Random Thoughts

As the last week of the year brings an end to 2006 some bits and pieces have occupied my thoughts. Chief among my decidedly scatter-shot, cerebral meanderings is the wonderful news that the Ethiopian Army has whipped the Islamist forces in Somalia at every turn. I would like to extend warm, well-wishes to the Ethiopians for taking the fight to the world's enemy. The spate of military victories cheers me on a number of levels. It proves to me that our armed forces could do the same thing if they were just released from the political leashes that bind them to some perceived notion of humanitarianism. I have, therefore, come to a decision on what should be done to stabilize Baghdad, if not Iraq as a whole. We should borrow 20,000 Ethiopian troops and allow them to be the proposed "surge". This would satisfy the President's perceived desire to add troops, while adhering to the democrats wishes that no more American troops be put into harm's way in Iraq. When the Ethiopians were finished kicking the proverbial hind ends, and taking the proverbial names we could then offer Ethiopia some form of remuneration. Of course, this would take a large portion of the Ethiopian Army out of the fight in Somalia for some time, so we could donate a squadron of F-16s and a Specter gunship to Ethiopia, as a means of filling the gaps until the ground forces return. We could even throw in a herd of beef cattle, a boat-load of grain and whichever female, B-list celebrity the Ethiopians wish.

Of course, the obstructionists in the Democratic Party would howl that we were outsourcing American jobs and further oppressing the African people, but they would get over that soon enough. We could then speak to the coalition building we performed by including the Ethiopians in the fight for freedom. It would also serve as a reminder that the American military can win this war, if they are allowed to fight unfettered. I am not proposing unlawful action on either the Ethiopians or our part, but let's remove the ties that bind. During the American Civil War, Sherman's famous "March to the Sea" was accomplished with a remarkably small number of casualties, on both sides, but broke the back of the Confederacy. Sherman attacked the, heretofore untouched, infrastructure of the South and laid waste to the wealthy plantation owners possessions and property. Since these wealthy planters drove the secessionist movement, at little sacrifice to themselves, Sherman rightly assumed that bringing the fight to what they held most dear would end the war. Patton's Third Army accomplished nearly the same feat after the Normandy invasion. Had Patton not been plagued by the institutional jealousy of his superiors the Third Army could have probably ended World War II in the European theater much sooner, and thus spared both American and Jewish lives. A "scorched earth" surge in the problem ares of Iraq would have the same effect.

For too long we have allowed terrorists to hide amongst the civilian population in Iraq. Al-Sadr has become powerful because we allowed him to remain alive, when all signs pointed to removing him by whatever means were necessary. We should push into Sadr City and tear out the cancer which plagues the Iraqi civilian population. With all the talk of American casualties, scant notice is payed to the death toll among Iraqi civilians. It is no wonder the population harbors the terrorists. We have done absolutely nothing to show the Iraqis that we will ruthlessly destroy the enemy, so why should they help us? CNN broadcasts into Iraq. With talking head after talking head shouting for a pull-out of American forces, the Iraqi population does not trust us to protect them. You would not inform on the terrorists either if you believed that sometime next year you would be left alone with them. The Taliban came to power in just that way. The Afghans, tired of a decade of war with the Soviets, decided that stability, even of an extremist nature, was better than more civilian bloodshed. Could you honestly blame Mohammad of 416 Ali Baba Ln, Baghdad, for just wanting the random killing to end? After all, he has a family and just wants to see them grow old. Informing on the bad guys when the good guys apparently will not be around much longer is no way to see that desire become a reality.

I also spent not a little time this week thinking about President Ford. With the cable television apotheosis going non-stop who didn't? By all accounts the private citizen who was Gerald Ford Jr. was a decent, loving father and family man. That deserves to be recognized, but should be separated from his decidedly mediocre term as President of the United States. He pardoned not only the Vietnam draft dodgers, but also military deserters. He also gave us the Helsinki Accord, which made the Soviet Union's hold on eastern Europe "inviolate." He paid virtually no attention to inflation. WIN buttons, Whip Inflation Now, were his only real response to that crisis. In addition, he gave us John Paul Stevens; the majority opinion writer of the US Supreme Court eminent domain decision. Not much has been debated concerning those things, but much has been made of his desire to be a healer. I would argue that healer-in chief is not a position, and that desire was at the expense of being a leader. All of that paints a pretty dismal picture. His term is destined to be consigned to the Millard Fillmore category, at best.

Some may have noticed that I did not include President Ford's pardon of President Nixon among his foibles. That is because I feel it was the right thing to do. Unless the President of the United States commits murder, or sells top secret documents to the Russians while in office, I believe his successor owes him that. It should be recognized that President Ford actually pardoned two presidents. One in particular, and one with the blanket statement I mentioned earlier. William Jefferson Clinton was himself a draft dodger, although no one mentioned that fact during his presidency. That means President Ford is responsible not only for President Carter, but President Clinton as well. Is it any wonder that Helen Thomas speaks so highly of him? As egregious as the pardoning of draft dodgers and deserters was, (as a volunteer veteran I will never forgive him that transgression), the worst thing he did was speak to Bob Woodward, and allow him to tape the conversation. This has been described as "courageous" by various people on the Left. I would argue that it is akin to breaking up with someone via email, or maybe Post-it note. President Ford had to know how Woodward would use the information, and yet he went ahead with the interview, with the proviso that it not be released until after his death, or whenever Woodward published the Ford biography, whichever came first. That Woodward had typed transcripts ready for public airing on The Larry King Show before the late president was even cold speaks to his Machiavellian machinations. President Ford was publicly on record earlier this year as supporting President Bush on the Iraq War. Bob Woodward would have you believe otherwise. A thorough, careful reading of the former president's words seems to suggest that he only disagreed with the main rationale for going to war. President Ford believed the WMD characterization was the least important offense. His own words suggest that we should have highlighted Hussein's multiple violations of the UN resolutions. Up to the end President Ford voiced support for the military action which removed Saddam Hussein. No one will remember that now though, thanks to Bob Woodward. So, whatever the reasoning, it was a contemptible act on the former president's part, and questions both his decency and his cognition.

That may seem a overly harsh characterization to some, but ever since President Carter's whirlwind tour of Leftist dictators commenced presidents have lost some of their decorum. The Presidency is the most exclusive of clubs. They should not talk ill of the predecessors, nor their successors. They can, and should, disagree with actions that trouble their conscience, but that should always be tempered with the grace and good taste their position demands. I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who rightfully said, (or at least I have always seen it attributed to him), "When [ex-president's] leave office, they should leave the country as well, or else they will haunt like ghosts the new one." Obviously, the world was a different place then. In the 18th century, words an ex-president might utter in some far flung land might never make it back to our shores. That is not the case now. Ex-President's Carter and Clinton have both made disparaging, offensive comments while in other countries. These utterances are not only in bad taste; they are potentially damaging to both our national security and our world standing. Ex-presidents should recognize that, and, figuratively, leave the country once their term(s) is done. President Bush 41 has done exactly that, and has been widely praised for it. President Ford would have done well to emulate President Bush. It would not have saved his presidential standing, but it would have secured his private position as eminently decent.

Finally, Saddam Hussein's appeals have run their course. He has been ordered hanged by the neck until dead, within the next four weeks. It cheers me to hear the news, and causes me to wonder at the judicial proceedings. Scores of eye witnesses testified, multiple judges and defense lawyers were seated, and a comprehensive appeals process was undertaken. All that delivered a court order that the sentence of death be served, and served quickly. There may indeed be unbridled sectarian strife in the Sunni Triangle, but Saddam will be executed for his crimes before January is done. Meanwhile, convicted cop-killer, and left-wing darling, Mumia Abu-Jamal sits unrepentant on Death Row in Pennsylvania. 25 years after he murdered Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, Jamal is still writing pseudo-scholarly articles, and addressing college graduations, while the likes of Danny Glover and Ed Asner call for his retrial. No matter that both Glover and Asner are on record as never having read the transcripts of Jamal's original trial, or the appeal documents since. They believe Jamal innocent because it assuages their liberal guilt. Well, I have read the transcripts and Jamal did it. If you need more information to sway you to that argument go to www.danielfaulkner.com. Iraq may have more than it's fair share of problems, both large and small, but they do know how to deal with a convicted murderer. Maybe we could petition the court in Iraq to hear Jamal's appeal. I will gladly help pay the airfare for him when the sentence is confirmed.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Historical Context

"Once you are sounfortunate to be drawn into a war, no price is too great to pay for an early and victorious peace. All economy of soldiers or supplies is the worst extravagance in war."
Sir Winston Churchill

The assorted major media outlets are all agog that combat deaths in Iraq have eclipsed the number of Americans killed on 9/11. What, exactly, one death toll has to do with the other escapes me. The argument of these esteemed, ever-so learned, honorable men and women seems to be that a war is only worth waging if it is relatively bloodless. For the most part, those bleating this news have never served, nor even know anyone who has. They inhabit a strata of society that is insulated from sacrifice, and the messy business of war. The rough men who stand ready in the night to visit violence upon our enemies are not welcome at the polite dinner parties at which the Fourth Estate holds court. Seen in that light, how these honorable men and women can persist in claiming to support the troops is beyond my limited comprehension. "Support the Troops! Bring them home!" they bellow; this despite the fact that the military is an all volunteer force. The combat troops know exactly for what they are fighting. It does not concern these valiant soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that deaths in combat have exceeded the number murdered by Islamic extremists on 9/11. Those killed in action were their friends and brothers-in-arms, not the faceless number the press so avidly touts. The supposed rationale for marking the occasion of each warrior's death is to honor them, but it is, in fact, just the opposite. It cheapens their passing, and ignores the larger historical significance of their sacrifice.

2,117 American servicemen were killed at Pearl Harbor. During the course of our campaign to avenge that cowardly attack, 405,399 men were killed in action in the various theaters of operation. That number includes 1,465 killed on the beaches of Normandy; 6,821 killed taking the island of Iwo Jima; and an estimated 19,000 killed during The Battle of the Bulge. If we accept the current logic, we should have given up the fight for freedom sometime in 1942. Wait, wait, the respected men and women of the press will scream when confronted with these numbers. You can't compare Iraq to World War II. This despite the fact that they do just that when discussing the time we have spent fighting in Iraq. How many times have you heard some talking head say, "We have already spent more time in Iraq than we spent winning World War II." Yet, when you compare the sacrifice we expended to win that war somehow the paradigm shifts. "Iraq didn't attack us!" Neither did Germany. "Hitler declared war on us." So did bin Laden. "Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we invaded." They are now, and Saddam Hussein did have material ties to various terrorist organizations, if not operational one's. "Hussein didn't knock down the towers on 9/11." No, but he would have given any terrorist group that asked for it material and/or financial support. In fact, a November 3, 2006, New York Times article reported that as late as 2002 Hussein was still working on a nuclear weapons program, and had acquired the trigger for a nuclear device. How did they know that? It was on a website set up by the federal government. The feds had posted 48,000 boxes of documents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and asked for help translating them. Upon being given notice that the Times intended to publish an article about the trigger, the feds took down the site. That was just another example, in a long string of actions, of the hallowed Paper of Record seeking to influence public opinion and policy. They effectively denied us another tool to fight the terrorists who would destroy us. One wonders how these same gentlemen of the press would report the D-Day, or Battle of the Bulge casualty figures today.

The Fourth Estate seeking to influence the opinion of the masses is not new. During the Civil War, newspapers routinely called for restraint, and are even credited with helping to instigate the draft riots in the Northeast. President Lincoln was excoriated by the press on a daily basis. In fact, he would probably recognize some of the rhetoric currently aimed at President Bush. It has not changed much in 142 years. What has changed is the notion of hope. By portraying the current killed in action figures almost in a vacuum, the major press outlets have undermined hope. Many people and entities deserve the ignominy of dividing us, but none more so than the press. They have reported the figures without the greater historical context they demand. Each death of an American service member pains me, but seen through the prism of history they pale in comparison. During President Lincoln's term in office more Americans were killed in combat than in all the wars the country ever fought combined; up to, and including Vietnam. Think of that in the context of the number lost during World War II. Most Americans still do not anyone killed in combat. During World War II, everyone did. That fact alone begs the question: why then does the press report on the war the way it does?

All Americans, regardless of social position, or political stripe, have opinions and will, in the right circumstance, act in their own best interests. This is not always a bad thing, but in the case of a supposedly objective press it is anathema to our principles and ideals. At some point, the major media outlets became brazenly convinced of their own importance. They ceased reporting the who, what, where, when, and how of news, and concentrated all their energies on the why. The front page of nearly every newspaper has become a repository for what the editors believe we should think. This has come about not through some nefarious cabal of media moguls, but rather through the reporters all being graduated from the same type of school. Gone is the hard-boiled, ham-fisted, hard-drinking newsman who wanted to get the scoop. He has been replaced by the perfectly coiffed, impeccably tailored celebrity who wants to "make a difference." These journalists are, for the most part, left leaning; never mind that they are all registered independents. Poll after poll has shown that they vote in favor of democrats disproportionately, and at all levels of government. From that set of ideals comes the mindset that American military force should not ever be utilized beyond humanitarian relief, and the very occasional limited show of force. Overwhelmingly, today's working journalists believe the United States is deserving of international disdain and scorn due to our "imperialist" transgressions. Forget that we have never set up an empire that even remotely resembles the world's previous super-powers. Over a hundred years ago, with limited forays into the Far East and the Caribbean we conquered the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Subsequently we gave those lands back to the inhabitants; to our own detriment some would suggest.

At the conclusion of World War II, the United States stood poised around the globe with the greatest armed force the world had ever seen. Over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines could have been strategically deployed to annex large swaths of the world. We could have, some would argue should have, challenged the USSR for immediate supremacy. Instead, as is the nature of great democracies, we disbanded our citizen soldiery and went home. The United States is now, and has always been, the shining city on the hill, which serves as a beacon of hope for the rest of the freedom loving world. It is our responsibility not only to defend ourselves wherever and whenever the need arises, but also to defend those, whenever possible, who cannot defend themselves when the forces of oppression would subjugate them. The Founding fathers envisioned us as a nation where good, hopeful men and women could make their way in the world. They cautioned against needless involvement in foreign affairs because they all came from a continent which had always fought needless wars for Empire. The brave men who stood against the mightiest nation on Earth did not see the United States of America as a place where we would isolate ourselves from the world. Those brave Founding Fathers saw us as a place where freedom could emanate to encompass the entire world; not through force of arms, but rather, through force of ideals. They would not have shied away from combating evil wherever it arose. They saw us as a nation "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." They also envisioned a free press as one of the bulwarks against tyranny. They did not see freedom of the press as absolute, nor did they see it as means to determine opinion. Instead, they saw the right of freedom of the press as a means for the common man to acquire knowledge by which he might draw his own conclusions. I am not for limiting the scope or breadth of the press, far from it. I proudly wore the uniform of the US Army as an infantryman because I cherish that right, as well as it's attendants. What I am for though, is a free press which returns to what the Constitutional framers considered of paramount importance: report the news, not your personal, or institutional bias. I honor the hard-working men and women of the press who braved hardship, combat and strife so that we, the public, could be informed. All I ask is that they remember that they are not the intelligentsia tasked with telling us, the proletariat, how and what to think. I would further ask that their reporting be given the historical context it deserves. No historical event exists in a vacuum, and Iraq, as well as the larger war on Islamic extremism, does not either. Ladies and gentlemen of the press, with rights and privileges comes responsibility. That responsibility is not to your personal ideology, nor your agency's bottom line. It is to those whom you serve: the American public. Reporting events to political advantage damages us collectively, and you would be well served to remember that. Islamic terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans in under an hour on 9/11. In five years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq they have only just barely matched that feat. Civilians were murdered indiscriminately on 9/11, but volunteer warriors have died since then battling Islamic extremists; both to avenge their murdered countrymen, and to secure our blessings of freedom. No matter what your personal opinion is on this war, or any other, the historical context and significance of our combat deaths belongs to those last three sentences, and those sentences alone.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Peace in Our Time

On the heels of the Iraq Study Group report some simple things occurred to me. Immediately, I can only express my dismay at a world, and time, gone by. No war has ever been concluded effectively by diplomacy. One need only look to the past fifty years, or so, to see that diplomacy is what should occur after we have forcefully, and completely, vanquished our foes. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were ended by diplomacy. Neither resulted in a satisfactory conclusion of hostilities. American troops may have been removed from immediate harm's way, but the killing did not stop. At least in those instances we faced a foe who wished to end conflict; if only on terms more favorable to them. Our present battles find us engaged with a series of foes who have no desire to negotiate, no one with whom to negotiate and no means to enforce any treaty. It is the nature of the asymmetrical war in which we are currently embroiled that no central command exists. Those with whom the ISG would have us negotiate, Iran and Syria, have in mind radically different ends than do we. Freedom, democracy and justice do not factor into their plans for Iraq, or the larger Middle East. The only way to ensure that our jihadist enemy does not visit war on the scope, if not exactly the scale, of Hiroshima to our shores is to defeat them resoundingly everywhere they attempt to hide. Negotiating with Iran and Syria from a point of weakness will not accomplish that end. Stabilizing Iraq, and killing the terrorists therein, will. Simply put, Iraq is the central front in the battle against Muslim extremism, no matter what some more political minded beasts may say.

To that end, Iraq must be stabilized and many more of the enemy there must be killed. That includes Muqtada al-Sadr, and his reported 60,000 militia men. We must break the spirit of the militant Islamists by reigning down fire and brimstone upon them. They respect nothing else. We are currently seen, in the words of bin Laden, as a weak horse and/or paper tiger, unwillingly to accept casualties. As it stands now we are not actively taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq. The ISG would have us do less. The esteemed men and women of this Blue Ribbon panel would have us fight this war as Vietnam in reverse. We would now, after three and a half years of fighting in Iraq, remove the main combat forces and embed advisors with Iraqi troops. After all, goes the argument, "the Iraqis have been training for three years. American soldiers are routinely deployed to combat after several months of training." That neglects the fundamental strength of the US military; namely the Non-Commissioned Officer corps. When I joined the 7th Infantry Division (Light) as a fresh-faced 18 year old straight out of Basic and AIT, my squad leader had six years service under his belt. My platoon sergeant had 14 years service to his credit and my 1st Sergeant had twenty. All three were combat veterans. Every platoon cadre was similarly comprised of, to my young eyes, crusty, old veterans. Most of them were younger then, than I am now, but they seemed so old. They inspired respect, and not a little fear. Human nature is to seek cover, or run away from the sound of gunfire. Surviving close combat demands just the opposite. Only the respect for, and fear of, a seasoned veteran can instill the instinct required to over-come basic human emotion. The Iraqi army does not have that cadre of leadership yet. You can make a soldier in a few month's time, but you cannot make a leader without years of experience. NCOs are experts because they have made more mistakes than the average soldier, and lived through it. They therefore know what not to do.

As of yet, there is also no banking system to speak of in Iraq . This means soldiers, upon receiving their pay, must return to their home towns to deliver the money to their families. At any given time no combat unit is at full strength. There are also infiltrators in their midst. By some accounts, 20-25% of recruits are terrorist sympathizers at best, and terrorists themselves at worst. The purging of the Baath Party left a power vacuum, and nature, abhorring a vacuum, filled it. Unfortunately for us, those that filled it were not always to be trusted. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is thus in a more than dangerous position. In addition, he receives contradictory messages from our leaders. President Bush has absolutely no intention of removing combat troops until the region is stabilized, but his political adversaries would have us bring them home now. Maliki therefore, cannot go after al-Sadr because if American troops are brought home precipitously, al-Sadr's militia may be the only thing left to keep him alive. Daily, Maliki receives mixed messages on our intentions. CNN, and The New York Times scream for immediate withdrawal. Faced with uncertainty from the US, Maliki has retreated into tribal allegiance with the only Shiite leader strong enough to prevent the Sunni insurgents from rolling over the country. Seen in that light I ask, what would you do? Iran and Syria have fomented the violence by arming and supporting terrorists on both ideological sides. This is mainly because Iranian President Amadinejad seeks the return of the Mahdi; the Koranic savior who can only return after the world is thrust into Armageddon. It matters not if we believe in the Mahdi's return, Amadinejad does, and is openly attempting to hasten his return. Al-Sadr's militia, Jaish al-Mahdi, the Army of the Mahdi, highlights exactly how confusingly opaque the entire situation is.

So, what are we to do? Numerous sources have screamed that the military is nearly broken, over-extended and in a deep malaise. None of those things are true. Young men do not volunteer for combat arms jobs thinking they will not go to war. As a 17 year old I volunteered for the infantry, when I was offered every job available. My grandfather and father, both former infantrymen, tried to talk me into Flight School, to no avail. So it is with the current crop of soldier and marine. Their average age is 20. They could not have volunteered before they were 17, so they knew for what they were volunteering; if not exactly the specifics. They knew war was in the offing and gladly accepted that mantle. The Army and Marine combat arms units are also re-enlisting at higher rates than normal. Recruiting as a whole may be down some, but it is by no means dismal, nor dire. So, neither morale nor malaise would seem to be anywhere, but in the minds of those who are safe here in the US. As for being over-extended no such thing is true. We do need more combat troops, but that has always been true. In the last months of World War II Gen. Patton's Third Army had around 350,000 men, but no more than two battalions of infantry in reserve. It was the same on all fronts. All available infantry units, as was the case then, need to be utilized, and that includes the National Guard and Reserves.

The National Guard is just that, a national guard. The National Guard has fought in every war since the American Revolution. The militias that battled the British at Bunker Hill, Concord and Lexington were overwhelmingly part-time soldiers, and the ancestors of the present Guard. Ask any liberal what he thinks about the 2nd Amendment and he will tell you that it was meant for the militia, or our current National Guard, not individuals. How then can anyone say the Guard should not be deployed in a combat role? It either is the direct offspring of those storied militias of the Revolutionary War, or it isn't. Since the 18th century the National Guard has been deployed to bolster active duty units. It is their primary mission. Flood relief and other state calamities are tertiary goals. They are called the National Guard because they guard the nation first, and serve at the discretion of the Commander in Chief. They should not take the lead when Regular Army units are available, but they should fight. Do not get me wrong, I am not in favor of deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq. I agree with Gen. Abizaid that troops in that large a concentration would provide too many targets and too large a footprint. In fact, I am not even in favor of a surge unless they will be allowed to do what they are constituted to do. War is a messy business, undertaken by hard men. It means fighting, and that means killing, and, yes, dying. We must recognize that Americans will die, but more will die, with no result, if we allow the present conditions to persist. In historical context, in just over three months fighting 90,000 men were killed during the Battle of the Bulge. It is the nature of war that a full out assault on your enemy causes less casualties than letting the foe pick the time and place of battle. The enemy always gets a vote, but it should not be the only vote, nor the most advantageous one for him.

We must take the fight to the enemy. Currently that arena is primarily Iraq. Instead of worrying about an "exit strategy" we should concern ourselves with a very simple plan: We Win, They Lose. The comparisons to the time spent fighting WWII are sophistry, at best. There was no exit strategy in December 1944, in fact Eisenhower and his staff were hoping the war would be over by 1946, or 1947. They had no idea of an "exit strategy" because nothing but utter, total victory would suffice. It is the same now, but too many of us do not recognize it. Our enemies are, in the words of Winston Churchill, a gathering storm. If we do not defeat them, and defeat them decisively, in Iraq it will be nothing more than a matter of time before the free world is lost. It may not be that the US will succumb in our lifetimes, and it will not be due solely to force of arms. Our financial markets are globally connected in such a way though, that our enemies can, and will, collapse our economy, gleefully, if given the chance. The US, for good or ill, is the world's economic hyperpower, so if our economy falters the entire world is impacted. Nothing would cheer our jihadist enemies more than to have another Great Depression visited upon us. The way to prevent that is to take the fight to the jihadists whenever we can, and wherever they are. That means al-Sadr in his mosque, if necessary. The jihadists use mosques liberally when it benefits them, and scream bloody murder when we defile them. We must refuse to accept that as legitimate. If they wish to trumpet Geneva Convention rights for armed combatants we should remind them that those same conventions make exception for the destruction of holy places when they are used as battlements.

We must also continue to export that which is best about us. What's best about us is not McDonald's cheeseburgers and Britney Spears CDs. What's best about us is our true, unassailable love of freedom, and the belief in our fellow man. We cannot negotiate our way out of this fight, and we cannot fight it piecemeal. We must fight it aggressively, brutally, with no quarter asked, and none given. Only then, as has always been our practice, can we disband our democratic warriors and let them come home to lead their lives. That is what democracies have always done. For better or for ill, we are now the pre-eminent democracy and we cannot, should not and must not do anything but defeat the evil extremists loose in the world. This may not have been the best time to fight this fight, but then again it is seldom the right time to fight. Had the jihadist proliferation in the region been left unchecked, we would have had to fight this battle by 2020, or 2025 anyway, and with an assuredly more horrific cost in human lives. And to those who would say we are creating terrorists and causing a proliferation, I say two things: 1) If that were true we would have created Nazis by killing them in WWII and, 2) good, they are congregating in a place where we can kill them more effectively, and with less loss of American life.

In his book, The Soul of Battle, Victor David Hanson, quotes a passage from former World War II Supreme Allied Commander, and President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower's memoirs, "Daily as it [the war] progressed there grew within me the conviction that as never before in a war between many nations the forces that stood for human good and men's rights were this time confronted by a completely evil conspiracy with which no compromise could be tolerated. Because only by the utter destruction of the Axis was a decent world possible, the war became for me a crusade in the traditional sense of that often misused word." As Hanson further notes, Thomas Macauley once wrote, "the essence of war is violence, and that moderation in war is imbecility." In the same book Hanson references a speech by Lt. Gen. George S. Patton to his troops in 1944, when absolute victory in World War II was anything but assured, "We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by showing the enemy we have more guts than they have or will ever have." Those three men belong to a different time and age, but their words resound now with urgency. In fact, were I to remove the names and the Axis reference, and simply attribute Hanson's research, most would be hard pressed to differentiate them from the battle in which we are now engaged. That is the point. The battle which currently threatens to consume us is one of time immemorial, namely democracy versus evil. No ideology, once aroused, is as dangerous to its enemies as a democratic nation, because free men know exactly what they stand to lose. I can only hope that we still have the time, and wherewithal to wake up. We did not choose this fight, no matter what some may say, but we must win it. Peace in our time is only possible through a military victory. To paraphrase Churchill, we can no longer, feed the crocodile in the hopes that he eats us last.

View My Milblogging.com Profile