RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,165278,00.html

Great op-ed.
Nailed it.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise, I don't agree with this assessment of surrender and retreat being the only option or that the Korean War wasn't winnable.
First off, the Chinese could have and should have been pushed out of the Korean peninsula. MacArther knew about total war, not civilized limited war. You take the fight to the enemy until they ask for peace. Stopping at the border and letting the enemy regroup and recover is stupid.
Imagine if the Allied forces in WWII had stopped at the German border because they had pushed Hitler's Army out of France and all of the other countries he invaded. No sence being a bully! And once the Japanese were pushed back to their home islands there wasn't any need to consider an invasion and the two atomic bombs were overkill! We should have been happy with getting everybodies land back. There wasn't any need to continue.
Does this sound like the right idea then or now? I say NO! Many of the problems after WWII happened because the Western Countries didn't want to upset the Soviet Union. Germany and Berlin were divided to make everyone Happy! That worked out quite well! Helped launch 50 years of Cold War!
The war in Vietnam might never have happened if the Soviets had been told to back off at the end of WWII, Korea had been won and the Chinese had been defeated. Who knows? I can dream up any scenario on coulda, shoulda, whoulda's.
As for Iraq, Should have finished the job in 1991. But we didn't. Before this latest invasion, Saddam was thumbing his nose at UN inspectors and we fiddled around for 6 months waiting to attack. Let's give the enemy time to move and hide stuff. Good plan!
After 9-11, when all of the terrorists were identified a SAUDI ARABIAN, we should have demanded a few things from our "Friends" the Saudi's, like surrender. They are an enemy of my country, but the US Government has it's priorities twisted!
You can't fight a "limited war", you can't fight a "civilized war", and you can't get a "little bit pregnant".
It's all or nothing!

quote:

Originally posted by Festus_1961:
You take the fight to the enemy until they ask for peace. Stopping at the border and letting the enemy regroup and recover is stupid. You can't fight a "limited war", you can't fight a "civilized war", and you can't get a "little bit pregnant".
It's all or nothing!

Please define the "border" that would apply to Iraq.
Please define the "enemy" that would apply to Iraq.
Please define "peace" as it would apply to Iraq.

If and when you can define any or all of those please run for president and I will vote for you...
But since NONE of our leaders, both political and military, seem to know how to define those things please stop the comparisons between the previous wars and this one. The conflicts of today are being fought two different ways. We are trying to fight using conventional techniques and civility in a situation that we cannot win. In order to "win" we would have to GASP use the same techniques that they use. Whomever they are.
Is the public prepared for the consequences of fighting in such a barbaric manner????
Probably not and the leaders know that.
I have no doubt if we turned the military loose and said don't come back until you've "won" that this countries military would kick everybodies rear end.
And the administration has been telling us for 5 years now: "don't worry baby I'll pull out before anything happens."
Guess whose pregnant now?????
And the daddy ISN'T going to be around to support this baby.....

My point exactly. You can't fight and win a war until you decide what the final outcome should be and if it is even attainable!
** If the outcome is that the current regime will be toppled and your troops take over. That's good' We can do that!
** If we want to kill off all of the fighters and then turn it over to a new regime, we better tell the friendlies to leave or they will die! Maybe we can get the Terrorists to agree to wear a real uniform so we can identify them!
** If we want to topple a regime, make everybody happy and stay untill good versus evil, get ready for the long haul!
** I'm still in favor of dusting off the Neutron Bombs and then we can move back in when the dust clears!
Sorry< I won't run for President. Too many Asses to kiss and Babies to kiss!

quote:

The war in Vietnam might never have happened if the Soviets had been told to back off at the end of WWII, Korea had been won and the Chinese had been defeated. Who knows? I can dream up any scenario on coulda, shoulda, whoulda's.

Whoa... It was the Chinese that backed N. Vietnam after WWII 1st, sending in advisers and weapons starting in 1950. But border disputes between the north and China ended that relationship and Russia then took over in the late 50's as her biggest communist-state weapons "booster".

We(Allied Forces) pushed the Chinese back into China, but MacArthur wanted to INVADE China with nuclear weapons. His President smartly said NO. However, the Chinese were never "defeated", nor were we. It was a stalemate by design which finally convinced the North to come back to the negotiating table, and we still have the "accord" they signed in place, to this day.

But dream on !

Festus_1961,

It seems like the Vietnam vets are always the guys wanting to turn-tail and run.
Am I wrong?
If there are any Vietnam Vets out there that support winning the war against the insurgency roger-up and let's hear you!

GREAT OP-ED.
As a Marine Vietnam Veteran I lost my mind in the Vietnam War. Today I am totally and permanently disabled veteran due to PTSD(POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER). I came home from the war in
April 1970. Every day I find myself back in NAM when one of my senses flashes me back to Nam. When I flash back to Nam I do not hallucinate. The definition of hallucinate is to find one's self physically back in Nam. My PTSD triggers are sight, sounds, smells, topography,tastes. There is not a day when I do not think of NAM. I mentally go back to NAM remembering events that impacted me in NAM. I can be driving down the road, smell diesel fuel,flash to NAM, where in my driving I see lumps on the road side and I think those lumps are bodies. I just keep on driving. I'm cognizant of my driving a vehicle down the road. I'm cognizant of who, what, when, were I am. My Nam flash event is a mili-second of time yet it makes me think those lumps of garbage on the road side are not bodies. I do not hallucinate. As long as I take my medications I'm not a danger to anyone. I have no clue where I was going with this. At this moment I'm back in NAM yet I know I'm sitting at my computer writing. I'm sorry if ya'll are unable to understand what I'm trying to say.
SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

So Obama is the best choice for president? Please! So, a socialist and the most liberal Senator in the United States is the best choice for C-in-C? Dude, you are blind, deaf and dumb! You as a parent of a Marine, does not qualify you as a Marine. Yes, families live the constant wondering and worrying just as I do every day as my Son is Serving in an Infantry company in Iraq right now! But, unlike him, I did serve for over 20 years on active duty. I also wore the uniform so my Son's wouldn't have to and to provide them with better opportunities than I had. But my oldest Son, who received an ROTC scolarship and graduted from Virginia State University Summe Cume Laude with a degree in Mathematics, wanted to Serve. So what do you say to your Son who is self-motivated and made me proud every single day of his life, who is a grown man, No, don't do what you want, do what I want? Men make their own decisions, boys do what others tell them to do.
But all who serve in today's military, unlike Viet Nam, volunteered! All are grown Men and Women who made the decision, not Mommy & Daddy! You can decry the war all you want, but our best & bravest are there right now and I want them to suceed! To me, to many Americans don't respect their freedom, and, when you don't respect and take care of something, you lose it. I also disagree with your assesment of Mr. McCain's military service being some sort of negative concerning being C-in-C. He has wore the uniform and understands what sacrifice is all about. In today's America, very view are willing to sacrifice to achieve. I do agree, the time is coming when we must reduce the heavy-load on our Warriors, yet, I remember an important part of a creed that goes something like this: "My two main responsibilities will remain uppermost in my mind; the accomplishment of my mission and the welfare of my Soldiers". I think that is how most leaders in our military think & feel, especailly those in Iraq right now. We need to accomplish the mission and leave with honor & respect when the situation on the ground dictates. Not when Reed, Pelosi, Clinton, or Obama who are all invested in defeat, wave the white flag.

quote:

Originally posted by mmulder67:
Please define the "border" that would apply to Iraq.
Please define the "enemy" that would apply to Iraq.
Please define "peace" as it would apply to Iraq.

If and when you can define any or all of those please run for president and I will vote for you...

What amout of credibility does someone that says "But honor, service and sacrifice are the wrong code for directing national policy." Our policy setters should have no honor? guess he gets that with Congress.

See if this guy answers your questions... General Cash makes a lot of sense to me. There is a shameless book plug in there, but I totally agree with everything he says.
Middle East Imperative, BY: JIM CASH, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats. The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift.

Now, let's look more closely. Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran . We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran . Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.

I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousand of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply. At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. OIL WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally would vote for any preside ntial candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days". The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over. One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.

I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us <http://www.ospreyradio.us/> or www.rightalk.com.
On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produce those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere.. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences. Nuff -said!!!

Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.. I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right. I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution..

This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval.. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government. I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clinton's and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed.

JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY? In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Re publicans. Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation. You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane F onda , Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.

The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide that. Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.&n bsp; Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam war longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences. This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region.

A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction. If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA .

Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American -- of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region. Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win. By the way, it is not a war. The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the disabilities that he possesses.

A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very short periods of time. I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military.

To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option. However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.


Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen.., USAF, Ret., Lakeside , Montana 59922

honor, service & sacrifice are wrong ideals for leading national policy?!?

Hmmmm, must be a Clinton supporter.

There are many well-expressed and intensely personal arguments put forward here. That is exactly what an op-ed piece should provoke.

The main point of the article is the crucial issue of the upcoming election: How do we want the next president of the United States to deal with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last Wednesday 3 generals addressed a Senate Committee meeting:

McCaffrey (4 Stars) said the war was un-winnable; but we ought to be prepared to take 3 years, if necessary, to give the Iraqis a better chance to form a government they can believe in and an army that they can count on.

Odom (3 stars) said the war was lost and, if we weren't careful the U.S. military in Iraq could find itself in the same situation that the French did at Dien Bien Phu(surrounded and forced to surrender).

Scales (2 stars) did not believe that the situation was as dire as Odom did; but he was closer in his pessimism to Odom than McCaffrey, who himself expressed no confidence in winning this war.

John McCain promises to persevere in the conviction that American military power will exhaust the forces which oppose our presence in these two countries. I believe that Senator McCain has lost touch with reality. Worse things will befall America, if he wins the election, than has befallen us during either the Clinton or Bush 43 administrations.

This election is not going to be about "Character", "Experience", nor domestic programs, despite all the verbage that will be expended on these topics. It's going to be about the war and how we will try to win it, or how we will try to end it.

MTCS_SS
You got it right SR.

Let's just quit everytime things get tough.
That always seems to work.
Maybe we should have listened to the protestors during WWII.
I'm sure that would have turned out great.

In short: If you're in service and don't agree with what's going on...GET OUT
If you've never had boots on the ground in Iraq...SHUT UP
If you've never been in service...Sit back and let us do our jobs!

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
MTCS_SS
You got it right SR.

Let's just quit everytime things get tough.
That always seems to work.
Maybe we should have listened to the protestors during WWII.
I'm sure that would have turned out great.

In short: If you're in service and don't agree with what's going on...GET OUT Who the hell made you God? As if no one has a right to stop and ask questions?
If you've never had boots on the ground in Iraq...SHUT UP So the only opinions that matter are the ones of those that have BTDT? So what about ALL the leaders of this country making policy that have NEVER BTDT?
If you've never been in service...Sit back and let us do our jobs! And a damn good job our military does! That isn't the point. How long can they continue to do their "job" without a goal? How long can a limited amount of individuals last in that environment? And to what end will it seriously, permanently damage our ability to defend OUR country? How long will our society allow itself to be spent into destitution before it says "enough"?

Questions are one thing. Comments are another.
No. I'm not GOD. That's a title you gave me.
I would rather have combat Vets in charge such as McCain. Thanks for clarifying that.
I thought the goal was to win.
The problem is the whiners not wanting us to win.
Democrat=Liberal=weak
What are you?
If you're going to give your input-whom do you support?
I don't agree with everything John McCain stands for, but he is as close as we're going to get this time around.
If you are a Socialist, then vote democrat.
We just can't pull out. That's not a plan and should not be considered.

Good job corporal, let's win the war there so we don't have to fight it here. That day will come. "Radical" Islam exist to dominate and conquer, it must be defeated or it will not stop.

History shows Truman was right. Truman probably prevented World War Three. He was president of the United States, not of the world. He was looking out for us, not for the suffering Koreans.
This is the pill that's so hard for some to swallow.

blah blah blah ....Another mccain basher....please whats wrong with having a president with a military background, mccain has been around this atmosphere his whole life, he is the best qualified and he will win over Obama...he's obviously the best candidate no matter what goofs like this articles have to say....just trying to get something published and talkin a bunch of nonsense.....

mulder please just shut your trap.....if you dont know what goal your ignorant, there is only one goal, and one reason we are over there...to stop this crap going on and help a country restore itself.....why is that so bad...its not pointless, its our safety on the lines, what are you, a terrorist...