The drumbeat for WAR
It is really interesting to see and hear all of these people who have badmouthed our military through every operation — dating back to Vietnam — beating the drums to go to war against ISIS / ISIL.
It’s like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football. The politicians talk tough and then send our folks into harm’s way. Then, they yank the football away from them — tying their hands with outrageous rules of engagement. (As the British found out during the American Revolution, there is no real good way to fight a “civilized” war.)
Every one of these military operations suffers from mission creep and micro-management that would make LBJ and Robert McNamara beam with pride from the VIP section of Hell. The politicians regularly do things like post embassy guards who are carrying empty rifles. (I saw on the news that the Marine guards evacuating the embassy in Yemen had to surrender their weapons on their way out the door.) I also understand that some Special Forces from Fort Bragg have been sent into Afghanistan — via commercial airline — with NO weapons whatsoever. If you’re going to have the most potent military on the planet, give them a mission and stand back so they can get it done. Talking tough, and then sending them into a hot zone ham-strung, is a pathetic, sick, joke that disrespects the lives of our folks in uniform.
Afghanistan started out in 2001 as revenge for 9-11. Then we went to Iraq. We took both countries, and then the mission creeped into women’s rights, economic development, feeding babies, and all kinds of other bureaucratic goodness. How do you tell when victory was achieved? How do you explain to the surviving family members of those killed in action just what w
e were fighting for?
I’ve got friends among some of the most elite Special Ops teams at Bragg. They’ve see Afghanistan up close and personal on many, many occasions. These guys — some of the most hard-nosed, tough guys you’ll meet — will tell you straight-up that the place is a hell-hole of a mess that NOBODY can “fix.” One of these guys suggested to me privately that the best thing we can do is pull back and quarantine them from making trouble anywhere else in the world.
Well, Washington hamstrung our efforts to cripple al qaeda and the Taliban. Our troops were pulled out. Then, the region was subjected to an emboldened even more-murderous bunch of nutjobs calling themselves The Islamic State. They’re doing horrible things to people and places over there. But where is the specific threat to our national security that requires full-scale involvement of our military?
Let our special ops teams and intelligence community do what they do best in fighting these criminals. They are much better suited for it than divisions of infantry.
During the debate about going to war, we need to hear a very specific, succinct answer to three important questions: (1) How do these nut cases on the other side of the world threaten our national security?, (2) What are we fighting for? and (2) How do we know when victory has been achieved?
If reasonable, satisfactory, credible answers to those questions cannot be provided, we don’t need to go. I, for one, am sick and tired of politicians talking tough and then using our brave warriors as cannon fodder. Sending in a small, lightly armed team into Mogadishu for what became “Black Hawk Down” was disgraceful. Having the guys who guard our embassies do so with empty rifles is disgraceful. Sending in green berets to Afghanistan unarmed is insane. Making rules that our guys can’t fire on towel-heads shooting at them from the middle of a crowded residential area is outrageous. 
If we’re going to spend the money to build the biggest, baddest, mightiest military, we need to turn them loose full-throttle when we dispatch them into battle. We need to give them a clear cut mission with a clear-cut definition of victory. We need to give them all the tools and all the authority to get the job done as quickly, and forcefully and effectively as possible.
I am tired of hearing that our folks are being sent into battle to enforce UN Resolution 1234 or the like. Our military is there to defend our economic and security interests. Not to be the UN’s muscle. Not to referee Third World internecine conflicts halfway around the world. Not to make sure babies get their formula on the other side of the globe. Their purpose is to fight clear threats to our way of life. If the allah-akbar crowd even thinks about coming over here to kill people and or explode something, we bomb them from the mesozoic period they live in now back into the paleozoic period.
Politicians are all about talking. When the talking is done, they need to step back and let the folks who know how to fight handle the fighting.
“. . . we need to hear a very specific, succinct answer to three important questions:”
I hope we get those.
But, as long as Obama is president, we’ll probably never hear TRUTHFUL answers to any important questions. Of what use are specific and succinct answers, if they’re just more Obama lies and misdirection?
At this point, do any of you believe this man? Would another Obama speech convince you of anything? After six agonizing years, can you still endure the sound of his voice? (I’d rather lie on the couch and listen to my dog fart for an hour, than suffer through another Obama speech.)
He will continue to push his radical leftist agenda, and he will do and say whatever it takes (and whatever the spineless, sell-out Republicans will let him get away with) to advance that cause.
That’s the only thing we can count on.
It’s chilling to know that our military is subject to him. Watching him and his regime, playing with our national security and our precious soldiers’ lives is like watching a mob of drugged-up, tanked-up delinquent teenagers, squealing out of the driveway in our Rolls Royce with plans to create chaos and destruction, wherever they go.
They’ll “do the town” on the credit cards they stole from us, stick us with the bills for their mayhem, and then lecture us for our old-fashioned attitude toward theft and personal responsibility.
Somehow, we must outlast the hideous Obama presidency. If I can watch him, vacating the White House with my own eyes, I believe I can rest in peace.
But, I won’t expect any specific or succinct answers from that rabble for the next two years.
Would caution you on the notion that the substantial part of the engagement of ISIS might be better done by Special Forces … Success requires the application of all the elements of National Power: Diplomacy, Information, Military and Economic. Within the ‘M’ piece, SF is not organized, trained nor equipped to ‘develop the situation’ on the ground, as a singleton capability. That is the job of the ground gaining, conventional arms, in conjunction with special operations capabilities. It is the application of ‘operational art’, of which there has been a dearth under Obama and his hand-picked Beltway GOFO. Want to decimate Special Forces? Send them in against ISIS with a ‘find and defeat’ mission without close cooperation / coordination with significant numbers of conventional forces from all the Services. SF is a key player, but it is not a silver bullet.
I agree – I’ve not heard credible answers to those questions yet.
As far as I can tell, that particular group of insane psychopath zealots are certainly evil thugs, but I’m not seeing the US national interests at stake that demand we put up soldier’s lives.
I dont see any “win” there.
Atnor:
ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood embedded in key decision making nodes in the Government represent an existential threat to the Republic. We must do what ever is required to find, fix and destroy that threat. If the most effective course of action includes use of US ground forces, then so be it. We are not some has-been European nation that finds no war worth fighting, even in the face of mortal danger.