Die Soldier, Die!

Hatred

Peace Rally

I was watching coverage of the anti-war rally in Washington, D.C., on the O'Reilly Factor last night, and heard the vacuous ramblings of Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Jane Fonda.

I'm paraphrasing, but when asked about the 3 million people who died when America left Vietnam, Ms. Fonda said that America caused their deaths by going there in the first place. In other words, we, America, forced the Viet Cong to murder their own citizens. This kind of anti-America thinking was on display throughout the protest.

Also, this morning, on Fox and Friends, I saw an American Iraq War vet, Joshua Sparling, who had lost his leg to amputation, who described his experience when he went to the rally to protest the protest; in other words, to support the war in Iraq. He got a get-well card from one protestor that on the inside said, "Die soldier, die!" Hundreds of protestors gave him the finger,



screaming, "You should have stayed in Iraq," "You're just a murderer," "You have blood on your hands." Police had to intervene when several in the crowd gathered clubs and were going to jump him. Others were spitting on him, cursing.

This is your typical pro-peace crowd. You can even see the hatred in the eyes and faces of the main speakers.

Negotiate, Negotiate, Negotiate

I could pick any number of tenets to debate with this crowd, but I want to focus today on one central myth that they believe. See also my post, The Usual Suspects Smell Blood.

Countries are People Too

The peace at any cost crowd believes that countries behave like human beings. This leads them to imagine that negotiation is always the best policy when dealing with anyone, including expansionist, totalitarian, fanatical nations.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

Negotiating with Hitler

The classic example of their kind of philosophy in action was when Neville Chamberlain, fearing Hitler, went to negotiate with him. Hitler was all smiley and back-slapping, and gave in to Chamberlain, promising he would not wage war against Europe—in exchange for one minor concession, the bloodless annexation of the nation of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain was ecstatic. He came back to England claiming he had achieved "Peace in our time." Then, Hitler, having digested Czechoslovakia, went on to gobble up the rest of Europe.

A Negotiating Success

Can the personal touch ever make a difference? Yes, rarely. The shining example of negotiation working was when Jimmy Carter, by dint of will, forced the Israeli's Menachem Begin and Egypt's Anwar Sadat to make peace, following the 1978 Camp David Accords, in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty; with Israel returning Egyptian lands, and Egypt pledging not to attack Israel. This peace has held, no matter how chilly relations have gotten between Egypt and Israel over the years.

The Differences

Self-Interest

Why did Neville Chamberlain fail while Jimmy Carter succeeded? The answer is that it was not in Hitler's Germany's perceived self-interest to honor the negotiation with Chamberlain. It was, though, in Sadat's Egypt's perceived self-interest to honor the peace treaty with Israel.

Hitler was intent on conquering Europe, and perhaps then, the world. Negotiation, for him, was part of a chess match, where he knew he had duped his opponent into surrendering pieces without a fight. No amount of backslapping, good cheer, sincerity, or making nice would have gotten any different results. Hitler was going to try to take over Europe, period.

Sadat, however, was tired of losing every war with Israel. This was not only humiliating, and emasculating, but also disastrous to the Egyptian economy. Sadat got peace, 3 billion dollars in American aid a year, and he was able to save face by promoting the positives of the whole thing. If he had known he would be assassinated for his trouble, perhaps he would not have gone through with the treaty. On the other hand, he seemed like a courageous fellow, and was well aware of the danger. He may have done this thing truly as an act of heroism for the sake of his people.

Negotiating with Good, and Evil

Notice, too, the differences between Hitler and Sadat. Hitler was a monster, a raving fanatic. Sadat was a good man.

You can negotiate with a good man. You cannot negotiate with a monster.

The monster will, by his very nature, be looking to use the negotiation for his own sordid agenda.

All People Are Good

Except Americans

Which leads to the left's other mistake, when speaking of the power of negotiation. They believe that all people are good.

Of course, this does not, for some reason, include America, nor anyone on the right, nor even those in their own party who are not left enough.

So, to them, George Bush is evil. America is evil. Corporations are evil. Capitalism is evil.

Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela, though, are de facto good. Hugo Chavez is marvelous. Fidel Castro is wonderful. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just has an anger management problem. Terrorist bombers are exactly like you and I. Merely sit down and talk with them and they will give up their arms. After all, it was America that made them into killers. The most murderous KGB member was just a regular guy underneath. Why, if you'd have given the peace crowd the chance, they could have charmed Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, you name him, into giving up their nasty behaviors and joining the world community. All it takes is face time. A smile. A cocktail or two.

Model for the Peace Crowd

The ultimate plan for peace with the peace crowd is the Tibetan monk's model, nonviolence in the extreme. This is the Richard Gere strategy for world peace. These docile ascetics, according to Buddhist principles, did not resist the violent takeover of their nation by communist China. Instead, they negotiated. They chanted and prayed, burned incense, and smiled a lot. They were nice to the Chinese. They made them wonderful vegetarian dinners.

The result? They were slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands, and Tibet remains occupied and ruled by a foreign power.

click to hide most of this post

Every War is Vietnam

The left have long memories. Every year, to them, is 1972. Every war is Vietnam. The solution, for them, is to march on Washington and spit on the flag. They will go on demonizing America, idealizing evil, and minimizing the results of American withdrawal from the world. Just let them sit and drink their lattes while bashing America and planning their next hate event, and they'll be happy.

God bless them, for, literally, they know not what they do.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Peace Rally, Anti-War Rally, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Jane Fonda, Vietnam War, Iraqi War Vets, Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iraq War, Vietnam War, 1972, Tibet, Richard Gere

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

American Democracy at War

War



Srategies

Iraq War Strategies under Hitler, Roosevelt or Truman, versus Bush

I want to compare how a dictator would wage the War in Iraq, versus how our democracy must wage it.





Furthermore, I want to compare how Roosevelt or Truman would wage the war versus how Bush is waging it. There are advantages for a dictator in waging war, but also disadvantages. The same is true for a democracy, and especially for our democracy post Vietnam and post Watergate.

Moreover, there is a difference in leadership style between our leaders in WWII and our leaders now.

Hitler

How would Hitler wage the War in Iraq? He would use his own judgment and wield absolute control to effect it. Knowing Hitler, he would use overwhelming force quickly. He would also be aware that Iran and Syria are funding, training, and even sending troops into Iraq, so he would open up fronts against both these countries simultaneously, aiming to crush them and perhaps even take them over. In Iraq, he would confiscate the oil fields and use the revenue to pay for the war effort. He would annihilate neighborhoods that harbored terrorists or insurgents. He would not hesitate to ethnically cleanse either Sunnis or Shias if they continued to be troublemakers.

Results

What would the results be? Hitler sults be? Hitler would probably win the War in Iraq. He would have conquered Iraq by now, and maybe Syria too, and at least reduced Iran's influence in the region, including stopping them from developing nuclear weapons and decimating their army and warlike capabilities.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The disadvantages?

The rest of the world would be building armies and weaponry to oppose him and defeat him eventually. A quiet insurgency would begin building within Iraq, Syria and Iran to one day take their lands back. Knowing Hitler, he would eventually open up too many fronts, and eventually be defeated.

Roosevelt or Truman

How would Roosevelt or Truman wage the War in Iraq? Actually, they would fight much the same way as Hitler, except without the ethnic cleansing, and without the permanent takeover of Iraq, Iran and Syria. Plus, after the war, they would return the oil fields to the Iraqis, and develop a Marshall Plan for that country.

Results

The results? There would be peace in Iraq, and Roosevelt or Truman would then use this as a springboard to forge a peace between Palestine and Israel.

The disadvantages?

You need strong leaders like Roosevelt or Truman to sustain a war effort that could effect such results. Such leaders are rare.

George Bush

How is our democracy waging the War in Iraq under George Bush?

America's Perpetual War Against the Peace Advocates

America always seems to have a large peace contingent. We had anti-war folks before all of our wars. So to enter any war, millions of peaceniks or neutral folks must convert to favoring war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to go to war against Hitler's Germany long before Pearl Harbor, but it took that disaster to mobilize enough Americans to favor the war. Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor to get us into the war, and then used Allied victories, carefully orchestrated propaganda, and the power of the bully pulpit to sustain American fervor for the war, all the way to victory.

Bush Handicaps

George Bush is operating under a number of handicaps compared with Roosevelt and Truman:

First, we are post Vietnam and post Watergate. Many Americans are instinctually anti-war because of the mess of Vietnam. Those same Americans, plus others, are distrustful of their government and leaders because of Watergate.

Second, the perpetual war between congress and the president over who has more power is in a stage where congress is emboldened to tip the scale in their favor. Democrats sense a weakened president, and so are pressing their case for more congressional power and less presidential power.

Third, George Bush has been less than effective in explaining the war to the people. He has not been able, as of late, to overcome the Democratic and some Republican opposition to the war by virtue of the bully pulpit. Part of the reason is that he has had a slow learning curve in giving effective speeches and communications; and part of it is that, until recently, he has not leveled with the American people about the truths of the war.

Fourth, Bush and Cheney et al made crucial strategic and tactical mistakes in Iraq, such as too few troops, not guarding weapons caches, and leaving the Iraqi army unemployed, which set up the inevitability of the insurgency and the failures in the Iraq War.

Fifth, Bush has chosen to fight a politically correct war. For example, he let Muqtada al-Sadr go when he had him cornered, so as not to anger the Shias; he would not attack the enemy in mosques; he was "careful" when going into insurgent strongholds not to harm the neighborhoods nor the "innocent" people harboring the terrorists; and he allowed Maliki to prevent the U.S. from going after Shia insurgents. Literally, George Bush has had the United States walking on eggshells, fighting a "careful," politically correct war.

Sixth, as a result, the War in Iraq has not gone well. Though the U.S. wins every outright battle decisively, we get slaughtered in the covert war, and public opinion continues to increase against the war.

Seventh, the U.S., along with Bush's ineffective championing of the war, is not engaging in any active propaganda war. Admittedly, in the age of the Internet, YouTube, and MySpace, this would be hard to do anyway, but there seems to be no massive educational campaign about why we are fighting and how high the stakes are. We just have one, lone Texas Ranger, who can't communicate well, telling us to trust him on this one.

Results?

We are winning the War in Iraq, in reality. There is no way the insurgents can defeat us. We win every battle, inflict more casualties than they do, and control the territory and the financial assets. We do suffer causalities, unfortunately. 3,000 dead is significant. Yet, compared to all our other wars, this casualty rate is low. What we are losing, as happened in Vietnam, is the PR war. The propaganda war. The war for hearts and minds.

click to hide most of this post

Conclusions

Hitler

Hitler would have won the War in Iraq by now, hands down. On the other hand, he would have continued his expansionism until he angered so much of the world that they would eventually mass and defeat him, as happened in WWII.

Roosevelt and Truman

Roosevelt and Truman would have won the War in Iraq by now, but they didn't have the handicaps that Bush has. We'd be well on our way to world peace, including in Palestine and Israel, under Roosevelt or Truman.

Bush

In my opinion, Bush was wise to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. This was a good thing for world peace and the War on Terror. It's too bad the American people don't see this and aren't patient enough to witness the resulting good things that will come from its successful conclusion.

Bush is winning the actual war in Iraq, undoubtedly, but has not won the PR nor the propaganda war, and so has lost the hearts and minds of Americans, Iraqis, and the world. Though Bush is winning the battlefield war for control of the territory and assets of Iraq, he is not winning the peace, the battle for law and order in Iraq. Due to military blunders, strategic and tactical, and through fighting a politically correct war, Bush has not been able to quash the nascent civil war and bring peace and security to Iraq. So, as in Vietnam, America is in danger of being driven from Iraq, not by the force of a standing enemy army, but by a deadly insurgency that instills fear, and by the force of public opinion.

The Solution

Bush has one more chance, the troop surge.

He needs to take the gloves off and stop fighting a politically correct war. He must fight to win, now. Plus, he must develop immediately into an effective communicator on the war, and authorize some kind of massive education campaign to teach the American people what the stakes are in this war.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: WAR, WAR STRATEGIES, HITLER, ROOSEVELT, TRUMAN, GEORGE BUSH, IRAQ WAR, VIETNAM, PEARL HARBOR, POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR, WATERGATE, MALIKI, SUNNI, SHIA, MARSHALL PLAN, YOUTUBE, MYSPACE, TROOP SURGE

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth