spanning the Pemigewasset River is named for him.
Hmm. I feel a strange almost eerie sense of kinship--only he's no doubt the better man. There for the grace of God could have been me. (I attended Woo Poo from '86 to '88.)

Both elected captain of our football and wrestling teams and on the short side and stocky, I was never president of my class, just secretary or something, and I got dropped from National Honor Society for scoring a substandard grade in physics my senior year. What a loss to lose a guy like this on our foolhardy and thankless Iraq Attack. Nature and nature's God sure don't make many Doug DiCenzoes, that's for sure.
Most momentous (and calamitous words) from the speech:

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home [to a chorus of Pashtun-accented "God is great!"].

Ralph Peters ("And where are the four-star resignations over a policy designed to squander American lives just to give an administration political cover?"), Michael Rubin ("There should be nothing wrong with an open-ended commitment to victory."), and Neal Boortz ("There is something basically immoral about sending American men and women into harm's way in a war where victory is not the goal.").

My favorite is from NR's Corner:

And the gleam of adventurism in Mr. Putin's eyes shines brighter today as well.
George Will writes in his column "This Will Not End Well":

Obama's halfhearted embrace of a half-baked nonstrategy -- briefly feinting toward the Taliban (or al-Qaeda, or a "syndicate of terror") while lunging for the exit ramp -- makes a protracted loss probable.
I don't think the Cadets were impressed. I sure wasn't. Can he deliver a speech without the tennis back and forth his Teleprompters give?

Sgt. Rock, a commentator in this thread, writes: If I'm sitting in a cave in Pakistan watching CNN, I learned a couple of things: 1) If I can make it expensive enough for you to fight me, you'll cut and run, and b) In 18 months you'll pick up and leave anyway. Either way, I win. And then I can go back to murdering your infidel countrymen on your own soil, after which I'll be tried in YOUR courts and defended by an ACLU lawyer YOU paid for. Praise be to Allah, I'm going to get fitted for a new explosive vest.
Our friends at Granite Grok steered me to this, a translation of an article by a French infantryman serving in Afghanistan along side soldiers from the US Army (from what I could tell from the article, the US soldiers are from the 101st Airborne Division). The original article is in French and was translated by Jean-Marc Liotier over at Serendipitous Altruism.

I have included the translation in its entirety.

"We have shared our daily life with two US units for quite a while - they are the first and fourth companies of a prestigious infantry battalion whose name I will withhold for the sake of military secrecy. To the common man it is a unit just like any other. But we live with them and got to know them, and we henceforth know that we have the honor to live with one of the most renowned units of the US Army - one that the movies brought to the public as series showing "ordinary soldiers thrust into extraordinary events". Who are they, those soldiers from abroad, how is their daily life, and what support do they bring to the men of our OMLT every day ? Few of them belong to the Easy Company, the one the TV series focuses on. This one nowadays is named Echo Company, and it has become the support company.

They have a terribly strong American accent - from our point of view the language they speak is not even English. How many times did I have to write down what I wanted to say rather than waste precious minutes trying various pronunciations of a seemingly common word? Whatever state they are from, no two accents are alike and they even admit that in some crisis situations they have difficulties understanding each other.

Heavily built, fed at the earliest age with Gatorade, proteins and creatine - they are all heads and shoulders taller than us and their muscles remind us of Rambo. Our frames are amusingly skinny to them - we are wimps, even the strongest of us - and because of that they often mistake us for Afghans.

Here we discover America as it is often depicted : their values are taken to their paroxysm, often amplified by promiscuity lack of privacy and the loneliness of this outpost in the middle of that Afghan valley. Honor, motherland - everything here reminds of that: the American flag floating in the wind above the outpost, just like the one on the post parcels. Even if recruits often originate from the hearth of American cities and gang territory, no one here has any goal other than to hold high and proud the star spangled banner. Each man knows he can count on the support of a whole people who provides them through the mail all that an American could miss in such a remote front-line location : books, chewing gums, razorblades, Gatorade, toothpaste etc. in such way that every man is aware of how much the American people backs him in his difficult mission. And that is a first shock to our preconceptions : the American soldier is no individualist. The team, the group, the combat team are the focus of all his attention.

New Additions

Expatriate New Englanders

Other Blogs We Like That Don't Fit Into Any One Category

Categories

Sitemeter

    -->
Powered by Movable Type 4.1