The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Feeling Better

4.13.06 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 5)

When 9/11 happened I said, "Thank You God for Bush instead of Gore." I still think he did the correct thing in Iraq, but he is a disaster when it comes to border control and sending lawbreakers back home. In fact this Republican has not been a happy camper for a couple of years, seems my President is turning into a RINO.
-- Elaine Kyle

Winning in Iraq? The Democrats define winning in Iraq as not being there. To them the effort is more important than the results. Some have called for "cut and run" since we have made the "good" effort. I call it surrendering without a fight like a Frenchman. We were officially occupying much of Germany and Japan for a decade after officially winning WWII. We were still there in some force even while trying to throw together another army for a "conflict" in Korea. We still have forces in Germany and Japan 60 years later because we are part of their defensive forces now. The Korean War never ended; we just stopped shooting at each other in my birth year. We still have forces there and a large number committed to go there on short notice. Why? Because we didn't win the Korean War and the enemy is still in place ready for war on short notice. We haven't won a war in the military sense since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War were all loses even though we won all the big battles. Our current efforts in the second Gulf War are the result of not winning the first. We set all sorts of battlefield records in winning the battles of the first Gulf War but still left the enemy in place. Why?

People like Sun Tzu, Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz, and many, many others have written on war and what it takes to win one since the beginning of recorded history and still politicians invent ways to "win" wars without winning them in tangible terms. The principles of war as practiced over the centuries would fill a good sized building but you couldn't find a shred of this in the policies of LBJ and his Vietnam adventure. Vietnam was winnable in military terms if the principles of warfare had been followed. Iraq is winnable, both in military and political terms if the correct polices are followed and the proper effort made. You don't win wars in any sense of the term by waging a defensive war of attrition. The long term goals of our current policy are noble and more hopeful than the do nothing policies of the past but the means to that end may require that the "killer angel" instinct be let loose in order that we may destroy the enemy's will to fight before we try to make peace with them. We were killing the Japanese 10-20 to 1 in the latter stages of the Pacific campaign and they didn't get the message. When we upped it to 100,000 to 0 back to back, they paid attention to what we had been saying to them by other means. Our current efforts are looking a whole lot like Cold War containment than actual war. Winning in Iraq? We will achieve that as soon as the Democrat Congress cuts off funds for our efforts there and we bring the troops home. If you want to win in tangible terms, we as a people must first agree to be at War. The desired result will follow that. I want to win but be careful for what you wish for. The French way of winning is easy and takes little or no effort at all; having it mean anything is another story.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

Thank you for the "right on the money" article. I've re-read it three times and still find nothing to disagree with. But, I'm forced to ask, "How can we get any elected official to do the right thing?"
-- unsigned

Quin Hillyer replies:
The unsigned reader asks a very good question. The answer is: moral suasion, backed by thoughtful and energetic political action. Easier said than done, I know, but I do think these solons will respond if they hear from enough people often enough. Good luck to all of us in trying!

To Mr. Bateman: By "win" I mean a real victory, not a cut-and-run victory. I agree with you that we must define victory the right way, as Sun Tzu and Clausewitz would define it. Which means the enemy must be vanquished, not accommodated. Thanks for a very appropriate warning, and thanks for writing.

THAT'S WHOSE
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's Whose Culture of Corruption?:

I think this is what some of the more perceptive GOP strategists think needs to be reversed -- the Democrats need to be painted as causing the "Corruption of the Culture" and it has to stick.

To whit:

* Which party backs -- either openly or tacitly -- same-sex "marriage"?

* Which party backs unlimited abortions?

* Which party backs nearly unlimited amnesty for "undocumented workers"?

* Which party has been primarily responsible for petty name-calling, vituperative partisanship, and using bureaucratic procedures to shut down government as we knew it when things go against their will?

* Which party checks the press for polls and which way the "intellectual" winds are blowing before making a statement on an issue?

* Which party feels that public service is not an honor and a privilege, but a birthright, not to be interfered with by such things as laws?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Health Care, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Social Security, Sports, Catholicism, Protestantism, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, NATO, Africa, Immigration, Energy, Oil, Medicare