How to fight and win: a Veteran's Perspective
Allan J. Ashinoff
September 17, 2005
Can a war actually be fought where no one dies except the enemy? How does the used of “smart bombs” weaken the United States? Has President Bush placed America in the same futile mold of Korea or Vietnam where political objectives and not military objectives are the rule of the day? Is America’s political correctness killing our soldiers and endangering our way of life?
In World War I, the war to end all wars, entire cities were demolished with very little regard for civilian life. In fact so thirsty for blood were the combatants that none of the new weapons of the time were held back in battle. For the first time gasses, mechanized vehicles and efficient hand weapons were introduced to war and the human cost was staggering and repulsive.
In World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s civilian population were targeted with atomic weapons to force the emperor of Japan to surrender in order to eliminate the loss of American personnel when attempting to invade the Japanese homeland. Also in World War II the entire city of Berlin was reduced to rubble without concern for the civilian populace simply to kill Adolph Hitler. Whatever happened to the good old days?
There was a time when our people rooted exclusively for America’s soldiers and gave the American government the benefit of the doubt despite party affiliation. Politicians did not openly seize the opportunity to advance their party or political career at the expense of America’s global reputation or the endangerment of our men at war. People were not so misguided or ideologically naïve to not understand that “they” are the enemy and “we” are the good guys. Imagine a time when the vast majority of the population understood the value of Democracy and Capitalism, a time when America was thought of as basically good, and a time when socialists and communists were understood to be evil by the general public and not part of a major American political party. Whatever happened to the good old days?
No one wants a war. To desire war and the destruction that accompanies it is sadistic and to some extent suicidal. But worse than desiring war is stepping into a war with the intention of being perceived by the world as kind, nice, and morally righteous. War is dirty, ugly, and full of horrors which make war an action not to be entered into lightly. It’s not supposed to be made for public television broadcasts and it certainly isn’t supposed to be food drops to the enemy populace when killing time has begun.
America has been kind, nice, and morally righteous place when it comes to using its might and it’s rationale for using lethal force. America has had atomic weaponry for more than fifty years and has used it once with good reason. American military power has technologically dwarfed that of any other nation for greater than twenty years yet global conquest has never been her goal. It is in the politically correct mindset of being “sensitive to our enemy” that our soldiers die needlessly around the world. It is because of this psychological condition that America remains at risk from the threat and realities of nuclear proliferation from volatile countries with dictatorial leaders.
There is an old adage which says you can’t please everyone. Surly war is one area where a nation shouldn’t care what anyone thinks as it pursues its objective: to win. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are prime example of this very “PC” and dangerously foolhardy philosophy. Why should Americans care if the Muslims are fighting during Ramadan? When fired upon from a mosque why do we concern ourselves with the religious significance of a “holy” place? To what significance do the ‘Arabs Streets’ impact America’s ability to remove those streets, the city, and that nation from the face of the earth without using nukes? Why did America cease hostilities in Vietnam for the Tet religious holiday only to be attacked?
It appears that Americas kindness, ingenuity, and technical brilliance is being used against itself regardless of which administration is in office. When fighting an enemy who finds glory in self-sacrifice, how is it that we think blowing up an empty pesticide factory at 2am will have any fearful impact? In that line of thought what makes an American President believe that precision bombing will deter state sponsored terrorist groups who have no centralized command? What makes a country like North Korea or Iran afraid of sanctions when the leadership knows it can hide its weapons in hospitals, churches, and temples? Why do terrorist groups dare to advertise to sovereign nations ‘we have your citizen and we will kill him if you do not comply’ and then name their movement? Is the American government so inept and indecisive that thugs such as these are not fearful of the repercussions of their actions because they hide in another nation?
There is a low rumble from the neo-peaceniks who are trying to relive their sixties youthful delusion of glory to end the war on terror. Their single argument is that Americans are dying. Anti-War icon Cindy Sheehan is quick to put up white crosses, many whose parents object to their child’s name being used in her crusade, with the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. She’s quick to remind us that “X” number of soldiers have died fighting in Iraq. She’s equally quick to tell is that we were misled in the war. Lastly, she mentions her fallen son who volunteered and even reenlisted to be involved in this war. But I digress; Ms. Sheehan is not the issue, and incidentally neither is her son, to her or this article.
Sheehan may be an opportunistic ghoul who feeds off her son’s death to promote her puppeteers agendas but she makes one point worth mentioning. Her point, even though she misses it herself, is that America’s sons are dying because we are fighting these wars…all wrong.
It’s not really an issue if America should be fighting the war on terror. America should have begun this fight at least twenty years earlier when terrorism was emerging as a political tool. Nor is it much of a stretch to say Saddam Hussein and his regime was sponsoring terrorism throughout the globe long before 1991. After all Saddam was offering $25,000US to families of successful suicide bombers in Palestine. America is where it needs to be for the purpose of fighting terrorism as well as protecting its national interests. Now more than ever terrorists feel empowered as radical America strengthens their resolve on the nightly news and as Israel pays off Hamas in Palestine hoping for peace. Yes, giving in to a bully’s demands is always what stops him from taking your lunch money next time.
To spare American lives, which is all that matters in American wars, and meet our national objectives in Iraq, America should have carpet bombed the entire city of Baghdad to the extent that nothing would be left standing and very little would be left living. The same philosophy goes for places like Afghanistan or any target of US force. America’s goal was to remove a threat. A sky full of B-52’s or Stealth Bombers for 48-72 hours straight would have easily removed the threat; it would have removed any resistance, and it would have saved many of the American lives lost. American soldiers could have picked through the rubble with bull dozers, metal detectors, and rakes to find any proof needed and to provide humanitarian aid to those who survived the onslaught. The ruined city would be rebuilt in better condition than it was previously and the battered people would obediently learn how to live in the 21st century. Iraqi death toll: some 2 million; American death toll: Zero.
To further reduce potential hostility America should have given notice to neighboring countries that if their people are found to be using force or sabotaging things in Iraq during the “cleanup and rebuild” that they would immediately forfeit their nation’s right exist for daring to threaten American soldiers at war. Places like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia who are quietly supporting the terrorist-insurgents in Iraq would see their skies filed with American B-52’s and Stealth Bombers for a few days. Nations which can not police and keep the “unrest” or “disfavor” with America’s actions within their own borders would force America into action. Any nation who interferes with America’s military actions and place America’s soldiers in undue risk forfeit their impartiality and bring unto themselves massive loss of life, infrastructure, and capability.
France? Germany? Sure why not. After all, their nation’s governments are sub-human as they violated the oil-for-food provision of the 1991 cease fire and supported the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people by not enforcing the very UN mandates accepted to stop the Gulf War. Further, their interest in the Iraq oil fields promised to them by Hussein to prevent America from attacking was condoning Baghdad’s rape rooms, terrorism sponsorship, the murder of Iraqi civilians, and yes, Saddam’s quest to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs. One doesn’t need a still in the forest if ones not making moonshine an old Navy friend used to say.
Perhaps what America needs is a new global policy befitting the worlds sole super power. A new American global policy that allows any nation to have nuclear capability but also places dire consequences for the misuse of that responsibility. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see North Korea told loud and clear worldwide that if they fired a nuclear missile on the US that America’s retaliation would include nukes to every major city in that nation? Wouldn’t you think China would be concerned about the nuclear fallout blowing over their nation? Perhaps they would be concerned enough to strong arm North Korea into standing down with their nuclear military intentions?
America can not allow the Fred Flintstone dictators of the world to acquire George Jetson weaponry. To allow these nations to develop weapons of mass destruction, which incidentally is the dictator himself to his own people, or to allow America’s allies to continue to aid in the development of these weapons is sheer suicide. If Bush can not fight the war as this war must be fought, then its time to find and elect a leader who can both protect our borders as well as annihilate the opposition with overwhelming force. Would Al Qaeda even think twice about the military significance of a target if they were to get their hands on a WMD? Would Saddam have thought twice about civilian lives in down town Manhattan NY during rush hour if he could smuggle in a dirty bomb without being caught? Hardly. Yet America is concerned with the global perception of its use of force.
I wonder how the all knowing Cindy Sheehan who recently said "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power," would be saying if there were two million dead Iraqi’s but she had her son still? Would she say the war was unjust? Would she even care about the dead Iraqi’s? Yes she would, simply because you can never please an activist just as you can never satiate a terrorist. She would care, like every other liberal would, because Bush wasn’t her choice. But the rest of the country wouldn’t have to hear her ravings since she wouldn’t have the media attention her handlers can command.
The American government needs to fight this war with the same fire it had in its stomach when the war began. Until such time that America engages in the nastiness of war which must be done this struggle will continue without end. It’s no longer a matter of if this war should be happening, it’s a matter if our government has the guts, courage and nerve to disregard the world’s perception of America and win. We ask of our soldiers for this courage, nerve, and guts; we should ask the same from our leaders?
This article can also be found with numerous embedded links at www.fedupwithpc.com.
In World War I, the war to end all wars, entire cities were demolished with very little regard for civilian life. In fact so thirsty for blood were the combatants that none of the new weapons of the time were held back in battle. For the first time gasses, mechanized vehicles and efficient hand weapons were introduced to war and the human cost was staggering and repulsive.
In World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s civilian population were targeted with atomic weapons to force the emperor of Japan to surrender in order to eliminate the loss of American personnel when attempting to invade the Japanese homeland. Also in World War II the entire city of Berlin was reduced to rubble without concern for the civilian populace simply to kill Adolph Hitler. Whatever happened to the good old days?
There was a time when our people rooted exclusively for America’s soldiers and gave the American government the benefit of the doubt despite party affiliation. Politicians did not openly seize the opportunity to advance their party or political career at the expense of America’s global reputation or the endangerment of our men at war. People were not so misguided or ideologically naïve to not understand that “they” are the enemy and “we” are the good guys. Imagine a time when the vast majority of the population understood the value of Democracy and Capitalism, a time when America was thought of as basically good, and a time when socialists and communists were understood to be evil by the general public and not part of a major American political party. Whatever happened to the good old days?
No one wants a war. To desire war and the destruction that accompanies it is sadistic and to some extent suicidal. But worse than desiring war is stepping into a war with the intention of being perceived by the world as kind, nice, and morally righteous. War is dirty, ugly, and full of horrors which make war an action not to be entered into lightly. It’s not supposed to be made for public television broadcasts and it certainly isn’t supposed to be food drops to the enemy populace when killing time has begun.
America has been kind, nice, and morally righteous place when it comes to using its might and it’s rationale for using lethal force. America has had atomic weaponry for more than fifty years and has used it once with good reason. American military power has technologically dwarfed that of any other nation for greater than twenty years yet global conquest has never been her goal. It is in the politically correct mindset of being “sensitive to our enemy” that our soldiers die needlessly around the world. It is because of this psychological condition that America remains at risk from the threat and realities of nuclear proliferation from volatile countries with dictatorial leaders.
There is an old adage which says you can’t please everyone. Surly war is one area where a nation shouldn’t care what anyone thinks as it pursues its objective: to win. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are prime example of this very “PC” and dangerously foolhardy philosophy. Why should Americans care if the Muslims are fighting during Ramadan? When fired upon from a mosque why do we concern ourselves with the religious significance of a “holy” place? To what significance do the ‘Arabs Streets’ impact America’s ability to remove those streets, the city, and that nation from the face of the earth without using nukes? Why did America cease hostilities in Vietnam for the Tet religious holiday only to be attacked?
It appears that Americas kindness, ingenuity, and technical brilliance is being used against itself regardless of which administration is in office. When fighting an enemy who finds glory in self-sacrifice, how is it that we think blowing up an empty pesticide factory at 2am will have any fearful impact? In that line of thought what makes an American President believe that precision bombing will deter state sponsored terrorist groups who have no centralized command? What makes a country like North Korea or Iran afraid of sanctions when the leadership knows it can hide its weapons in hospitals, churches, and temples? Why do terrorist groups dare to advertise to sovereign nations ‘we have your citizen and we will kill him if you do not comply’ and then name their movement? Is the American government so inept and indecisive that thugs such as these are not fearful of the repercussions of their actions because they hide in another nation?
There is a low rumble from the neo-peaceniks who are trying to relive their sixties youthful delusion of glory to end the war on terror. Their single argument is that Americans are dying. Anti-War icon Cindy Sheehan is quick to put up white crosses, many whose parents object to their child’s name being used in her crusade, with the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. She’s quick to remind us that “X” number of soldiers have died fighting in Iraq. She’s equally quick to tell is that we were misled in the war. Lastly, she mentions her fallen son who volunteered and even reenlisted to be involved in this war. But I digress; Ms. Sheehan is not the issue, and incidentally neither is her son, to her or this article.
Sheehan may be an opportunistic ghoul who feeds off her son’s death to promote her puppeteers agendas but she makes one point worth mentioning. Her point, even though she misses it herself, is that America’s sons are dying because we are fighting these wars…all wrong.
It’s not really an issue if America should be fighting the war on terror. America should have begun this fight at least twenty years earlier when terrorism was emerging as a political tool. Nor is it much of a stretch to say Saddam Hussein and his regime was sponsoring terrorism throughout the globe long before 1991. After all Saddam was offering $25,000US to families of successful suicide bombers in Palestine. America is where it needs to be for the purpose of fighting terrorism as well as protecting its national interests. Now more than ever terrorists feel empowered as radical America strengthens their resolve on the nightly news and as Israel pays off Hamas in Palestine hoping for peace. Yes, giving in to a bully’s demands is always what stops him from taking your lunch money next time.
To spare American lives, which is all that matters in American wars, and meet our national objectives in Iraq, America should have carpet bombed the entire city of Baghdad to the extent that nothing would be left standing and very little would be left living. The same philosophy goes for places like Afghanistan or any target of US force. America’s goal was to remove a threat. A sky full of B-52’s or Stealth Bombers for 48-72 hours straight would have easily removed the threat; it would have removed any resistance, and it would have saved many of the American lives lost. American soldiers could have picked through the rubble with bull dozers, metal detectors, and rakes to find any proof needed and to provide humanitarian aid to those who survived the onslaught. The ruined city would be rebuilt in better condition than it was previously and the battered people would obediently learn how to live in the 21st century. Iraqi death toll: some 2 million; American death toll: Zero.
To further reduce potential hostility America should have given notice to neighboring countries that if their people are found to be using force or sabotaging things in Iraq during the “cleanup and rebuild” that they would immediately forfeit their nation’s right exist for daring to threaten American soldiers at war. Places like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia who are quietly supporting the terrorist-insurgents in Iraq would see their skies filed with American B-52’s and Stealth Bombers for a few days. Nations which can not police and keep the “unrest” or “disfavor” with America’s actions within their own borders would force America into action. Any nation who interferes with America’s military actions and place America’s soldiers in undue risk forfeit their impartiality and bring unto themselves massive loss of life, infrastructure, and capability.
France? Germany? Sure why not. After all, their nation’s governments are sub-human as they violated the oil-for-food provision of the 1991 cease fire and supported the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people by not enforcing the very UN mandates accepted to stop the Gulf War. Further, their interest in the Iraq oil fields promised to them by Hussein to prevent America from attacking was condoning Baghdad’s rape rooms, terrorism sponsorship, the murder of Iraqi civilians, and yes, Saddam’s quest to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs. One doesn’t need a still in the forest if ones not making moonshine an old Navy friend used to say.
Perhaps what America needs is a new global policy befitting the worlds sole super power. A new American global policy that allows any nation to have nuclear capability but also places dire consequences for the misuse of that responsibility. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see North Korea told loud and clear worldwide that if they fired a nuclear missile on the US that America’s retaliation would include nukes to every major city in that nation? Wouldn’t you think China would be concerned about the nuclear fallout blowing over their nation? Perhaps they would be concerned enough to strong arm North Korea into standing down with their nuclear military intentions?
America can not allow the Fred Flintstone dictators of the world to acquire George Jetson weaponry. To allow these nations to develop weapons of mass destruction, which incidentally is the dictator himself to his own people, or to allow America’s allies to continue to aid in the development of these weapons is sheer suicide. If Bush can not fight the war as this war must be fought, then its time to find and elect a leader who can both protect our borders as well as annihilate the opposition with overwhelming force. Would Al Qaeda even think twice about the military significance of a target if they were to get their hands on a WMD? Would Saddam have thought twice about civilian lives in down town Manhattan NY during rush hour if he could smuggle in a dirty bomb without being caught? Hardly. Yet America is concerned with the global perception of its use of force.
I wonder how the all knowing Cindy Sheehan who recently said "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power," would be saying if there were two million dead Iraqi’s but she had her son still? Would she say the war was unjust? Would she even care about the dead Iraqi’s? Yes she would, simply because you can never please an activist just as you can never satiate a terrorist. She would care, like every other liberal would, because Bush wasn’t her choice. But the rest of the country wouldn’t have to hear her ravings since she wouldn’t have the media attention her handlers can command.
The American government needs to fight this war with the same fire it had in its stomach when the war began. Until such time that America engages in the nastiness of war which must be done this struggle will continue without end. It’s no longer a matter of if this war should be happening, it’s a matter if our government has the guts, courage and nerve to disregard the world’s perception of America and win. We ask of our soldiers for this courage, nerve, and guts; we should ask the same from our leaders?
This article can also be found with numerous embedded links at www.fedupwithpc.com.
Print
Email
