War and the Posture of War
Malcolm Forbes asserts that America will certainly prevail in the battle against terrorism. So does former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
After 9/11 President Bush realized that the only defense against these Islamic Fascists is to get them where they live, instead of waiting for them to come to our shores.
Bush also realized that democracies do not fight with other democracies— hence the all-out effort to democratize Iraq. Prosecution of the Iraq war has included mistakes and on occasion misuse of assets. But these things happen in all wars, although the Main Stream Media and their pet parrots, the Democrat party, would have us believe that cutting and running is the best policy. (And anyone who thinks I favor the Republican Party as it currently exists hasn’t been reading all the postings preceding this one.)
Forbes asserts that we have the finest fighting force in the world, and in our history. But things can and do go wrong in wars. Inadequate or erroneous intelligence is perhaps the most frequent problem, leading to number two, which is inadequate or erroneous deployment of assets. No one was more aware of this than General Dwight Eisenhower, who before the Normandy invasion in World War II had prepared a letter to be released in the event of failure, assuming full responsibility for everything bad that happened.
Which of our charming Democrats today, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or any of the Dems panting after the 2008 presidency would show such character and integrity?
The Bush Doctrine—which is get ‘em where they’re at, before they come here, and insist that the rest of the world choose sides— is the right posture, at least for now. The idea was to show the terrorist vermin and the world that America’s spirit would not and could not be deterred nor our lifestyle affected by their acts of cowardly violence. And Bush’s domestic policy of lower taxes has led to prosperity in wages and increased jobs— at least for now.
But we all know that this is going to be a long war against subhuman people whose mission is reflexive hatred. Newt Gingrich has labeled it World War III. As Kissinger explained, we are up against an enemy which uses various countries, friendly or unfriendly, as staging areas for their nefarious activities.
And President Bush has told us that this new kind of war could last for decades. Perhaps the next president, the one to be elected in 2008, should consider putting the country on a wartime footing. There is something disturbing about living with business as usual at home, while our young men are dying for us and our way of life halfway around the world.
We should recall that President Johnson’s mistake was in thinking he could fight the Vietnam War over his shoulder while passed out the Great Society (which might have been labeled the Costly Society) at home.
Whatever one might say about Franklin D. Roosevelt (and I can say plenty), he knew that when our young men were put in harm’s way thousands of miles from home, it was important to mobilize the home folks behind the war. FDR instituted rationing to be sure that war needs got first priority, and to dampen inflation (which is now running rampant in 2006, with the Dollar in the tank). He had housewives saving string, saving tinfoil from chewing gum and cigarette wrappers, cooking fat and old rubber. Much of this was of only minimal tangible benefit to the war effort, but it provided a great intangible benefit—a uniting sense of participation.
It was a comfort to parents and relatives of fighting men and women to know that the nation was mobilized behind them at home as well.
Another of Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam failures was a very unfair military draft, which permitted deferments for college or specific occupations—and which led to the exodus of many with low draft numbers to Canada.
My suggestion: Forget about a draft, period.
Recently I was surprised to hear a very bright and astute black female leader advocate to me the concept of universal national service for every young person upon turning 18 years of age. She brought the subject up, but I heartily agree. Why? Because so many kids today are at loose ends, particularly but not exclusively blacks.
National service would have military-type discipline. Participants would be given food, clothing, shelter and walking around money. The discipline would be in the form of living by a schedule, and participation in productive activities. The goal is to give these young people the self-respect and self-pride that go with the knowledge of where each fits into our society as a productive citizen. There would be no military requirement, unless a person should want to enter the military (and I suggest there would be plenty of these to satisfy the military’s future manpower needs), at which time he or she could enlist and be paid accordingly.
****************************
President Bush’s original goal has been reached—that of proving that these destructive worms cannot disrupt America and our daily living habits.
Our next president, assuming he or she is not a cut-and-run Democrat, should seriously consider mobilizing for the decades of World War Three.
To fight a war, we should be on a wartime footing.
Rense Johnson, Chairman
Citizens for Term Limits
www.termlimits.com
For a Fresh Congress
Comments