I have a few enduring Memorial Day memories. Most involve my Dad who never served in the military, being too young for the First World War and too old for the Second twenty years later.

Even so, there was never a Memorial Day in Maplewood, NJ when we [...]]]> Memorial Day Memories

By Alan Caruba

I have a few enduring Memorial Day memories. Most involve my Dad who never served in the military, being too young for the First World War and too old for the Second twenty years later.

Even so, there was never a Memorial Day in Maplewood, NJ when we did not go down to the park, also named Memorial, and watch the veterans, the police and fire units, the Boy and Girl Scouts, and the high school band march to the grassy area where town officials would give speeches about the fallen heroes. Little Maplewood had its share that had served in all of the nation’s wars.

Even as a child I understood my Father’s pride in his nation and in those who had fought to protect its liberty. Later, when I was in the military my other memory was marching through downtown Columbus, Georgia during the Memorial Day parades.

It is a different kind of holiday from Fourth of July. It’s about remembrance. It is focused on those whom Lincoln said gave their last full measure of devotion to their nation.

It is a sober holiday, but it is also a day for picnics and barbecues. In a way, those who died are honored by the mundane activities in which we engage on a day dedicated to their memory. They would have done the same had they lived.

What strikes me most is the way, then and now, so many young men enlisted to fight our wars. Others accepted conscription and fought bravely too. What is so very different is today’s all-volunteer military. Nobody has to sign up for duty, but they do.

The demarcation line came in the 1970s when Americans, seeing the carnage of war in Vietnam on their nightly television news, watching the casualty numbers grow, gradually came together to protest year after year until the conflict ended.

While we have great pride in our military, regarding it more highly than other element of our government, Americans have become detached from the bloodletting of war. They are fought at great distances. Mostly, Americans are highly resistant to any losses in battle despite the records in past wars of literally thousands of casualties. Those were wars we needed to win.

The news lately was of the one thousandth casualty in Afghanistan. We have been there since shortly after 9/11. We lose 40,000 people to death on our highways every year; more by far than the totals of those we have lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It doesn’t make it any less painful for their families, but in the long battle for freedom, it is a remarkably small price to pay and the extraordinary part is that there are still heroes willing to pay the price.

Plato said it best. “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

© Alan Caruba, 2010

PINK ELEPHANT

             Henry was sixteen when left home in for no particular reason [...]]]> As we celebrate our veterans in the middle of yet another war, I have a story told to me by a friend who rarely talks about his Vietnam expierience. It is with his permission I pass this on.

PINK ELEPHANT

             Henry was sixteen when left home in for no particular reason 1963. It was just what impatient young men did. Henry was black, very black. He was thick and muscular, with a penetrating stare and hair with a mind of its own. His gait and demeanor suggested menace, but he was always delightfully cheerful and easygoing. He was what, mythically, white folks feared; a confidant Black man. His restlessness and the belief that he needed to expand his horizons sent him to South Carolina, near his mother’s relatives. After finishing high school and drifting for a while, He enlisted in the Army and never went home again.

            It was a practical decision. The federal government had instituted a draft to feed the killing machine that was the Vietnam war and just by coincidence, young black men were being drafted first. He could wait until they came to get him or he could enlist and make decisions about his future mostly on his own. It was in the Army that Henry found a better sense of direction and purpose. Discipline had never been a priority and he knew that, eventually, hanging out with his friends would get him into trouble.

Military service gave Henry a constructive way to fill his time and made him a citizen. The recruiter had promised many things, all lies, Henry knew, but he also knew that the service would keep him from drifting.  On his 19^th birthday, Henry entered boot camp in North Carolina. Already strong, basic training made him bulletproof. After basic, Henry was sent off to Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. It was here that he decided that he would not be a soldier, he would be a savior. He volunteered for training as an Army corpsman or medic. It was there that he met Martha.

Martha was lithe and cool and elegant, and even darker than Henry. Her demeanor let you know you were there to serve her. She too, had left home at an early age. Fiercely independent, she often found herself at odds with her parents. In an effort to keep her out of jail and away from the crowd that had damaged her siblings, her mother and stepfather shipped her off to relatives in Texas. Martha joined the service to extend her education and found her calling in the Army as a nursing assistant. She looked after wounded soldiers returning from Vietnam, doing the dirty work that the more educated staff would not do.

Martha learned something about every many she cared for. She found that they were put at ease in uncomfortable situations like inserting a catheter or the dressing of often intimate wounds if she knew something about them. She would query them about their homes, their families and their girlfriends. She asked about their buddies back in Vietnam, how they were hurt and what they had lost. Martha flirted with every male patient as a way to boost their confidence. This made her especially popular and often renewed the spirits of these men that believed their lives finished by devastating injuries.

No one said “no” to Martha and Martha said “no” to everyone. She refused to go out on bivouac during basic training because she could see no good reason to spend time sleeping on the ground when the Army had a perfectly good barrack with beds available. Incredibly, she won the argument. She had stared the Army in the face and the Army had blinked.

Like every other man on post, Martha had caught the attention of Henry. He asked her out repeatedly. She let him know in no uncertain terms that he needed to spend a little money on her for her to even consider going out with him. Martha loved money and she was used to being spoiled. Henry, a non-commissioned officer spent what little money he had on Martha. If she wanted something, Henry bartered, begged or conned what he needed from someone else on base to give it to Martha. Just the fact that this tenacious, smoky eyed girl refused to give in to his romantic advances made Henry determined to marry her. Persistence won out and they were married one month before Henry was sent to Vietnam for his tour of duty. Martha would fight the war on the home front, caring for those same soldiers that Henry would patch up in the field. She had volunteered for duty in Southeast Asia, but her month old marriage had resulted in pregnancy and she was denied. In lieu of being nearer to Henry, she wrote him every day.

Days came and went in a monotonous fashion in the camp. Most of the military decorum that was drilled into Henry during boot camp was suspended in country (the term used by vets for a camp set up in the bush). Discipline was not an issue as long as you did your job. With some exception, a person’s ancestry was not of any consequence. If you were an idiot, you were an idiot, no matter what color you were. This made everyone equal. It was assumed that if you were in country, you either didn’t come from money or privilege and therefore had no influence, or were so stupid that you had volunteered to fight..

Even the regulation requiring every solider to carry a weapon was suspended in Henry’s case because of an incident early on in the field. He had never wanted to carry a gun for fear that he might become a target or worse, be forced to use it. It was decided that in lieu of carrying a weapon the platoon would look out for their corpsman as long as Henry agreed to come and get them if they were wounded in the field. It was an arrangement that everyone could live with and that Henry never left anyone behind throughout his entire tour.

In country, mail call was infrequent. All manner of packages arrived from mothers, fathers, siblings, wives, girlfriends and distant relatives. I took time to get mail. Home baked goods often arrived as a box of soggy, molded crumbs, newspapers were weeks out of date and “dear John” letters often found their intended victims after death or discharge. Still mail from any one, anywhere, was at a premium. Leftovers, mail intended for someone that had already shipped out or died in combat, even junk mail, was prized. It kept soldiers connected to the world.

If mail was gold then Henry Grier was Midas.”Grier, Grier, Grier….”, the first Sergeant would call out a dozen times or more. Martha’s caring was evident not only for the amount of mail she sent to Henry, but also for the variety, postcards from the BX, newspaper clippings, birthday and anniversary cards of all shapes and sizes pictures, toys from the cereal boxes, cassette tapes, food, cigarettes. In fact, Henry received so many postcards and letters from his wife that first Sergeant finally handed the mailbag to Henry in frustration saying “You pass it out. It’s all for you anyway”.

            Martha had once spent a week trying to get through to Henry on the telephone. When she finally did reach the camp she found out that he had been out on patrol and was not scheduled to return until that evening. When Henry returned, he received the unusual greeting from first Sergeant. “Your wife called. She loves you and I misses you.” Martha had threatened to come through the phone unless the message was passed on as she dictated it. “Don’t make me swim across the ocean just to strangle you!” she had said.

First Sergeant didn’t speak to Henry for a week and nobody mentioned the incident ever again in the Sergeant’s presence.

It was not unusual, then, when one day Henry received a huge greeting card measuring approximately one by two foot. The envelope no longer held the pristine white gleam it must have had in the store. The corners were bent, there were stains of unknown origin on it and it had a small section of it torn away and re-sealed to reveal its contents for security purposes. It was littered with various postmarks and department of the Army inspection stamps. The card inside was intact and featured a trumpeting pink circus elephant with the words “GOOD LUCK” printed in glitter and the words “HURRY HOME” in bright pink lettering on the inside. The card   was signed with X’s and O’s, a seductive lipstick impression and “All My Love, Martha.

Martha’s mother was somewhat superstitious. A great believer in luck, her home was littered with horseshoes, four leaf clovers, rabbit’s feet and all manner of lucky icons. Martha once found a can of what she thought to be air freshener the bathroom that was labeled “Money Drawing Spray”.

In one proud corner of Miz Jackson’s house, however, was a small hutch with a collection of porcelain elephants of all shapes and sizes and from all over the world. In every instance, the elephants’ trunks were raised in a trumpeting pose. Shortly after they were married, Martha’s mother drew her aside and pressed into her hand a small white elephant from the collection. She intoned, in a hushed manner worthy of great wisdom, that this would bring good luck to her marriage, as long as the trunk pointed up to keep the luck from spilling out.

After the card was passed around, as was the tradition with all mail, Henry tacked it to the door post, near his bunk. It considerably brightened up the sullen, olive drab bunker, partially buried to minimize damage from daily mortar attacks and therefore dark. The only natural light came from sunlight that filtered through the tarps draped across the entrance and narrow openings near the roof designed more for sticking am M-1 through for defense than for light.

            The pink elephant became a friendly reminder of home. It represented love ones missed and the comfort from which they were far removed. On the days that Henry went out on patrol with the unit, he would touch the elephant on his way out of the bunker saying “See you later.” or “Love you, Baby.” It was part wish to be home and part respect for his mother-in-laws beliefs. Henry soon found it necessary to touch the elephant as assurance. The pink elephant became the only consistent link to the world.

Superstition was a way of life in Vietnam, and it often rubbed of on the young men sent to fight. Vietnam was, after all, a country that mingled ancient eastern beliefs and modern western hopes. In village huts and city apartments alike, families kept small Buddhist altars that sometimes incorporated American icons like Coca-Cola bottle. Superstitions long forgotten by parents and grandparents were often resurrected by young soldiers. A, rosary or other religious icon served just as well as a baseball card, a scarf from a girlfriend, a photograph or a bottle cap.

In similar fashion, it became vital for anyone going on patrol to touch the pink elephant. In solemn parade, men would troop out of the bunker single file and lay a hand on the elephant. Some would kiss their fingers and touch it. Others placed a solemn hand on the card and bowed their heads. Catholic boys might touch the elephant and then cross themselves mixing religion and superstition.

            And so the pink elephant did double duty as a reminder of home and hope in its power to protect. The ritual became obsession. If while out on patrol one of the men realized that they had forgotten to touch the elephant the entire platoon would double time back to camp to rectify the situation. If you didn’t touch the elephant you might not get home.

            As the year progressed, the card gathered an assortment of smudges and sweat stains, but remained tacked to the door post. Only once was there a problem. A smart-ass Lieutenant transferred in. He had done time in Vietnam before and considered himself smarter and tougher and wiser than anyone else. “If he’s so damn smart”, the line went, “why did he come back?.”

One morning, as the patrol filed out of the bunker, the Lieutenant skipped by the pink elephant, in a hurry to get back to the war. He was stopped at the door and the situation explained to him by Henry.

“Touch the elephant, sir.” Henry said, not a little emphatically.

            “Don’t be ridiculous Sergeant.” he bellowed.

            “Touch the elephant, sir.” Henry said again.

            “You know as well as I do that when your number is up, solider, it’s up. Nothing you, I or some piece of crap card can do about it.”

            “You either touch the elephant, or we don’t go, sir.” Henry said firmly. The others in the patrol grunted their support.

             ”Don’t be stupid.” the Lieutenant said trying to push his way past. Henry put us big hand on the Lieutenant’s chest and held him in place. Feeling his oats, the Lieutenant growled, “You had better take your hand off of me, Sergeant.”

            “Not until you touch the elephant, sir.” was Henry’s calm reply. The Lieutenant relaxed a bit, smiling an uncomfortable smile. The lieutenant tried to bring reason into the argument.

            “Sergeant,” if there’s a bullet or a mine or a pungi stick out there with my name on it out there, I can’t hide from it. Neither can you.”

            “And if you don’t touch the elephant, sir,” Henry said. “I’m sure that I can find a bullet with your name on it right here in this barracks.” Again, the patrol grunted in agreement. Shortly after that, the Lieutenant transferred out of the platoon. No one knew if he survived Vietnam. All anyone could hope for was that he didn’t get anyone else killed.

            During his tour in Vietnam, Henry and his platoon survived one of the worst firefights of the war. Two hundred and forty men were tasked with holding a vital hill position, only fifty-three survived. At the end, they were down to fighting with machetes and sticks. Henry lived up to his promise by going to the aid of anyone that was injured during the fight. Men died, but none of them was anyone that had had the foresight to touch the elephant. Everyone found their way home.

One day, in 1968, Henry packed up the pink elephant and went home to his wife and new son.  After Vietnam, Henry remained in the service for another 23 years. He and Martha had another son and remain married to this day.

Henry continued to rescue Vietnam veterans from the nightmare that was America’s most unpopular war as a nurse in the psyche ward at the Veteran’s Hospital in Albuquerque. His injuries finally got the best of him and he retired in 2009.

After all, you need money to fight a war – it has been argued that all world empires have collapsed ultimately economically because they had to protect too much territory with too little money – and conquest often brings in money. In the past, wars have often [...]]]> War and money have always been inter-related.

After all, you need money to fight a war – it has been argued that all world empires have collapsed ultimately economically because they had to protect too much territory with too little money – and conquest often brings in money. In the past, wars have often been fought to seize resources and enrich the conqueror – ask any passing European colonialist – and a short war generally proves a great stimulus to the economy too.

In feudal times, the king mostly fought wars to keep his otherwise revolting and over-mighty robber barons exhausted but happy. According to feudal law, the barons had to raise the army, but they then got to go on a glorified fox hunt in foreign lands and to return with goodies and rights to land far more valuable than both ears and the tail.

When the feudal system collapsed in the face of the rise of mercantilism in the sixteenth century, the king had to go to Parliament to raise taxes to fund his army, but he still managed to keep his greatest adventurers adventuring on someone else’s doorstep and bringing back the loot.

Not that the formula was infallible. Charles I of England seemingly got it wrong when he declared an unpopular war on Scotland and then tried to raise Ship Money to pay for it. He made the even bigger mistake of stockpiling all these expensively purchased armaments in Hull which subsequently declared for the rebel parliamentarians. However, as the Marxist historian Christopher Hill pointed out, the truth may have been a little different from the way it has been traditionally painted.

Most of the leaders of the Parliamentary rebels, including John Hampden and Oliver Cromwell, had another axe entirely to grind. In the 1630s they had backed a commercial speculation called the Providence Island Company which collapsed, taking their fortunes with it. Something drastic had to be done and raising money for a large army, some of which would get lost in their own pockets, seemed an excellent way to go, especially when they happened to win the subsequent war and Oliver Cromwell got made Dictator.

The Second War of Iraq was a classic of medieval politics and money making. George W. Bush got to declare war on Iraq under an entirely spurious pretext and then persuaded those dupes the American people to fund the war out of their taxes. Astonishingly enough, Bush’s political allies seem to have profited rather excessively as a result of contracts aimed their way and the military-industrial complex likewise – furnishing a double dose of pork-barrel politics to fuel re-election – and only the American and Iraqi people missed out. Tough titties, huh?

However, there was a drawback to this dramatic money-circulating scam. The US government was already in deep doo-doo deficit, so there was a limit to how much money could be transferred from the many to the few. This is where Bush’s true genius came in. Under rules related to Homeland Security, he managed to persuade everybody across the world, including the usually intensively and righteously secretive Swiss, to declare whenever money moved around (even by PayPal), all in the name of the War against Terror, you understand. This level of global scrutiny cunningly enables the IRS to track down taxation money so much more efficiently, bringing to book avoiders and evaders alike.

You have to hand it to them, in more ways than one ….

I come from a generation, just as several before it, that was drafted into military service. The Draft, conscription, goes back to the days of the Civil War and, before that, it was understood that able-bodied men would serve in militias.

After the Pearl Harbor attack on December [...]]]> Our Warrior Class

By Alan Caruba

I come from a generation, just as several before it, that was drafted into military service. The Draft, conscription, goes back to the days of the Civil War and, before that, it was understood that able-bodied men would serve in militias.

After the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941, many American men lined up around the corner to volunteer to fight the Japanese. Others would be dispatched to the European theatre of war to fight the Nazis.

Still others waited to be drafted into service. During the years leading up to Pearl Harbor many Americans simply wanted to stay out of the Asian conflict that had begun with the Japanese invasion of China many years earlier and the European conflict that had begun when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. That changed in 1941.

The “greatest generation” fought and won. They did it by being absolutely merciless toward our enemies because that is the only real rule of war. Kill them before they kill us. Lose the war and you are their possession, their slaves.

World War Two was all-out war with civilians dying in the hundreds of thousands because the people’s will to fight on had to be extinguished. Dresden was bombed to dust; Berlin became a shell of shattered buildings. As American forces waited to invade the homeland of Japan, President Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and, when the Japanese emperor and generals still refused to meet the terms of unconditional surrender, he bombed Nagasaki. World War Two ended.

I often tell people that the history of mankind is the history of war. It is always the history of winners and losers. It may take a short breath, but war is a constant throughout history and in the life of each new generation.

Shortly after the end of World War Two in 1945, the Korean War began when North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. That war drew Americans back to a new battlefield until, on July 27, 1953, a truce was signed. The two Koreas are technically still in a state of war because no peace treaty exists.

Then, of course, for most Americans today there was the Vietnam War. Whether of the generation who fought it or those born after it, the Vietnam War remains the war we lost. It remains a cauldron of debate over its conduct. What emerged from that war, however, was an all-volunteer military, a warrior class.

Over the years of the Iraq-Afghanistan conflict I had occasion to write that these were the wrong wars in the wrong places, that the U.S. was wasting its treasure and young men (and women) there. I think, on reflection that I was wrong.

I think, now, that even this veteran of the U.S. Army, drafted in the 1960s, simply grew weary of these wars and neglected the broad history of conflicts dating back to biblical times.

A friend of mine, a professional soldier who served for 25 years, had this to say:

“When I first came in, the drill sergeants, platoon sergeants and sergeants majors were all ‘Nam vets and they all told us the same thing; we are an all-volunteer Army, none of us were drafted; having served in a conscript Army they all said that we wouldn’t want to be in conflict with a bunch of draftees who did not want to be there. They told us about disciplinary problems in the draftee military you would not believe.”

“The war we are currently engaged in is The One Hundred Years War and the sooner the American people get used to that, the better. I do not differentiate between the ‘Iraq War’ and the ‘Afghanistan War’; they are simply different theaters of the same war.”

In his new book, “Kaboom”, Matt Gallagher traces his transformation from an ROTC college graduate to his battlefield experiences in Iraq. He wrote:

“As I watched the platoon joke, clown, and ramble their way through the holiday dinner, I couldn’t help but think about the country that had produced them. These were the men in the flesh that society only celebrates in the abstract.”

“The NCOs had served in the army long enough to stop caring about the whims of the American culture they protected so effectively; the joes were just removed enough to not fully recognize how the same society that reared us had detached itself from us the day we signed our enlistment papers. In a voluntary military, we fought for the nation, not with it.”

Americans, most of whom honor our troops, have not had our lives personally touched by the Mideast conflicts. The way of life they are fighting to protect has barely been altered as they put their lives on the line every day in a combat zone or service in any of the branches.

Under such circumstances, it is easy to forget there are countless enemies, mostly Muslim, striving to bring down America and to kill us in the same fashion as they killed some three thousand of us on a single day at the beginning of this decade.

Withdrawing from conflict zones in Iraq and Afghanistan may seem like a good idea, an end to our casualties in battle, but those who are there, our warrior class, know that it would just be a brief cessation of what will be a very long war we cannot dare to lose.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

There are tipping points in people’s lives and in the life of a nation. More and more I am inclined to believe that America has hit a tipping point and that its decline has been in progress now since the end of World War II. How can that [...]]]> America in Decline

By Alan Caruba

There are tipping points in people’s lives and in the life of a nation. More and more I am inclined to believe that America has hit a tipping point and that its decline has been in progress now since the end of World War II. How can that be? We were and are a superpower.

While it is true that we have the greatest military power in the world, it is equally true that many of the planes being flown were brought on line in the 1950s, despite the extraordinary aircraft such as the stealth bombers. When Russia can put in a $40 billion bid to build refueling tankers after a major U.S. aircraft firm dropped out of the process, you have to ask yourself whether something is terribly wrong.

Militarily, we have worn out our forces, many of which are National Guard units, with six years of conflict in Iraq and renewed conflict in Afghanistan. All the hardware needed to maintain our troops in conflict zones need replacing. And the President of the United States wants to sign a treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenal.

It goes even deeper, however, than the capacity to wage war, let alone the will to face off with our enemies. Since around the 1960s the nation’s education system has grown steadily more costly and steadily worse in its capacity to produce students with fundamental skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. American students consistently score behind students in other nations. An educated workforce is essential to maintain excellence, let alone parity with other nations.

At the heart of the Medicare reform battle was a very simple fact. The current Medicare program is broke. The current Social Security program is broke. Most of the States in the nation are broke. America must borrow a billion dollars a day to maintain its huge entitlement programs. The interest on treasury notes alone is daunting. Expanding Medicare under such conditions is sheer folly.

The nation and the States have become slaves of civil service unions and their government employees now make more than those in comparable private sector positions. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees now represent 1.6 million workers. There are two million federal workers. The benefits that have been negotiated for these workers are extraordinary, particularly in the area of pensions. Many of the services they provide, other than police and fire, could be contracted to the private sector.

Unemployment continues to rise and the billions in “stimulus” programs are having no effect. The Federal Reserve continues to print money that will invariably have less value.

The exodus from States now famed for heavy taxation, California, New York, New Jersey, continues apace. The value of the nation’s housing stock continues to decline. Other States are becoming manufacturing wastelands as this essential factor of prosperity leaves the nation for others with less taxation and friendlier regulatory environments.

The other problem America has not addressed or solved is that of illegal aliens. There are differing estimates of how many reside in the nation ranging from twelve to over fifteen million. They represent a drain on education systems, medical facilities, receive a variety of social services, and crowd our prisons. Previous amnesties have only served to swell the numbers of those crossing illegally into the nation in hopes of more amnesties. The Obama administration is known to want yet another amnesty enacted.

Increasingly, parts of the nation’s economy have been absorbed into the government, the most outstanding example being the takeover of General Motors and Chrysler, and control of the financial sector through bailouts.

Huge tracts of land, often with significant natural resources, continue to fall under the control of the federal government while others ban any extraction of oil, coal or natural gas. In the energy sector, more than nine million jobs exist and millions more could if the government would permit further exploration and extraction. Meanwhile, offshore of Florida in Cuba, Russians and Chinese are beginning to develop oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Obama administration is totally devoted to the global warming fraud and the baseless assertion that human beings are influencing climate change through the generation of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide. The next major legislative initiation it proposes is the passage of Cap-and-Trade, a measure to impose the largest tax on the use of energy in the history of the nation.

At the same time, the electrical grid that is responsible for the distribution of energy has been aging and is in need of expansion. No new nuclear plants have been built since the 1970s and several are scheduled to be decommissioned. Nuclear represents twenty percent of the electricity used daily in the nation. The site in Nevada for the deposit of nuclear waste, built at the cost of billions, is still not open though it is ready to provide this necessary service.

The nation’s infrastructure of highways and bridges is in near desperate need of upgrade and continues to be neglected.

Nor should we ignore clear signs of moral decline as well. The abortion issue reflects the murder of millions of unborn babies. The push for same-sex marriage is a rejection of the ancient recognition that social stability depends on the marriage of a man and a woman. Pornography and violence permeate entertainment venues. Reality TV reflects the worst excesses of behavior. Illegal drugs are available anywhere in the nation.

The list of the indicators of decline is longer, but those cited are sufficient to suggest that an implosion is only a matter of time.

The truth that there is no free lunch remains in effect.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Think about this. Any nation that cannot rebuild the Twin Towers nearly nine years after they were destroyed has lost its ability to function rationally and effectively.

We have been a military presence in Afghanistan since 2001 following 9/11. That’s two years longer than when we were in Vietnam.

The failed Christmas bomber attack was yet another wake-up call for Americans who have slipped into a self-induced coma regarding Islam’s constant threat to the nation and the West.

Despite the post-9/11 attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush and now President Obama have both repeatedly [...]]]> Islam’s Legacy is Constant War

By Alan Caruba

The failed Christmas bomber attack was yet another wake-up call for Americans who have slipped into a self-induced coma regarding Islam’s constant threat to the nation and the West.

Despite the post-9/11 attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush and now President Obama have both repeatedly asserted the absurd notion that Islam is “a religion of peace.” It is, in fact, a religion of conquest and one in which the religion and the state are one. To live in a Muslim nation is to live under Sharia law in which conversion to another religion is punished by death.

“When Asia Was the World” by Stewart Gordon is an interesting book about life in Asia during the years 500 to 1500 of the Common Era. “Buddhism and Islam arose and spread along Asia’s far-flung trade routes. So did luxury goods, such as silk, pearls, spices, medicines, glass, and simple things like rice and sugar.”

“Two centuries before Ibn Fadlan traveled (921-922 CE) through this region, the overall borders of the Muslim world had been set in one of the fastest, broadest conquests in human history.”

“Between 630 CE and 680 CE, Islamic armies swept north from Mecca across what is present-day Jordan, Palestine, and Syria and east across Iraq, then fought in Persia and attacked south into Yemen. By 720 CE, Muslim armies had successfully attacked Egypt, North Africa, and Spain and had conquered several caravan cities, Samarkand, Tashkent, Bukhara and Khwarizm. There, however, the conquest stopped.”

As the memoir of Ibn Battula (1325-1356 CE) revealed, “Every king was surrounded by rivals, factions, squabbling nobles, and a necessary but unwieldy bureaucracy. Kings particularly wanted to know about the successful strategies, symbols, and ceremonies in other courts.” In other words, the worlds of these early kings was no safer than our own today when Western leaders must maintain vast intelligence gathering agencies to know what is being plotted in the Middle East and everywhere else in the world.

It is therefore essential for America to be led by a President who understands the threat posed by Islam in general and by al Qaeda’s network in particular, but in contrast to that we have a President who intends to close the Guantanamo detention center for non-state enemy combatants, extend the protections of the U.S. Constitution to admitted terrorists given civil trials instead of military tribunals, and was slow to respond to the Fort Hood murders and the Christmas day attempted airliner bombing.

On such events and attitudes does the safety and fate of the nation hangs.

It is therefore vital that we pay attention to the voices of those who understand that history turns on winners and losers.

“The greatest advantage our opponents enjoy,” writes Ralph Peters,”is an uncompromising strength of will, their readiness to ‘pay any price and bear any burden’ to hurt and humble us. As our enemies’ view of what is permissible in war expands apocalyptically, our self-limiting definitions of allowable targets and acceptable casualties, hostile, civilian and our own, continue to narrow fatefully.”

Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer, a journalist who has reported from various war zones, is widely traveled, and an author of 24 books. He is quintessentially politically incorrect.

Among the obstacles facing the present generation of Americans, as Peters sees them, are (1) “we simply do not feel endangered”, (2) American’s “collective memory has effectively erased the European-inspired horrors of the last century”, (3) “ending the draft resulted in a superb military, but an unknowing, detached population’, (4) Americans have come to believe in a “catechism of bloodless war”, and (5) “we have become largely a white-collar, suburban society in which a child’s bloody nose is no longer a routine part of growing up, but grounds for a lawsuit.”

Americans who passed through our nation’s schools since the 1960s have been neutered because, as Peters notes, “History is no longer taught as a serious subject. As a result, politicians lack perspective; journalists lack meaningful touchstones; and the average person’s sense of warfare has been redefined by media entertainments in which misery, if introduced, is brief.”

“We have cheapened the idea of war,” says Peters, forgetting or never knowing the price paid by previous generations to defend the nation and its principles. “More Americans died in one afternoon at Cold Harbor during our Civil War than died in six years in Iraq. Three times as many American troops fell during the morning of June 6, 1944 (D-Day) as have been lost in combat in over seven years in Afghanistan.”

While President Obama cited Gandhi in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Peters points out that “Gandhi would not have survived very long in Nazi Germany.”

The President made a case for the necessity of some wars, but returned home to spend three months making up his mind to increase our troop presence in Afghanistan and to then tell the enemy that they would be gone in eighteen months. That is astonishingly stupid and reveals the chasm that exists between Obama’s first year in office and the nearly eight years under George W. Bush in which America was spared another attack.

“The problem is religion,” says Peters. “Our Islamist enemies are inspired by it, while we are terrified even to talk about it.”

History teaches us that Islam has long since plunged those parts of the world over which it holds sway into centuries of backwardness while Europe and the New World grew in power, innovation, and dominance.

My view is that Islam is literally fighting for its life despite the more than a billion who subscribe to it. Far from its earliest years when it championed intellectual inquiry, it now holds desperately to the most primitive control over the lives of its adherents and cannot expect a Reformation such as took place in Christianity.

The wars to defeat it will take a long time, cost many lives, and be worth every dollar and every casualty.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

As I listened to the President address the nation from West Point, I was reminded of how well he can deliver a speech. It’s like watching a slight-of-hand magician. You marvel at his dexterity, but you know he’s still skillfully fooling you.

The speech, given in the Eisenhower [...]]]> The Open-Ended War

By Alan Caruba

As I listened to the President address the nation from West Point, I was reminded of how well he can deliver a speech. It’s like watching a slight-of-hand magician. You marvel at his dexterity, but you know he’s still skillfully fooling you.

The speech, given in the Eisenhower auditorium at West Point, reminded me of President Eisenhower, the former general who led allied forces to victory in Europe in World War Two, the man called back to serve his nation, and a man who was hard on the ears when it came to delivering a speech. It made him more human. We forgave him his blunt manner. After all, he had spent his whole adult life in the U.S. Army, taking and giving orders.

Similarly President Bush never seemed all that comfortable giving a set speech, but you knew he meant what he said. You knew he hated the evil of al Qaeda and the Taliban. You knew he despised Saddam Hussein and other enemies of America, of freedom, and human dignity. He was not smooth, not articulate, but he was genuine.

Barack Hussein Obama never spent a day in uniform and something in the area of two years out of six of his first term in the Senate before being launched on the nation as its savior, its messiah. I always found the references to spiritual powers jarring though, like most, amusing in their over-reach. Obama did nothing to discourage the image.

His West Point speech was primarily political. The military elements revealed a get-in and get-out strategy in what has already been a long engagement of the U.S. military in the Middle East. It was filled with talk of NATO partners, Afghani partners, and Pakistani partners, but it also told the enemy that, if they were just patient enough, the U.S. would leave.

Wars, the generals tell us, have to be fought in terms of what the enemy does, not by any timetable we devise. Obama handed us, al Qaeda, and the Taliban a timetable.

When we leave, the Afghan government will still be as corrupt as ever. When we leave the Pakistan government will be as shaky as ever, though perhaps a bit bolder in its desire to resist the Taliban.

Obama made a powerful argument for the need to stamp out the Taliban and kill al Qaeda. He also said that both had “defiled” Islam “one of the world’s great religions.”

Islam is also the world’s single most violent and destabilizing ideology, causing death and spreading terror recently in the Philippines, destroying Somalia, and with a list of atrocities from Mumbai, India, to Madrid, Spain, to London, England. And, of course, on 9/11.

Islam struck again at Fort Hood, Texas.

The one undeniable fact of our times is that the U.S. and the civilized world are in an open-ended war with Islam.

Ironically, one of the expressed aims of al Qaeda is the overthrow of the monarchs, despots or elected leaders of Middle Eastern Islamic nations.

Neither al Qaeda’s soldiers, nor the Taliban, wear uniforms. They are classic guerrilla fighters, fading away like fog into the indigenous population. Not since the day of the Kamikaze, has the world witnessed suicide as an act of war.

While listening to our young President, I was reminded, too, of John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech, possibly one of the greatest ever delivered in America since Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.

On that cold January day in1961, Kennedy said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

While Obama’s speech was delivered well and met with polite applause from the cadets and others at West Point, its real message was that America will not shoulder the burdens of an open-ended war by itself or with the desultory support of NATO allies.

I thought, too, of the long Cold War America fought with the former Soviet Union.

For a little while, Afghanistan will be Obama’s war. And then we will leave.

We have some big problems here at home, a recession and joblessness, but we have always been able to work our way out of these cyclical financial difficulties.

This time it’s different. We have a White House and Congress hell-bent on initiatives such as Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade that will utterly destroy the economy and the nation. And they know it. And they don’t care.

One wonders, at this time and place, which is the worse enemy?

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

When President Obama delivers a speech on why he is going to send more thousands of U.S. troops and spend more billions on the eight-year-old conflict in Afghanistan, it would be a good idea to better understand why so much of what is reported from [...]]]> The Middle East: Reporting an Enigma

By Alan Caruba

When President Obama delivers a speech on why he is going to send more thousands of U.S. troops and spend more billions on the eight-year-old conflict in Afghanistan, it would be a good idea to better understand why so much of what is reported from the Middle East suffers a great disconnect from the truth.

In 1998, Joris Luyendijk , a Dutch student who had studied Arabic at Cairo University for a year, was offered a job as a Middle East correspondent for a Dutch news agency despite having no experience as a reporter. What followed was his real education about the Middle East and the way it is presented to the West by the news media.

His book about that experience, “People Like Us: Misrepresenting the Middle East” was initially published in the Netherlands in 2006 and has since then it has been translated and published in Hungary, Italy, Denmark and Germany. In October an English edition was published by Soft Skull Press, an imprint of Counterpoint, a Berkeley, California publisher.

Having begun my career as a journalist, I was interested to learn what Luyendijk had taken from his years hopping around the Middle East before and after 9/11 and during the two Iraq wars waged by the U.S. to resolve a problem called Saddam Hussein.

For anyone digesting the news from his morning newspaper or watching it on television, suspecting that it might be biased or wrong, this book that focuses on reporting from the Middle East is a revelation because Luyendijk strives mightily to expose the way the news is manipulated by all the parties involved.

Covering his experiences from 1998 to 2003, the author is refreshingly candid, admitting that, despite his student year in Cairo, he had little or no real understanding of Egypt or the rest of the Middle East.

There is, however, one thing that anyone can understand. The Middle East is composed of dictatorships and the sole purpose of each one is to survive. To do that, their people must be constantly indoctrinated and fearful. That is made possible by rendering them, individually and as a group, powerless. There simply is no such thing as justice or the opportunity to express an opinion in opposition to the leader.

Significantly, those living in the Middle East cannot make an informed judgment of what is occurring around them because they operate two points of view that are very real to them. First is a widely accepted sense of victimhood, and, second, they believe that Israel, ultimately, is manipulating the entire world!

Conversely, Americans who have no contact with the Middle East beyond the headlines and snapshots of bloodshed and warfare are comparably unable to make informed judgments about a people who differ among themselves in many ways.

The Middle East is very different from the West and Luyendijk believes that few in the West are even vaguely aware that those who live there live in a parallel universe; one that functions by the rules of ruthless dictatorships, by tribes, and by a religion that is hostile to all others.

Democracy is not likely to take root in the Middle East and this can be traced to the prevailing religion of the region, Islam. The only reason democracy occurred in Turkey is because the founder of the modern state, Ataturk, isolated Islam from the conduct of governance and that has been backed up by an army that has, thus far, ensured the separation.

The only other democracy in the Middle East is, of course, Israel. Lebanon’s effort has been steadily undermined by Hezbollah, Islamists who are an instrument of Iran.

The news coverage by Western reporters tends not to reflect the fact that Western powers have long supported the gaggle of monarchs and despots in the Middle East, at least until they saw fit to replace them. For this and for its interventions, the people of the Middle East quite naturally see the West as part of the oppression under which they live.

“EVERYONE IS AGAINST US. It’s banged into ordinary Arabs through the media and their education from a very young age, so don’t expect them to be pro-western.”

For a Western journalist, that means having to operate in societies where their reports are closely monitored and where access to events repeatedly reveal how staged they are, whether it’s a mass rally or whether it is those they interview who know that one wrong word can get them imprisoned, tortured, and even killed. The journalists, too, are at risk.

The “truth” in such a place is an impossibility. The “truth” does not exist for those who live in the Middle East and is carefully filtered by the Western news agencies that cover it for people who live thousands of miles away. The task is to report on an enigma.

Citing a group trip to Saddam’s Baghdad arranged by the Cairo Foreign Press Association, Luyendijk says, “It was complete madness. The secret-service minders practically sat on our laps. They’d regularly leave us waiting in lobbies for hours on end without any explanation, and then shove us into taxies for an excursion.”

Though a novice journalist in 1998, Luyendijk quickly “abandoned the idea that you would know what was going on in the world if you followed the news generated by the twenty dictatorships of the region “or reported by the correspondents for Western news agencies.

”There were virtually no reliable and verifiable figures or statistics against which I could I could (report) in a broader perspective.” Information is power and it was controlled by the dictators. The foreign press was and is a pawn in the game.

“When something big happens, the (Western) public wants to know things that the correspondent can’t find out.” The result is a lot of nebulous speculation or regurgitation of previous news.

While those in the West are accustomed to fairly rapid progress, the Middle East defies this because the currents that determine events are rooted in events that may have occurred a hundred or a thousand years earlier.

The hatreds, the lack of trust, the resentments, the rivalry for power, the need to survive, all jostle together in an impenetrable jumble in which one young, Dutch reporter found common human elements, “people like us”, but people whose protests subject them to arrest and execution.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

My late Father was too young to serve in World War One and too old to serve in World War Two, but he sent two sons to serve in the U.S. Army, one during the Korean conflict in Tokyo’s command headquarters and myself during early 1960s peacetime [...]]]> Winning Battles, Losing Wars

By Alan Caruba

My late Father was too young to serve in World War One and too old to serve in World War Two, but he sent two sons to serve in the U.S. Army, one during the Korean conflict in Tokyo’s command headquarters and myself during early 1960s peacetime at Fort Benning, Georgia.

The closest I ever came to seeing combat was during the Cuban Missile crisis. It extended my active duty by a couple of months while Krushchev and Kennedy considered the consequences and then, as Dean Rusk, Kennedy’s Secretary of State said of Krushchev, “He blinked.” I went back to being a civilian. And, like big brother, a veteran.

In the 1970s, after the sad end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. ended the universal draft in favor of an all volunteer military

The question I have grappled with over the years is actually quite simple. How did the greatest military power in the world manage to only achieve a stalemate in Korea, lose the Vietnam War, and get itself mired in the Middle East after a remarkably brief and successful initial invasion in Afghanistan and twice in Iraq?

Stephen L. Melton retired after twenty years of service as an Army officer and became a member of the faculty at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College. He is a warrior turned scholar or perhaps was always a scholar because he applies his experience and analysis to answering my question in his new book, “The Clausewitz Delusion: How the American Army Screwed Up the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

It is his contention that the U.S. Army and other branches by extension, forgot how to how to occupy and govern in the wake of victory. The best historical examples are Germany and Japan, two despotisms that were first destroyed and then revived as democratic nations. America used to be good at that sort of thing.

Astonishingly, though it had been part of military manuals for decades, Melton notes that “There are no chapters in any of our (current) manuals entitled ‘How to Conduct a Military Occupation’ or ‘How to Install a New Government in an Occupied Country’, even though the U.S. Army has a long and successful history of conducting these types of operations.”

Why has Iraq proved to be a quagmire? “In Iraq the army’s contemporary speculations on war failed their first reality check: We went to war with no occupation doctrine, no nation-building doctrine, no army organizations specifically designed and trained for occupation duty, no advisory corps to rebuild Iraqi security institutions, no plan for procuring the necessary legions of translators, no institutional understanding of Arab culture, and no counterinsurgency doctrine.” Ditto Afghanistan.

So now you know why, having swiftly smashed its way into downtown Baghdad, our victorious army had no idea what to do when the looting erupted and not enough troops to stop it. Martial law wasn’t declared or enforced. That is a misuse of a standing army by virtue of failing to think about what was required once it achieved its initial mission.

“Rather we have failed in Iraq because the army no longer understands how offensive wars are won,” says Melton. “Consequently, we no longer have the doctrine, force structure, or training programs necessary to execute offensive wars.”

The military operates from “doctrines”, the agreed-upon strategies to wage and win wars. What it lacks, says Melton, is a doctrine to address what must be done after conquest and, lacking that, we invite endless insurgencies and the casualties that come with them.

Military folk will argue Melton’s point of view, built on what he calls a post-Vietnam love affair with the writings of a Napoleonic era Prussian general named Carl von Clausewitz whose long neglected book promoted a military philosophy that included “center of gravity analysis” and “decisive battle” concepts. The U.S. Army, however, had always won its wars based on “attrition.”

That’s how Grant and Sherman fought. That’s how McArthur fought. That’s how Eisenhower fought with the assistance of a brilliant tank commander named Patton; overwhelming, relentless application of fire power from the ground, from the air, and from the sea. It was always about the ruthless necessary destruction of the enemy’s ability or willingness to fight.

As the last of the World War Two veterans die off and the veterans of Vietnam grow old, a whole new generation of veterans is emerging. World War Two was over in four years and was fought in two separate theatres, Asia and Europe, but the Vietnam War lasted from 1961 to 1975. We have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003’s Operation Iraqi Freedom.

These new veterans, state reserve units and fulltime military, have been subject to years of constant rotation into war zones where the war never ends. They deserve better. They deserve some thought about when and whether to go to war and what to do when initial success leads to a kind of grinding defeat when conquered people will not or cannot change.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

Though it pains me deeply, I have to agree with President Obama’s reluctance to send more troops into Afghanistan.

Perhaps he is thinking about the problems the Soviet Union encountered even though they had an estimated 100,000 troops there in the 1990s? Perhaps he is wondering why the United [...]]]> Afghanistan, Bananistan

By Alan Caruba

Though it pains me deeply, I have to agree with President Obama’s reluctance to send more troops into Afghanistan.

Perhaps he is thinking about the problems the Soviet Union encountered even though they had an estimated 100,000 troops there in the 1990s? Perhaps he is wondering why the United States has been there now for eight years with not much to show for it?

I am not interested in the “politics” of the President’s decision whether to stay, to increase troop strength, to maintain the current status, or to leave. Only leaving makes any sense and I worry that Obama may want to avoid looking like a wimp by pulling out.

To those that argue that leaving will embolden the Taliban or al Qaeda, may I respectfully suggest they don’t need anything to feel that way other than their fanatical belief in Islam.

Then there is the nasty little problem called Hamid Karzai and his government of Afghanistan; the one that stuffed the ballot boxes so blatantly in a recent election even the United Nations could not ignore it. As for his government, it ends at the city line of Kabul.

In the event you missed the news this week, we are bleeding troops there at an indefensible rate. Meanwhile, in Iraq, al Qaeda or some other group blew up a chunk of the presumably secure “Green Zone” in Baghdad, killing some 165 people, in order to undermine confidence in their current government. Another car bomb just went off in Pakistan; hardly news in a region where car bombs are the calling cards of every insurgency.

That’s what Arabs do. They may not like dictatorships, but they give ample evidence of being incapable of self-governance. The Ottoman Turks controlled the region from the 18th century until the demise of their empire following World War One. What we call the Middle East is largely the invention of the British and French.

Egypt has been run by Mubarak since 1981. The Assad family seized control of Syria in 1963. Iran has been run by the mullahs since 1979. Iraq was run by Saddam Hussein from 1979 until deposed by an American invasion in 2003.

Saudi Arabia has been run by Ibn Saud and his offspring since the 1920s and this is the case of the smaller emirates.

They are, as one diplomat described them, “tribes with flags.”

Afghanistan has been around since the days of Alexander the Great and he had a terrible time there. Every invading colonizing power that has ventured into Afghanistan has had a bad time. All eventually left.

We should, too.

Putting aside the likelihood that we can “win” a war of insurgency (Vietnam anyone?) there is one compelling reason why the U.S. should not waste its time, its treasure, and the lives of its brave troops there. The reason is oil. And Afghanistan does not have any.

In fact, about the only thing Afghanistan has are poppy fields for the purpose of producing heroin, its primary export.

Afghanistan does not have a stable government and what government it will have, no matter how many “elections” it holds, will be utterly and completely corrupt because that’s how business is conducted in a place that predates medieval Europe and most other nations.

The notion that the U.S. or NATO can or should engage in “nation building” in a place that’s been run by competing warlords and tribal chieftains ignores centuries of evidence to the contrary.

Though I do not credit Obama or the people around him with much intelligence, it could be they have looked at a map of the Middle East and concluded that Pakistan is the real problem. Only in recent months, despite having had billions of U.S. dollars poured into its coffers over the past decade, has Pakistan begun to marshal its military to attack the strongholds of al Qaeda and the Taliban in a frontier area adjacent to Afghanistan.

The reason for this is two-fold; the Pakistanis have been reluctant to venture into their frontier areas because it is full of fanatical Muslims and it is an area, like neighboring Afghanistan, in which it is difficult to conduct military operations.

Secondly and far more important to the Pakistanis is their belief that their other neighbor, India, is set to invade any minute of any day. They have believed this since becoming a nation specifically for Muslims in 1947, carved out of former Indian territory.

Did I mention there is no oil in Afghanistan? From the 1920s, following the demise of the Ottoman Empire that ruled the Middle East, the great powers, Russia, England, France and America, have butted heads over the region. The reason was oil.

While Afghanistan has been around forever, Iraq is a colonial invention of the British, as is Jordan. Syria and Lebanon were handed over to the French. The control of Iran, formerly Persia, changed hands between the British and Americans until the Islamic Revolution in 1979 turned it into a mad house run by mullahs.

So, President Obama is right to hesitate about sending more troops to Afghanistan and he will be right if he pulls out. It is doubtful the Russians will want to return any time soon.

After eight years in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American military, a force composed of volunteers, is very tired and is very much in need of a rest as well as replenishment of just about everything needed to wage war.

Since the end of World War Two, the U.S. no longer fights wars to win. The Korean peninsula is still a stalemate. We now have embassies in Vietnam instead of armies. And the peoples of the Middle East are sick of us, no less than of our allies too.

It is time to leave Afghanistan and it has been time to leave for a very long time. Come on, Mr. President, do just one thing right.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

War

During America’s brutal and bloody Civil War, General William T. Sherman said, “War is cruel and you cannot refine it” and “war at best is barbarism.” Sherman is also credited with saying “War is hell.”

Alexander [...]]]>

War

During America’s brutal and bloody Civil War, General William T. Sherman said, “War is cruel and you cannot refine it” and “war at best is barbarism.” Sherman is also credited with saying “War is hell.”

Alexander the Great was known to be both a wise philosopher and a fearless conqueror. In the fall of 335 BC, Alexander marched to the gates of Thebes (a Greek city that broke free from his Macedonian empire when Alexander was twenty). He let the people of Thebes know that it was not too late for them to change their minds. The next day, the Macedonians stormed the city killing almost everyone in sight, women and children included. They plundered, sacked, burned and razed Thebes, as an example to the rest of Greece. Alexander did not fight a “refined” war where women and children were spared.

After Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, he ran into trouble in Afghanistan and used the same tactics to quell the rebellious Afghans.

Genghis Khan (1165-1227 AD) was one of history’s more charismatic and dynamic leaders. During his lifetime, he conquered more territory than any other conqueror, and his successors established the largest empire in history. As an organizational and strategic genius, Genghis Khan created one of the most highly disciplined and effective armies known, and this same genius gave birth to the administration that ruled that empire. After he died in 1227, the Mongol armies dominated the battlefield until the empire stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic Sea. Genghis Khan, like Alexander, spared no one when he met resistance. When people surrendered, he was benevolent. When they resisted, his armies slaughtered everyone like Alexander’s armies did.

Both Alexander and Khan allowed freedom of religion, and Alexander built universities and libraries because he believed in education.

There are more examples of men like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, who knew how to fight wars and win them. Nowhere, is there evidence that they fought under the rules of combat and restrictions that American soldiers must fight under today.

These restrictions started in Vietnam and continue in Iraq and Afghanistan. These same rules were one of the reasons America lost the war in Vietnam. I am not defending the Vietnam War. It was wrong. President Johnson started the war on a lie similar to what President George W. Bush did when he claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (that did not exist) so he could start a war against Saddam Hussein.

Once at war, telling soldiers they cannot kill or hurt people considered innocent (like women and children) is folly. Such rules bind the weapons men use and such wars cannot be won when the enemy does not follow the same rules.

I’m aware that is it politically incorrect in America to say this, but the attempt to “refine” war and civilize it so only combatants are killed or wounded is wrong. I agree that killing innocents is considered barbarous. However, General William T. Sherman was correct when he said, “War is hell.”  If we are to learn anything from history, we should learn from people like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and others that fought to win the wars that they started. To do anything else leads to defeat and that should be unthinkable.

Today, America and the rest of Western civilization stands at a crossroads. We fight an enemy that will not surrender and will not stop. They don’t even have a country that our armies can defeat. Islamic fundamentalists have stated that their goal is to “destroy Western Civilization”, which means killing women and children. They have called America the Great Satan. These same people kill indiscriminately to spread terror and win the war they wage to create what will become an empire of horror and abuse against humanity. We have seen what like-minded rulers in Iran and Afghanistan (the Taliban) have done to their people.

Islamic fundamentalists know America’s weakness and they are exploiting it, and the Western media is helping them. Many in the West have used democracy and political pressure to hamper our soldiers in the field while those that want to kill us hide among innocent people making it all but impossible to defeat them.

There is a way to win this war against Islamic terrorism. The answer is in how we won World War II. America won against Nazi Germany and a militant Japan by being ruthless. Fleets of bombers firebombed cities in Germany and in Japan killing hundreds of thousands of people considered innocent and untouchable today.

By fighting war like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, America won World War II. The final stoke was when President Truman ordered atomic bombs dropped on two cities in Japan killing more than a hundred thousand women and children. The result was the end of a war that by all accounts caused the deaths of more than fifty million people and would have killed millions more before it would have been brought to a conclusion without the use of these weapons of mass destruction.

History shows us the way to victory. Why do we ignore those lessons when ignoring them could mean defeat, great suffering and the end of our way of life in the West?  I agree with Sherman when he said, “War at best is barbarism.” We cannot civilize war.

My fear is that there aren’t enough Americans or Europeans with the stomach to fight this war the way it should be fought—the way Alexander, Genghis Khan or Sherman would have fought it. If I am right, the defeat of Western civilization is assured. I hope that I am wrong. I hate war because it is “hell”, but agree that we must fight without restrictions to win.

In the Art of War, the oldest known military treatise in the world, Sun Tzu (6th century BC) wrote that “It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence, it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.”

I had a strange epiphany the other day. If I were to write a letter to President Obama, it would say, “Please do nothing.”

It seems to me that Obama’s forte is to do nothing much of the time. Well, not “nothing.” He is giving speeches, [...]]]> Mr. President, Please Do NOTHING

By Alan Caruba

I had a strange epiphany the other day. If I were to write a letter to President Obama, it would say, “Please do nothing.”

It seems to me that Obama’s forte is to do nothing much of the time. Well, not “nothing.” He is giving speeches, but those incessant, self-referencing speeches do nothing to change the minds of America’s critics and enemies. They have rapidly reached a point where Americans find them an object of ridicule.

I am not concerned about his playing golf; a lot of presidents did that. The pick-up basketball game is okay, too. The man is under a lot of pressure to “do something” about problems here in America and around the world, so it is only reasonable that he relax in ways that best suit him.

The effort, however, to do something is what worries me about President Obama because he is so wrong about his top two issues, healthcare reform and his renamed cap-and-trade tax on energy use.

He is wrong about the latter because there is no “global warming” (now called “climate change”) to justify penalizing everyone for turning on a light, watching TV, using their computer, and the million other ways we all use electricity.

He is wrong about healthcare reform because all the polls demonstrate that Americans want to (1) have a choice about whether to have health insurance and (2) like the insurance plans they’re in. He’s wrong, too, because (3) the government is incapable of “cutting waste and fraud” out of Medicare and because adding thousands more to the rolls (4) will require that other thousands are denied treatments they need in a timely manner.

So, naturally, I would prefer that he “do nothing” with regard to these pieces of legislation that are guaranteed to still further bankrupt America.

Looking beyond our shores, I would prefer that he “do nothing” in Afghanistan other than to withdraw our troops from there in the same way he says he’s doing in Iraq. Since I am convinced that he will “do nothing” regarding Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, I will put my money on tiny Israel to do for us what he will not.

Of course, if the U.S. did bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities that would constitute a “preemptive” act of war and this president has made it clear to the entire world that he has no intention of being warlike anywhere and, in addition, he wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal and shrink our military. He has, however, promised to make military service safe for gays.

I suggest that he is demonstrating what he does best—other than give speeches and television interviews—doing nothing. Or doing something stupid.

This is, after all, a man who voted “present” during much of his term in the Illinois state legislature and was so bored with doing nothing in the U.S. Senate, he began running for the presidency within weeks of being sworn in for his first term.

Every time Obama gets anywhere near a serious issue affecting the lives and welfare of the American people, he finds the worst possible solution the most enticing.

It is time to rest on your laurels, Mr. President. It is time to take a break from making bad or dumb decisions. No one expects or even wants you to do anything. That’s why you received the Nobel Peace Prize.

So, please, Mr. President, do nothing.

(Hint: Check out how he’s holding the phone!)

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

It is a familiar question; why eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, haven’t we found Osama bin Laden? And now the greater question before the President and the nation is why are we still in Afghanistan?

You are not likely to hear [...]]]> Defeating Ourselves in Afghanistan

By Alan Caruba

It is a familiar question; why eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, haven’t we found Osama bin Laden? And now the greater question before the President and the nation is why are we still in Afghanistan?

You are not likely to hear an answer from either the White House or the Pentagon. You can, however, find part of the answer in a recently published book, Hunting al Qaeda, whose author chose to remain anonymous. ($17.95, Zenith Press, softcover) Bob Mayer, a West Point graduate and Special Forces veteran, the author of more than seventeen books, participated in the writing of the book, based on the experiences of a Special Forces unit.

It is the story of Beast 85, Green Berets drawn from the National Guard special services that, following 9/11, were sent to Afghanistan to find, capture or kill al Qaeda and the Taliban. It is a story of disillusionment.

The foreword by Col. Gerald Schumacher, U.S. Army Special Forces (ret) says much about why the U.S. has not experienced anything resembling “victory” and is not likely to do so in any military engagement we undertake.

This is the real story of war as fought by men who can only be called patriots. They left families, jobs and a comfortable civilian life to go to the hell hole that is Afghanistan, a nation that has been defeating occupying armies since the days of Alexander the Great.

Calling “Hunting al Qaeda” a disturbing book, Col. Schumacher says “it blows apart the myth that everything that can be done to find terrorists is being done. It illuminates the fact that even Special Forces are infected with micromanagement diseases, petty infighting, and the fear of making mistakes.”

The biggest challenge facing Beast 85, a tight-knit unit of ten highly trained men, was not finding al Qaeda. It is a military mentality that defines victory “as not having any accidents, incidents, or injuries. This culture of ‘playing it safe’ permeates much of the military, and it begins with many politicians,” says Col. Schumacher.

Whether you agree with him or not, he states that “Since the end of World War II, the political commitment to fight and win wars has evaporated.”

To whatever extent, this may explain why the conflict in Iraq lasted so long after the initial lightning invasion that put troops in Baghdad and then found itself without sufficient manpower to exert any control over the chaos that followed. Only the “surge” involving a large influx of troops saved the Iraq war from defeat.

Afghanistan is not, however, Iraq. The terrain, the people, its so-called government, and its seventh century mentality all militate against victory.

In Afghanistan, the slow and ineffectual war waged there has resulted in the return of the Taliban, when “the Taliban became wise to the debilitating elephantitis of U.S. military operations.”

The anonymous author of the book notes in its preface that “Afghanistan has been a special forces conflict more than any other conflict in U.S. military history.” Then, from his perspective, he reports that “during their time in Afghanistan they encountered commanders who were less interested in taking the war to the enemy than they were with keeping up appearances.”

At one point, Beast 85 captured Mullah Akhtar Osmani, the Taliban’s military commander, only to have “higher authorities” order his release!

The events related occurred in 2001-2002, but the lessons learned include the harsh fact that “The army has created a huge command structure that destroys any ability to act quickly or decisively.”

Many recall Special Forces troops on horses from that period, abandoning the armored vehicles we have come to associate with modern warfare. Despite having “conquered the entire country back in late 2001” the war slipped into a status that actually saw a three-star general directing forces as small as two battalions as command overhead “became so huge that it diminished our ability to accomplish our mission.”

The mission, to drive out the Taliban, locate and destroy al Qaeda, has ground to a point where the Taliban recently boldly attacked an isolated unit, inflicting death and injury at the precise time the general in charge was calling for more troops. The propaganda value, knowing that Americans have grown weary of the war, is incalculable.

President Obama now faces the question of how many troops, if any, to send to Afghanistan. It does not help that he the first president in a very long time to have never worn the uniform of his nation. He is caught between his own campaign rhetoric that called Afghanistan the new front line of the war on terrorism, a war “of necessity, not choice”, and the growing belief among Americans that it is the wrong war in the wrong place.

His generals are telling him more troops are needed. This was Lyndon Johnson’s dilemma and the cost was more than 50,000 casualties during the long Vietnam conflict that lasted into the two terms of Richard Nixon.

Afghanistan is Vietnam Redux. It is a replay of the same factors in which America begins as a liberator and ends as an unwanted and/or distrusted occupier.

At issue is to what extent our national security and the security of the Middle East are at risk from al Qaeda if we continue to fight an increasingly unpopular and indecisive war.

The issue is whether continuing to fight the war there, given a bloated command hierarchy in which decisions are often made far from the battlefield, offers any hope of victory.

The issue is whether putting brave men and women in harm’s way and then encumbering them with rules of engagement that forbid active and effective combat is justifiable. The men of Special Forces Beast 85 wanted to win. They were not permitted to. That is our current “strategy” in Afghanistan. It is a bad one.

The issue, in part, is whether America will lose credibility among its allies and throughout the Middle East if it elects to withdraw.

Lacking any military insight, I fail to see any “strategic” reason for being in Afghanistan when the greater cause for concern is Pakistan, a place where bin Laden began his career as al Qaeda’s founder and where, presumably, he remains safe from attack to this day.

The ultimate and immediate cause for concern is Iran, rapidly making its way toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them via missiles.

Finally, what should we expect of President Obama who, in his book The Audacity of Hope, wrote “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”?

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

The problem with living in a house of mirrors is that everything you see is in reverse polarity. There is no way to come to grips with anything resembling reality.

A case in point is the recent announcement by Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the [...]]]> The Muslim House of Mirrors

By Alan Caruba

The problem with living in a house of mirrors is that everything you see is in reverse polarity. There is no way to come to grips with anything resembling reality.

A case in point is the recent announcement by Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who said, “Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East.” He was referring to its nuclear arms.

ElBaradei had just arrived in Iran for talks with Iranian officials who have lied about their nuclear program since it began. Nobody believes the Iranians are enriching uranium or plutonium or whatever for “peaceful purposes.” Nobody doubts that the Iranians, once they can put a nuclear warhead on top of a missile, will do so and very likely launch it at Israel.

But as far as ElBaradei is concerned, the number one threat is Israel.

Let’s briefly review some of the hostilities which have occurred in the Middle East. Hours after Israel announced its independence on May 14, 1948, it was attacked by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and what was then called Transjordan. Their intention was, in their words, “a war of extinction.”

There were wars against Israel in 1967 and 1973. In November 1975, the United Nations passed a resolution that “Zionism is racism.” Prior to and during this period, Israel was subject to constant acts of terrorism. Among the most famous was the September 5, 1972 murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the summer Olympic Games in Munich.

After years of Katyusha rocket attacks from Lebanon, in 1982 the Israelis invaded to protect their citizens. They had to do this again in 2009 when, after years of rocket attacks from Gaza, they were compelled to invade a territory from which they had unilaterally withdrawn and turned over the Palestinian Liberation Organization (Fatah). Instead, Hamas, another Palestinian group drove out Fatah at gunpoint.

The founder of the PLO, Yassir Arafat’s idea of peace with Israel was summed up in the “Intifada”, a long series of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israel. The “second” Intifada followed Israel’s signing of the Oslo Accords!

Israel, however, wasn’t the only nation in the Middle East having to fight wars. A long, bloody civil war raged from 1975 to 1990 in Lebanon between the Muslims and Christian factions that had fashioned a peaceful democracy until Hezbollah, a tool of the Iranians, showed up.

During the 1980s, having fought Iran for eight years to a stalemate, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. Initially repulsed in 1990-1 by a U.S. led force, the decision was made to rid the region of this despot. America and “a coalition of the willing” invaded Iraq in 2003.

Following 9/11, America invaded Afghanistan to drive out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The decision to stay or leave is being evaluated by the Obama administration.

Did I mention that Muslim Pakistan has waged three major wars, one minor war, and numerous skirmishes against India?

But Israel is “the number one threat to the Middle East” according to the longtime chief of the IAEA.

This is the house of mirrors in which the Muslims, Arabs and Persians, of the Middle East see the world. Everything is in reverse.

Tiny Israel is declared the big threat, but nations that have been at war with it and with each other are not.

And while the United States, Europe and the United Nations dithers, the Iranians are building nuclear weapons. This isn’t an issue of another nation joining “the nuclear club.” It is about the annihilation of Israel and suicide by default when it becomes America’s and Europe’s turn.

I hope and pray that Israel destroys Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities and that the United States joins them, refueling their bombers and ours. Israel’s motto is “Never again” and ours should be “Enough!”

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

Shield of Faith

By Angela Posey-Arnold

“…….. hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil. Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the [...]]]>

Shield of Faith

By Angela Posey-Arnold

“…….. hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil. Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:16 NLT)

The war is on. The nation is attacked by a massive mighty power under the cover of darkness. The morning dawns and destruction meets every eye. The President declares war against the enemy and sends one soldier out alone to fight this battle and expecting him to win. No helmet, no gun, no bullet proof vest, no boots, nothing. Just dressed in duty camos he walks out alone into a barrage of bullets. Alone with no shield, no weapon, no superior officer to give him orders, no medics to save him when he is wounded and no Chaplain to pray for his dying soul.

 Why would any President conceive in his mind that one lone man, defenseless, could possibly survive much less fight a mighty power unarmed? He wouldn’t if he wanted to win.

 God does not leave His soldiers to the mercy of the enemy either. He has equipped us well, but it is up to us whether we enlist and suit up. If the enemy is not sending fiery arrows your direction you might want to confirm your salvation. Christians are his target, especially those working for the Kingdom. By God’s power and might we are not defenseless. We have been issued mighty weapons the devil cannot stand against. Just the name of Jesus sends him fleeing.

Unlike the lone soldier we know when this spiritual battle is over we will be standing firm. When it is all said and done, the devil looses. If you have read the back of the Training Manual, we win. Fully aware he will lose this battle he continues desperately fighting because he knows his time is short. He is enlisting all he can. Once he has possession of a soul he basically leaves them alone, he has an eternity to torment them. He doesn’t have that long with Christians.

 Wisdom is recognizing his attacks for what they are. The rules of engagement are set before us in God’s Word. Men’s war strategy is not new to God, He created it. It begins with the shield of faith. As Christians fighting shoulder to shoulder we win each battle by faith alone, by grace alone and by Christ alone.  

Even the mighty Roman Empire, once a force to be reckoned with, understood the importance of their shields.  In war as enemy arrows flew through the air, the shield was the first line of defense. One soldier alone would have been vulnerable from arrows coming from above him, flanking him, and from behind. In a strategic move, the soldiers of the mighty Roman Army realized their strength was in their numbers and in their ability to work together.

The shield makers forged the army shields out of the hardest substance available to them at the time. Each shield individually fashioned to protect the soldier who carried it, but more importantly the shields locked together with a tongue and groove type system. On the battlefield with the launch of fiery arrows the soldiers formed a circle. The outer legion placed and locked their shields together in front of them. The inner soldiers hoisted their shields above their heads and locked them together. All together they formed an impenetrable fortress against the arrows. Likened unto a turtle shell, they were protected from all sides by their shields.

In this manner Christians together through faith and prayer can deflect the devil’s fiery arrows. We do not have to be like the lone soldier, defenseless and alone. God has given us a battle plan and provided for us everything we need.  With Jesus our King and God as our Commander in Chief we are strong and courageous standing ready at attention. Deploying to battle requires putting on the full armor of God. Not our armor, His God issue, His armor. This passage in Ephesians tells us exactly what we need every day to carry out God’s purposes for His kingdom.

A Fight to the Finish

And that about wraps it up. God is strong, and he wants you strong. So take everything the Master has set out for you, well-made weapons of the best materials. And put them to use so you will be able to stand up to everything the Devil throws your way. This is no afternoon athletic contest that we’ll walk away from and forget about in a couple of hours. This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels.

Be prepared. You’re up against far more than you can handle on your own. Take all the help you can get, every weapon God has issued, so that when it’s all over but the shouting you’ll still be on your feet. Truth, righteousness, peace, faith, and salvation are more than words. Learn how to apply them. You’ll need them throughout your life. God’s Word is an indispensable weapon. In the same way, prayer is essential in this ongoing warfare. Pray hard and long. Pray for your brothers and sisters. Keep your eyes open. Keep each other’s spirits up so that no one falls behind or drops out.

(Ephesians 6:10-18 The Message)

With our shields of faith in Christ firmly locked together, praying for one another, we win this battle. We win this war. When it is all over but the victory shout we will be there standing firm.

©Angela Posey-Arnold 2009

When I was a teenager, I made a lot of money as a magician, entertaining at parties. At Ted Collins Magic Mecca I could buy the wonderful apparatus that existed for the sole purpose of fooling people who, it turned out, loved to be fooled.

Fooling people is [...]]]> First Strike Magic

By Alan Caruba

When I was a teenager, I made a lot of money as a magician, entertaining at parties. At Ted Collins Magic Mecca I could buy the wonderful apparatus that existed for the sole purpose of fooling people who, it turned out, loved to be fooled.

Fooling people is a full-time occupation for those seeking to avoid war or planning to engage in one. Saddam Hussein believed that if the world thought he had weapons of mass destruction, Iraq would be safe from attack. He successfully deceived everyone, but it also led people to conclude he could not be left to use them.

Earlier, on Yom Kippur 1973, while Israelis were worshipping during the holiest day of Judaism, Egypt and Syria used deception to begin a fourth Arab-Israeli war that ended in defeat for both of them.

Since its inception, Israel has had to deal with Muslims intent on destroying the nation and its people. Now they are faced with what is often called “an existential” threat from Iran, but there is nothing existential about it, nor is it Israel’s problem alone.

The long quest for nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them is nearing fulfillment for the Iranians and they have never made it a secret that they intend to attack Israel. So Israel and to some extent America has had to work the magic needed to deter Iran from acquiring nukes and the deception needed to eliminate its capacity to ever use them.

With the exception of North Korea, it is the Middle East that threatens the rest of the world with its combination of Islamic fanaticism and nuclear capabilities. The nukes that already exist in Pakistan must not be allowed to fall into the hands of the Taliban that threaten both that nation and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda continues to issue threats against Europe. Here in the United States Islamic terrorism cells have been disrupted.

A recent story on the DEBKAfile, an Israeli news agency, reported “US giant bunker-buster bomb project rushed since Iran’s Qom site discovered.” The story said that “The Pentagon has brought forward to December 2009 the target-date for producing the first 15-ton super bunker-buster bomb (GBU-57A/B) Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which can reach a depth of 60.09 meters underground before exploding.”

The article went on to say that “DEBKAfile’s military sources report that top defense agencies and air force units were also working against the clock to adapt the bay of a B2a Stealth bomber for carrying and delivering the bomb”, adding that “Congress has since quietly inserted the necessary funding in the 2009 budget.”

The magician in me thinks this story was intended to be read in Tehran. Monitoring Israeli and other news media and vice-versa is an essential element of an intelligence operation.

Here, though, is where it gets very interesting. As reported by GlobalSecurity.org, “A pair of chartered Airbus A310 transport aircraft carrying 5,000-lb GBU-28 bunker buster bombs staged through Scotland’s Prestwick International Airport outside Glasgow on 22 July 2006 to refuel and give the crew a rest before continuing to deliver the bombs to Israel. At least two more flights were anticipated before mid-August.”

Assuming the accuracy of the report, Israel by 2006 already has bunker-buster bombs.

However, on January 11, 2009, in the last weeks of the Bush administration, Reuters reported that “President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.”

So, what is it? Does Israel already have bunker-buster bombs or is the United States gearing up for its own possible attack? Or both?

By August 2009, Reuters reported that “The Pentagon is seeking to speed deployment of an ultra-large bunker-buster bomb on the most advanced U.S. bomber as soon as July 2010, the Air Force said on Sunday, amid concerns over perceived nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran.” Is it December 2009 or July 2010?

Iranian intelligence officers have to wonder and that is the magic of a first strike.

Israel has already conducted long-range airborne exercises to test its ability to deliver these bombs to Iran’s sites, nor does Israel need U.S. permission to over-fly Iraq. It can do so with the blessing of Saudi Arabia, no friend of Iran.

Iran has still more to worry about. During a September 22nd military celebration, it lost its only AWAC, early warming aircraft when another jet crashed into it. Although it has contracted with the Russians to acquire surface-to-air missiles to protect its nuclear sites, there is some question when they will be delivered, if ever.

All these reports, available with any Google search, conflict in some way and all could be part of an elaborate deception to leave Iran unable to respond to an attack on its nuclear facilities.

The same deception that Iran has practiced for years in order to secure the time necessary to join the nuclear club of nations has been practiced against it as regards the availability of bunker-buster bombs.

Like the magician who deftly maneuvers his audience to watch his right hand, the left one is acquiring the cards or doves to surprise that audience.

It is not likely to deter Iran, but it is likely to surprise Iran some morning when its nuclear facilities are destroyed.

Twice the Israelis have destroyed nuclear facilities, once in Iraq in the 1980s and, more recently, in Syria. The Iranians are deceiving themselves if they think theirs are not marked for destruction.

Editor’s Note: A NewsMax story confirms that the Saudis, as I suggested, will grant the Israelis permission to use their air space to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. You read it here first!
http://www.newsmaxworld.com/global_talk/Saudi_strike_Iran/2009/09/28/265576.html

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

When World War Two arrived at America’s doorstep, we had to virtually build an Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines from scratch. The war had been raging in Europe since 1939 by the time the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor propelled us into war in 1941. The [...]]]> The Department of Defenselessness

By Alan Caruba

When World War Two arrived at America’s doorstep, we had to virtually build an Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines from scratch. The war had been raging in Europe since 1939 by the time the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor propelled us into war in 1941. The Japanese had been sacking, raping and looting Manchuria and China since 1931.

Now President Obama wants to reduce the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons to a reported “hundreds rather than thousands” to prepare for deep cuts. Truman was the first and last president to actually use a nuclear weapon to end the war with Japan.

Since then, all presidents have paid lip service to reducing the threat of nuclear weapons, but there is an iron law that says you cannot “un-invent” something once it comes into existence.

The suggestion that the world is “safer” or “less safe” because nuclear weapons exist is purely subjective. What we know is that without nuclear weapons all nations that do not have them are at a severe disadvantage with those that do.

That is why both Pakistan and India, traditional enemies, both developed their own nuclear weapons in secret while ignoring international prohibitions and proscriptions against them, It is also why little North Korea that cannot keep the lights on at night also developed them. They are a tidy source of income to a criminal communist satrap.

All the major powers have them and the worry is that they will fall into the hands of terrorists; presumably of the Muslim variety.

The big worry, however, is Iran’s program because there are few world leaders who do not doubt they will use them. Iran is not regarded as a terrorist organization like al Qaeda, but the simple fact is that Iran is the world’s leading supporter of terrorism whether you call it al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Fatah, Hamas or any one of the endless self-declared jihad groups.

So it is cause for real concern that we have a president who not only put the kibosh on a missile defense system to be placed in Poland and the Czech Republic, but now wants to unilaterally disarm or greatly reduce America’s nuclear arsenal.

Having apologized profusely to Europe and Muslim nations for America’s apparent misdeeds in coming to their defense in the past, President Obama is now punishing tiny Honduras for expelling a former president who wanted to ignore that nation’s constitution and its supreme court to set up a Hugo Chavez-type government.

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s Chavez, a big fan of Fidel Castro’s Cuba, has been busy cutting deals with Russia, China, and any other nation hostile to the interests of America.

To cap off his efforts in the passed eight months, President Obama has allowed his Attorney General to re-visit decisions regarding the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of advanced interrogation techniques that are widely acknowledged to have thwarted attacks on the homeland. Seven former CIA directors wrote the President to say this was a very bad idea.

It’s a bad idea that is exacerbated by President Obama’s intention to close down Guantanamo and to return terrorists to their home nations. From there, they return to the front lines of jihad because that’s what jihadists do.

Officially, throughout the Obama administration, the words “war on terrorism” and “terrorists” are never uttered out loud. They have been banned from the lexicon of the State Department, Homeland Security, and possibly even Defense.

Meanwhile, arrests have been made of an alleged terror cell, the results of which will no doubt reveal planned attacks that would have killed many Americans.

None of this bodes well for America and all of this suggests that many more D.C. marches will be needed to encourage Congress to put the brakes on efforts to render America insolvent, in the grip of unaccountable “czars”, and defenseless.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

9/11/2009 took a large psychic toll on Americans.

I am no exception. By early evening, I found myself profoundly angry watching the Mayor of New York explain why Ground Zero is still essentially a hole in the ground eight years after the destruction of the Twin [...]]]> The Disgrace of Ground Zero

By Alan Caruba

9/11/2009 took a large psychic toll on Americans.

I am no exception. By early evening, I found myself profoundly angry watching the Mayor of New York explain why Ground Zero is still essentially a hole in the ground eight years after the destruction of the Twin Towers.

This nation fought and won World War Two in four years’ time and in two separate theatres of war in the Pacific and in Europe. By the time it was over, the major cities of Germany and Japan were rubble and both armies and civilians were among the dead because the only way to convince an enemy to stop waging war is to destroy their will to continue.

History tells us this over and over again. It is the reason the Romans laid siege to Masada.

We have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003. What we’ve been doing there is more a police action than a war.

That’s why the Korean War is officially called a United Nations police action, not a war. We settled for a stalemate.

When there were riots in Los Angeles and Newark that was a police action using the military. What we are asking our troops to do these days in far off, dangerous places is not a war.

We have reached a point where the present administration will not even call it a war. It doesn’t get more pathetic than that.

So, as I looked at that hole in the ground in lower Manhattan, I wondered why, if the owner of that vast property, the developer, had been able to completely rebuild other structures and rent them out, why the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been unable or unwilling to rebuild the Twin Towers?

They have the blueprints!

What better way to tell America’s enemies, the fanatical al Qaeda—the spear point of the Islamic Jihad—that they could not and would not defeat us?

In World War Two we knew who the enemy was. We named them and we created a great war machine to utterly destroy them.

More than a half century later, our government will not say “terrorists”, cannot say “Islamists,” and all the while, the center of the Islamic Revolution, Iran, relentlessly works to acquire its own nuclear weapons.

There is a proper place for several “ground zeros” and they are the known sites where Iran is refining the fissionable material for nuclear weapons and building missiles.

Meanwhile, why must I watch interviews in front of a hole in the ground that is eight years old?

Ground Zero is an American disgrace.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

As one drove into New York from New Jersey in the years before 9/11, there was an ellipse of roadway that gently curved into the waiting entrance of the Lincoln Tunnel. From there you could see the Twin Towers in the distance, across the river, dominating [...]]]> Surrender is Not an Option

By Alan Caruba

As one drove into New York from New Jersey in the years before 9/11, there was an ellipse of roadway that gently curved into the waiting entrance of the Lincoln Tunnel. From there you could see the Twin Towers in the distance, across the river, dominating the lower end of Manhattan.

It bespoke the nation’s economic strength, its international outreach, its capacity to build two such impressive skyscrapers, made more so by their architectural simplicity. They gleamed in the rays of the Sun. They mirrored the silver Moon.

I had occasion to dine in Windows on the World restaurant several times, high atop one of the towers. A wall of windows ringed the restaurant and one could look at New Jersey on one side and Brooklyn on the other. A walk around that restaurant took in all the boroughs from that great height and there, down in the vast harbor, one could see the Statue of Liberty. So high up were you that it seemed a small thing from that distance.

If I wanted to strike at America’s confidence, America’s bravado, America’s dominance, I would have destroyed the Twin Towers and, of course, that is exactly what Osama bin Laden did.

Our response at the time was to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan and, in the process, try to kill bin Laden. Neither objective has been achieved. That is because the Middle East is an ancient place enthralled by an ancient religion that roots all present actions in the Arab culture of the seventh century A.D. when it was invented by Mohammed.

They have made little progress in modernizing thought or action. They were and they are the barbarians at the gates.

The Twin Towers were all about modernity and the future. Islam is all about the past and about the demand that it be imposed on the present and the future. These are people who journey to Mecca in order to circle a structure housing a stone!

Every year when September 11th comes around, we must remind ourselves of the triumph of our Constitution, our dedication to freedom and liberty, and our capacity to defeat the enemies of these inalienable rights.

Our grandparents defeated the Nazis and the imperialistic Japanese. Then they and our parents held steadfast against the Soviets for nearly five decades. We fought in Korea and we fought in Vietnam. The current generation’s bravest and best have been fighting our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We must draw on the reservoir of courage they bequeathed us and, for my part, we must never let lose of the anger we felt eight years ago when a handful of evil men attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, with yet another intended target.

Al Qaeda? Hunt them! Find them! Kill them!

Do not listen to the appeasers, the Blame America crowd. Surrender is not an option.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

Has it been eight years?

What I learned from 9/11 was that a lot of Americans have concluded that it was America’s fault we were attacked. That may sound screwy to people who correctly believe that al Qaeda planned, funded and provided the [...]]]> 9/11 Eight Years Later and No Safer

By Alan Caruba

Has it been eight years?

What I learned from 9/11 was that a lot of Americans have concluded that it was America’s fault we were attacked. That may sound screwy to people who correctly believe that al Qaeda planned, funded and provided the men who carried out the attacks, but why deal with the facts when conspiracies are so much more fun? Why not just blame the victims?

9/11 was not the first attack on the Twin Towers. For those with any attention span, the first attack came in 1993 and was treated as a criminal act by a “gang who couldn’t shoot straight” Muslims, one of whom actually returned to the rental agency to get his money back because the truck used in the attack was destroyed.

Here’s where we are eight years later. As far as the government is concerned, it has learned NOTHING from the event and the subsequent efforts to kill the Taliban and al Qaeda lunatics who were operating in Afghanistan and badlands of Pakistan.

Not only are we still in Afghanistan, not only have we blandished billions on “nation building” in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well on Pakistan, but the Obama Justice Department thinks the CIA interrogators are the bad guys and wants to extend Miranda rights, the full protection of the U.S. Constitution, to terrorists.

Astonishingly, your government has returned to pre-9/11 status wherein the FBI is now responsible for preventing terrorist attacks and the CIA is largely irrelevant, if not suspect.

Recall that, at the time of 9/11, the CIA was forbidden to provide information about terrorism to the FBI and vice-versa. Welcome to the bad old days!

And Obama is still intent on closing Guantanamo although he gave zero thought as to what we should do with the terrorists detained there. Those that were returned to their homelands promptly headed for new battlefields against American forces.

Eight years on, Osama bin Laden is presumably still alive. How is it that a nation with our enormous resources, spy satellites, drones to over-fly where we believe he is hiding, special operations military personnel, and yet this very tall Arab eludes us?

Here, too, is something worth considering. Al Qaeda waited eight years after the February 26, 1993 Twin Towers attack to strike again on September 11, 2001. And 2009 is eight years since the last attack. These people are patient. The next attack has been planned that will greatly exceed the casualties of 9/11.

Had the machinery that the Bush administration put in place and which kept the nation safe been respected and augmented, I would feel more confident, but who can feel confident with Janet Napolitano heading the Department of Homeland Security?

Napolitano cannot even bring herself to say the word “terrorist” and the Obama administration has not only expunged the phrase “war on terrorism”, but the Postal Service has issued of a stamp to commemorate Eid, the Muslim holiday that marks the end of Ramadan!

It was the weak response of the Clinton administration that spurred al Qaeda to stage 9/11 and the same conditions are in place again today.

In addition, in an absolutely bizarre change of focus, instead of capturing or killing terrorists, it is the former Vice President, Dick Cheney, and dedicated CIA operatives that the Obama administration would like to drag before the dock and prosecute!

It is eight years later and I do not feel one bit safer. Do you?

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

Though most Americans are unaware of it, the rest of the world is taking an active interest in the sometimes heated debate we are having regarding the alleged healthcare “reform” that is, in fact, yet another effort to push the nation further into the same socialist tentacles [...]]]> America’s Empire of Trust

By Alan Caruba

Though most Americans are unaware of it, the rest of the world is taking an active interest in the sometimes heated debate we are having regarding the alleged healthcare “reform” that is, in fact, yet another effort to push the nation further into the same socialist tentacles that have been embraced elsewhere.

Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in America doesn’t stay in America. As the world’s sole superpower, the man we select to be our president becomes the de facto president of the world insofar as his decisions reach into dusty villages in Afghanistan, affect global stock and commodity markets, and can determine the success or failure of movements toward freedom everywhere.

There would be no “Pax Americana” if we were seen to abandon our allies.

The similarities between the Roman Empire and the young American Empire are examined in an excellent book by Thomas F. Madden, “Empires of Trust.”

When I was born in the late 1930s America was a resolutely isolationist nation. We didn’t want to get involved in European wars. We had gotten into World War I because our ships were attacked by German submarines. When it was over, we pulled out our troops.

Not so for World War II, yet another conflict we resisted joining until the attack on Pearl Harbor. At the end of that war, we left troops in Europe to fend off the threat of the Soviet Union. We left troops in Japan to occupy it until democracy could be introduced to replace the emperor. In both cases, we spent billions to rebuild these shattered nations.

American troops are still in Europe and still in Japan. Though asked to withdraw from Iraq, a contingent of American troops will remain there long into the future and it is likely too that they shall be in Afghanistan as well. Americans were twice forced to invade Iraq; initially to force them out of Kuwait and, after 9/11, to remove Saddam Hussein, a threat to the entire region, but most particularly to Saudi Arabia, a major source of oil to the West.

While America always invades as part of a “coalition”, that is a charade because no other nation has the military strength and power to swiftly bring an offending nation to heel. It is not the conquest that is difficult. It is the clean up afterwards.

In point of fact, America maintains military units all over the world and they are there by invitation. Another element of America’s Empire of Trust is that the wars in which we have engaged since the end of World War II have all been in distant places. That pattern began with the Korean conflict in the 1950s. That was followed by the distress when America took over the conflict in Vietnam from France.

After initial enthusiasm for revenge following 9/11, our current participation in the Iraq and Afghan conflicts in Iraq has long since cooled. Americans, as did the citizens of Rome, do not like extended military engagements.

There are any number of similarities between the citizens of Rome who sought their own security by slowly having to conquer neighboring enemies in Italy, subdue the Carthaginian threat from North Africa, and disturbances in Greece.

The growth of the Roman Empire took place over centuries, but the reluctant Romans did not seek conquest; only peace for themselves. They did this by turning conquered enemies into friends and, since they were so successful in war, they were continually entreated to extend their protection further and further from Rome. The result was an Empire of Trust.

The Romans created the first republic in which power resided in its citizens. The American republic was, in many ways, patterned after the Roman republic, but the Founders also sought to avoid the errors of Rome, dividing power within government and ensuring that our military’s allegiance was to the Constitution, not a particular leader. Our wars must be approved by congressional resolutions.

Even in Rome there were early predictions that their empire would end. By 146 BC the Romans were the most powerful nation of those bordering the Mediterranean from Spain to Egypt and they would remain so for some sixteen centuries.

Most Americans draw their “knowledge” of ancient Rome from Hollywood films, but the scenes of decadence and apparent tyranny are wrong in many ways. A pious people, the famed decline in morality and the necessity to subdue religious chaos in the Middle East actually occurred by the time the empire had largely converted to Christianity as the state religion. They occurred late in its long history of having imposed the “Pax Romana” on the known world. The last elements of the empire would disappear in 1453.

A world at peace was always the Roman goal and, following World War II, it has been America’s goal. However, as Madden points out, “War—not peace—is the normal state of affairs in human history.” What is called peace “is an intermission, a time to prepare for more war.”

America was forced to enter two wars in Europe in the last century because, as Madden, notes, “The countries and leaders of Europe waged nearly constant warfare for more than fifteen centuries.”

This is why, too, that American soldiers and marines, assisted by troops contributed by a relatively few and greatly reluctant allies, are now fighting a “hot” war in Afghanistan after a lengthy engagement in an Iraq. Americans do not like long wars, but Madden bluntly says that “Americans need to accept that the War on Terror is going to be a long one.

Liberals always claim that “war never solves anything”, but history demonstrates that war always solves something. We have a United States of America because we fought a long, bloody Civil War. We are not subject to the dictates of a Nazi Germany in control of Europe or an Empire of Japan controlling Asia because we fought and won World War II. Our proxy wars weakened the former Soviet Union.

Former President Bush was right when, in 2002, he said, “We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties, and then systematically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long…we must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.”

That is the definition of “Pax Americana” and it is the mission of the American Empire.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com .

Bela Kiraly, 1912 – 2009

Long considered a folk hero in Hungary, Bela Kiraly is the kind of man I admire. A general in the Hungarian army, he was sentenced to death four different times for sedition, spending 4 years on death row. Paroled in 1956, he led Hungarian freedom fighters [...]]]>

Bela Kiraly, 1912 – 2009

Long considered a folk hero in Hungary, Bela Kiraly is the kind of man I admire. A general in the Hungarian army, he was sentenced to death four different times for sedition, spending 4 years on death row. Paroled in 1956, he led Hungarian freedom fighters against the Soviet invasion, escaping into exile with some of his forces when they were overwhelmed.

Aside from all of his accomplishments, which include earning a Ph.D. in history from Columbia University, here is what I like about the man, and what makes him a hero to me.

He was a man of honor who stood for the honorable treatment of people. During World War II his unit was assigned several hundred Jewish slave laborers. With the Nazis in power, rather than hand them over for transportation, he put them in uniform and made them part of his troops, saving them from certain death in the camps. He was later honored by Israel for it. Arrested by the Soviets at the war’s end and sent to Siberia with his men, he and a number of them escaped the train and hiked back into Hungary.

During Hungary’s attempted break-away from the Soviet bloc in 1956, he was made commanding general of the rebels while still in the hospital recovering from 5 years of prison for “sedition”.

In 2006, learning that one of the Russian generals who led the 1956 invasion was still alive, he invited him to Budapest to join the 50th anniversary celebrations. When the general declined the invitation, fearing that he might be arrested, 94 year old Kiraly flew to Moscow and spent a weekend reminiscing with his former enemy.

“He will be remembered not merely as a warrior,” writes Nina Khrushcheva, Nikita Khruschev’s granddaughter, “but as a humanist, the conciliator who called for no reprisals after 1989,” a liberal model for Hungarians, and for the rest of us.

We need more heroes like Bela Kiraly, who is very much my kind of hero.

That’s all for now

George

 Is China a danger to the world? This is a topic I have wanted to write about for some time. I suspect my motivation for writing this comes from being sent to Vietnam [...]]]>

 Is China a danger to the world? This is a topic I have wanted to write about for some time. I suspect my motivation for writing this comes from being sent to Vietnam to fight in a war that took place because an American president lied. That lie cost millions of lives and damaged more who still live.

Warning: This is a long post with many facts, “food” for thought, and those who have short attention spans with little patience for anything (unless it is watching sports like football, basketball or baseball on television or programs like American Idol) that takes longer than ten-minutes should leave now. The idea for this post is to get people thinking, and to do critical thinking requires knowledge and facts about the subject. Gathering that kind of information takes time. After teaching American children for thirty years, I suspect the audience for this piece will be small.

A conservative, evangelical Christian friend of mine recently said if China tried something with its military that was against America’s interests, the United States would give China a good spanking.  Why would he say this? The only war America fought against the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) was in Korea and that wasn’t even a war, it was considered a United Nations police action and no one won.

In fact, North Korea (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39913120090527 ) is still causing trouble, and since Mao’s death, China usually sides with the rest of the world on issues concerning North Korea and attempts to resolve issues without violence. A war in North Korea would not be in China’s interests.

Another fact to consider is that China has had ties with Korea for centuries and when China entered the Korean Conflict, one of the reasons was that Mao felt China would be next if he did nothing. The same logic applied to the Vietnam Conflict. Mao said that Vietnam was the gums protecting China’s teeth, and he sent advisors to help the North Vietnamese Communists. None of them returned.

The first information piece is from the AP about North Korea.

___________________________________________________________________________

US admiral: NKorea threats could spark arms race

By Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 9, 1:26 pm ET

WASHINGTON – “President Barack Obama’s choice to lead U.S. forces in the Pacific warned Thursday that North Korea’s missile and nuclear threats could spark an arms race in Asia.

“Admiral Robert Willard also told senators at his confirmation hearing that China’s huge military buildup remains a serious worry for the U.S. military. …

(Several paragraphs later, Klug returns to the topic of China.)

“On China, Willard spoke of “major concerns” about the uncertainty surrounding Beijing’s development of advanced weapons that are “beyond what is required for its national defense.” He said he would pursue “careful, measured military engagement” with China to reduce the chance of miscalculation and to press for transparency on military spending.

“China and the U.S. have recently resumed military consultations after Beijing suspended talks in anger over American arms sales to Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as part of its territory.

Next, a comparison between American and China with lots of facts, ‘food’ for thought:

Source: www.Globalfirepower.com

United States:
PERSONNEL
Total Population: 303,824,640 [2008]
Population Available: 144,354,117 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 118,600,541 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,266,128 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 1,385,122 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500 [2008]
America’s Total Active Military = 2,843,122 or .94% percent of the population of the United States.

Active Paramilitary Units: 453,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 29,920
Towed Artillery: 5,178 [2001]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 1,559
Merchant Marine Strength: 422 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 12 [2008]
Destroyers: 50 [2008]
Submarines: 75 [2008]
Frigates: 92 [2008]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 100 [2008]
Mine Warfare Craft: 28 [2008]
Amphibious Craft: 38 [2008]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $515,400,000,000 [2009]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $70,570,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $13,780,000,000,000 [2007]

America’s Defense Budget is 3.74 percent of  total purchasing power, four-and-a-half times that of China.

Communist China:
PERSONNEL
Total Population: 1,330,044,544 [2008]
Population Available: 729,323,673 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 609,273,077 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 20,470,412 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 2,255,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 800,000 [2008]
China’s Total Active Military = 3,055,000 or .22 percent of the population of the China
Active Paramilitary Units: 3,969,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 31,300
Tanks: 8,200 [2004]
Armored Personnel Carriers: 5,000 [2004]
Towed Artillery: 14,000 [2004]
Self-Propelled Guns: 1,700 [2004]
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 2,400 [2004]
Mortars: 16,000 [2001]
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 6,500 [2004]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 7,700 [2004]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 760
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,822 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2010]
Destroyers: 21 [2004]
Submarines: 68 [2004]
Frigates: 42 [2004]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 368 [2004]
Mine Warfare Craft: 39 [2004]
Amphibious Craft: 121 [2004]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 1,900 [2004]
Helicopters: 491 [2004]
Serviceable Airports: 467 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $59,000,000,000 [2008]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $1,534,000,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $7,099,000,000,000 [2007]

China’s Defense Budget is .83% (less than one) percent of  total purchasing power.

America’s Wars
Primary Source: Department of Veterans Affairs

American Revolution (1775-1783)
Total Service members …………………………….217,000

Battle Deaths ………………………………………………4,435

Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………6,188

War of 1812 (1812-1815)
Total Service members……………………………..286,730
Battle Deaths…………………………..2,260
Non-mortal Woundings…………….4,505

Indian Wars (approx. 1817-1898)
Total Service members…………………..106,000
Battle Deaths……………………………………1,000

Secondary source:Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

By Guenter Lewy

Guenter Lewy, who for many years taught political science at the University of Massachusetts, has been a contributor to Commentary since 1964. His books include The Catholic Church & Nazi Germany, Religion & Revolution, America in Vietnam, and The Cause that Failed: Communism in American Political Life

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

Mexican War (1846-1848)
Total Service members……………………………….78,718
Battle Deaths……………………………………………..1,733
Other Deaths in Service………………………………11,550
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………4,152

Civil War (1861-1865)
Total U.S. Service members (Union)…………..2,213,363
Battle Deaths (Union)…………………………………..140,414
Other Deaths (In Theater) (Union)…………………224,097
Non-mortal Woundings (Union)…………………….281,881
Total Service members (Conf.) (note 2) ……….1,050,000
Battle Deaths (Confederate) (note 3) ………………..74,524
Other Deaths (In Theater) (Confed.) (note 3, 4)….59,297 
Non-mortal Woundings (Confed.) ……………..Unknown

Spanish-American War (1898-1902)
Total Service members (Worldwide)……………..306,760
Battle Deaths…………………………………………………….385
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)……………..2,061
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………..1,662

Secondary source since this war was not listed with the primary:
Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
CASUALTY FIGURES:
U.S.– 4,234 dead and 2,818 wounded.
Philippines– 20,000 military dead and 200,000 civilian dead. (approximate numbers). Some historians place the numbers of civilian dead at 500,000 or higher.
http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html

World War I (1917-1918)
Total Service members (Worldwide)……………4,734,991
Battle Deaths…………………………………………………53,402
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)…………….63,114
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………204,002
Living Veterans……………………………………………………..1

World War II (1941-1945)
Total Service members (Worldwide)………….16,112,566
Battle Deaths……………………………………………….291,557
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)…………..113,842
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………671,846
Living Veterans (note 5)……………………………..2,306,000

Korean War (1950-1953)
Total Service members (Worldwide)…………..5,720,000
Battle Deaths………………………………………………..33,741
Other Deaths (In Theater)………………………………..2,833
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)……………17,672
Non-mortal Woundings………………………………..103,284
Living Veterans………………………………………..2,307,000

Vietnam War (1964-1975)
Total Service members (Worldwide) (note 6)….8,744,000
Deployed to Southeast Asia (note 7) ……………..3,403,000
Battle Deaths (note 8)……………………………………….47,424
Other Deaths (In Theater) (note 8) …………………….10,785
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater) (note 8) ….32,000
Non-mortal Woundings (note 9)……………………….153,303
Living Veterans (note 5, 10)………………………….7,125,000

Secondary Source: The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. (Source: http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/ )

Desert Shield/Desert Storm (1990-1991)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide)…………..2,322,000
Deployed to Gulf………………………………………..694,550
Battle Deaths……………………………………………………147
Other Deaths (In Theater)…………………………………..235
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)……………..1,590
Non-mortal Woundings………………………………………467
Living Veterans (note 5, 10)……………………….2,269,000

America’s Wars Total   
U.S. Military Service During War……………..41,891,368

Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century

China’s Wars and Rebellions (Conflicts Hi-Lighted in Yellow are wars that were mostly invasions by foreign powers. The rest are rebellions—you may find it interesting that there is a history going back centuries of Muslim rebellions in China’s northwest, Xianjiang)

Nuclear Weapons

• United States: 10,240 weapons
• Russia (formerly the Soviet Union): 8,400 weapons
• People’s Republic of China: 390 weapons
• France: 350 weapons
• United Kingdom: 200-300 weapons
• India 60-90 weapons
• Pakistan 30-52 weapons
• North Korea 0-18 weapons

Source: http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Nuclear_powers )

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34^th President of the United States warned America. “Before he left office in January 1961, from his farm in Gettysburg, he urged the necessity of maintaining an adequate military strength, but cautioned that vast, long-continued military expenditures could breed potential dangers to our way of life. He concluded with a prayer for peace “in the goodness of time.” Both themes remained timely and urgent when he died, after a long illness, on March 28, 1969. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/DwightDEisenhower/

Here’s the link to a copy of President Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex Speech,  1961 http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

A military strategy to match peaceful rise

By Chen Zhou (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-05-16 07:40 From China: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-05/16/content_6689612.htm

 China
PERCEPTION OF THREAT
In the late 1980s, China viewed the Soviet Union as its principal military opponent. Simmering border disputes with Vietnam and India were perceived as lesser threats to security. China’s burgeoning opening up policy, its claims to the Xisha (Paracel) and Nansha (Spratly) Islands, and the presence of offshore oil deposits made the South China Sea an area in which Beijing saw potential threats to its interests. Finally, although it did not regard Taiwan as a military threat, China nevertheless refused to rule out the use of force as a means of achieving reunification with Taiwan.

The Soviet Union
Despite common ideological roots, considerable Soviet assistance in the past, and warming relations since 1982, China in 1987 regarded the Soviet Union’s military strength and foreign policy as the major threat to its security. Tensions in relations between the two countries had begun to escalate in the mid-1950s (see Sino-Soviet Relations , ch. 12). The 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and the buildup of Soviet forces in the Soviet Far East raised Chinese suspicions of Soviet intentions. Sharp border clashes between Soviet and Chinese troops occurred in 1969, roughly a decade after relations between the two countries had begun to deteriorate and some four years after a buildup of Soviet forces along China’s northern border had begun. Particularly heated border clashes occurred in the northeast along the Sino-Soviet border formed by the Heilong Jiang (Amur River) and the Wusuli Jiang (Ussuri River), on which China claimed the right to navigate (see fig. 3). Border provocations occasionally recurred in later years–for example, in May 1978 when Soviet troops in boats and a helicopter intruded into Chinese territory–but major armed clashes were averted.

In the late 1970s, China decried what it perceived as a Soviet attempt to encircle it as the military buildup continued in the Soviet Far East and the Soviet Union signed friendship treaties with Vietnam and Afghanistan. In April 1979 Beijing notified Moscow that the thirty-year Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance–under which the Soviets aided the PLA in its 1950s modernization–would not be renewed. Negotiations on improving Sino-Soviet relations were begun in 1979, but China ended them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan late that year. In 1982 China and the Soviet Union resumed negotiations on normalizing relations. Although agreements on trade, science and technology, and culture were signed, political ties remained frozen because of Chinese insistence that the Soviet Union remove the three obstacles to improved Sino-Soviet relations. Although Chinese leaders publicly professed not to be concerned, the Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, Soviet provision of MiG-23 fighters to North Korea, and Soviet acquisition of overflight and port calling rights from North Korea intensified Chinese apprehension about the Soviet threat. Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s 1986 offer to withdraw some troops from Afghanistan and the Mongolian People’s Republic (Mongolia) were seen by Beijing as a cosmetic gesture that did not lessen the threat to China.

China
Economic Roles of the People’s Liberation Army

The PLA played a role in economic development practically from its inception. Beginning in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the party was headquartered in Yan’an, the Red Army raised its own food. After 1949 the PLA became involved in economic reconstruction tasks–building railroads and factories, reclaiming wasteland, digging irrigation canals, establishing state farms, and participating in disaster relief operations. The PLA accepted its role as a force in economic construction and devoted segments of its structure, such as the Engineering Corps, Railway Engineering Corps, Capital Construction Engineering Corps, Signal Corps, and Production and Construction Corps, to building up the national infrastructure. However, PLA regional- and main-force units played a much smaller role in aiding the civilian economy.

This pattern continued into the 1980s. The PLA remained self-sufficient in food, participated in selective infrastructure development projects, and aided in disaster relief. From 1981 to 1985, the PLA contributed 110 million workdays to 44,500 construction projects, including the diversion of river water from the Luan He to Tianjin, construction of the Shengli oilfield in Shandong Province and the Huolinhe open-cut coal mine in Shaanxi Province, expansion of Zhanjiang port in Guangdong Province, and afforestation work involving the planting of 290 million trees.

The PLA contributed to economic development in two additional ways. First, in November 1984 the government decided to transfer some military facilities to civilian control or joint militarycivilian use. These facilities included airfields, ports, docks, railroads, depots and warehouses, and recreational areas. The devolution of these facilities to civilian control helped to alleviate problems that plagued the civilian economy. Second, beginning in the late 1970s, the PLA operated a large-scale program of dual-use training, whereby PLA personnel learned skills useful to the growing economy. Under this program, officers and soldiers received military training and training in specialized skills, such as livestock breeding, cultivation, processing, construction, machine maintenance, repair of domestic appliances, motor vehicle repair, and driving. In 1986 the PLA trained more than 650,000 soldiers in 25,000 training courses at over 6,000 training centers. In early 1987 surveys indicated that over 70 percent of demobilized PLA personnel left the armed forces with skills they could use as civilians.
Data as of July 1987
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+cn0390)

Chinese military officer praises army for quake relief efforts
www.chinaview.cn 2008-05-31 11:51:40
Special report: Reconstruction After Earthquake
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/31/content_8288931.htm

1. How many times has the United States been invaded by foreign countries? Answer: twice by Britain, the Revolution (if we count that as in invasion since Britain ruled America at the time) and the War of 1812.
2. How many rebellions did the United States have: Answer: maybe twice (one against Britain, which the United States won, and one against the thirteen Southern States during the Civil war, which the Confederacy lost)
3. How many times has China been invaded by foreign countries?Answer: More than twenty since 1800 (This many invasions would be strong motivation for keeping a large military force.)
4. How many rebellions has China dealt with? Answer: More than twenty-five (With this many rebellions going back to 1800, it would seem to be a good idea to have a large active military.)
5. What would America do if a hostile foreign nation like Russia, Iran, or North Korea invaded Mexico or Canada?
6. What do you think is the real reason the Western Media spends so much time pointing out that China has a huge military? 
7. How many nuclear weapons does China have?
8. What about the Unites States?

9.      How many nuclear weapons does it take to destroy the world once?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Regional-Nuclear-War-Would-Destroy-the-World-82760.shtml

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1997/00/00_babst_consequences.htm

https://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/students.washington.edu/princesa/281/nuclearbombs.html
10. What are American interests (you may want to do a Google search for this question)?
http://www.the-american-interest.com/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1778

http://americasinterests.blogspot.com/

Bit by bit the news is getting out. First it was a news report of Israelis, Egyptians, and Saudis getting together to discuss their mutual interests and concern. In other words, Iran!

Now The Times (UK) is reporting that “The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, [...]]]> The Saudis Choose Sides

By Alan Caruba

Bit by bit the news is getting out. First it was a news report of Israelis, Egyptians, and Saudis getting together to discuss their mutual interests and concern. In other words, Iran!

Now The Times (UK) is reporting that “The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.”

This was followed by news of an ABC News interview with Vice President Biden who said, “Look, Israel can determine for itself—it’s a sovereign nation—what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else, whether we agree or not.”

Translation: We hope they will bomb the heck out of Iran’s nuclear facilities because we do not have the guts to do it ourselves. The President then said Biden had misspoken and that no “green light” had been given. Apparently, it’s okay to “meddle” in Israel’s internal affairs, but not Iran’s.

The least likely partners in the Middle East are Israel and the Saudis, but both have a common enemy and the Saudis have always been shrewd in their judgment as to whom to back in a fight. They also prefer having others do their fighting for them. Unless you haven’t checked lately, Saudi Arabia shares a very long border with Iraq and is just across the Persian Gulf from Iran, along with Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

So now the Saudis are in league with the Israelis, just like they coordinate with the oil-importing United States of America. Why not? We’re too stupid to tap our own extensive national oil reserves, so they are perfectly happy to sell us theirs.

Iran is a direct competitor to the Saudis and cannot be expected to play nice at OPEC meetings. The good news for the Saudis is that the Iranians have so mismanaged their oil industry that they don’t even have a refinery to make their own gasoline. Their equipment is getting old and their income from oil is surely dwindling as a result. It doesn’t help them that the price per barrel is falling of late.

But they sure do know how to make some great long-and-short range missiles and have been hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapon capability for some twenty years or more. While they have poured billions into that little project, they have ignored their own population which has high unemployment and a host of other problems, not the least of which is a shaky hold on power.

A serious international boycott of the current Iranian regime would bring it to its knees. The protests in the streets may have been crushed, but the spirit of protest has not. Iranians are angry with their Supreme Leader and the rest of the stooges in their allegedly elected government.

I have no doubt whatever that the Israelis will choose the day and hour to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. It’s no great secret where they are, but I bet the Mossad has blueprints!

It is ironic that Iran has managed to do what sixty years of Arab warfare on Israel has not. It has brought two antagonists to the table to discuss an even greater common enemy.

When I served in the U.S. military I knew two closeted homosexuals were serving in my unit. My version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was not to tell because I saw no reason to “out” them and not messing around in other people’s lives has always been [...]]]> Gays in the Military

By Alan Caruba

When I served in the U.S. military I knew two closeted homosexuals were serving in my unit. My version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was not to tell because I saw no reason to “out” them and not messing around in other people’s lives has always been a policy of mine.

I was naïve enough to think that, if they wanted to serve and if they remained “closeted”, which is to say as long as their sexual preference did not interfere with their performance of duty, it was not my problem. Fifty years ago being gay meant staying in the closet or paying a price for being open about it. It surely meant not serving in the U.S. Army and these fellows wanted to.

Fast forward to the present when being gay has lost much of its former stigma. Ellen DeGeneres has her own popular talk show. “Will and Grace” was a successful sitcom. “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” was popular for a while. Barney Frank came out of the closet and apparently Massachusetts voters did not care. The level of tolerance is, in many respects, nothing less than astonishing.

But! Gays are now hell-bent to get same-sex marriage as the law of the land. The very idea is obscene and a thorough-going challenge to a rational society. It redefines what is normal and being gay is not normal in a heterosexual world and never was.

In the White House, President Obama met with 150 members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Coalition of the United Church of Christ. He told them that “I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security.” He wants “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed.

When the subject has come up with career military professionals whom I have known, they have uniformly opposed integrating gays. The general reason is “esprit de corps”, the need to ensure morale among the troops who must, in battle, utterly depend upon one another.

Having openly gay soldiers and other military share the same living quarters is a cause for concern among their heterosexual, “straight” comrades. It has nothing to do with “patriotism.” It has a whole lot to do with whom you’re sharing a communal shower.

More than 1,000 retired generals and admirals signed an open letter earlier this year supporting the ban on gays serving openly and predicted that a repeal of the current policy would endanger the prospects of an all-volunteer force.

Gays make straights uncomfortable to varying degrees. It’s not just bias. It is human nature. So, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes a lot of sense. It did when I served and it does today.

I suspect many gays have served in the military and are presently on active service and, for that reason, I think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the wisest policy.

Unfortunately, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is working with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to draft legislation in the Senate to do away with the current policy. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has announced he will support the legislation and reportedly there are 150 co-sponsors of a similar bill in the House.

At this point, about 10,500 military personnel have been discharged for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy from 1997 through 2008. Around 250 individuals have been discharged this year.

America has fought many wars, most of them successfully, by maintaining a policy that excludes the openly gay from being in the military.

If President Obama thinks he can change human nature or ignore history, he is very mistaken. He should listen to the generals and admirals, but he probably won’t.

Abolishing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be just another nail in the coffin of America and President Obama has been busy wielding a very big hammer of late.

“In defense of our nation, a president must be a clear-eyed realist. There are limits to the smiles and scowls of diplomacy. Armies and missiles are not stopped by stiff notes of condemnation. They are held in check by strength and purpose and the promise of swift [...]]]> War! War! War!

By Alan Caruba

“In defense of our nation, a president must be a clear-eyed realist. There are limits to the smiles and scowls of diplomacy. Armies and missiles are not stopped by stiff notes of condemnation. They are held in check by strength and purpose and the promise of swift punishment.” I will tell you who said that at the end of this commentary.

D-Day, 65 years ago, was one of many days throughout history that determined the final outcome of a war. I suspect one can attach a great battle to just about every day in the calendar because the history of humanity is one of constant warfare somewhere, anywhere in the world where two men, two families, two tribes, two empires, or two or more states clashed.

The courage that Americans, joined by Canadians, British, Free French, Polish, and other troops showed on June 6, 1944 preserved freedom for a bit longer among the victors, though all of Eastern Europe had to be written off as the bribe to keep Soviet Russia involved. It would ultimately loose 20 million of its people.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 199,000. People forget that the Japanese emperor and the military, though clearly defeated, refused to concede.

War is the natural element of mankind. Peace is merely the interlude between wars.

Man is the most dangerous creature on Earth and young men, in particular, are either conscripted into armies or will just as likely form gangs to fulfill the desire “to seek the bubble reputation even in the cannon’s mouth.”

Every time I hear Barack Obama talk of diplomacy, I can hear guns being cocked or missiles being positioned. He is surely the most naïve President since the days of Woodrow Wilson who get elected promising keep the U.S. out of World War I and then, after committing U.S. troops, he went to Europe to participate in the writing of the Versailles Treaty where the British and the French ate his lunch. They divided up the spoils, punished Germany, and set in motion World War II before the ink was dry.

Wilson returned home with his dream of a League of Nations and the U.S. Senate shot it down, preferring to maintain our sovereignty than to get in bed with the knaves that started WWI.

That fool’s dream of an organization to ensure world peace was revived by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and signed into being by his successor, Harry S. Truman, who probably had little choice in the matter. Its first Secretary General was a Soviet spy named Alger Hiss, a communist who had risen high in the FDR government.

The world has always been a dangerous place because it has always been full of egotists and psychopaths who have seized or gained power in one fashion or another. Alexander tried his hand at a Macedonian empire. Rome laid down some fine roads and used them to ensure their hold on a widespread Mediterranean empire. Attila knocked on the doors of Europe. The Visigoths and other barbarian tribes sacked Rome.

The Church sent forth crusades in response to the military aspirations of Muslims to seize and hold Jerusalem, holy to Christian and Jew. The Muslims or Moors had already spread far into India and northern Africa, up into Spain. Their northern drive into Europe was stopped at Poitiers, France in 732 AD and on September 11, 1683 they were decisively defeated at the gates of Vienna.

In the last century, the Empire of Japan murdered thousands, if not millions in China while waging war to control Asia. In Europe the Nazis redefined barbarism and depravity.

War! War! War! Diplomacy is merely the process by which war may be delayed a bit and the terms of surrender are determined by the winner. Diplomacy has never stopped a despot from pursuing war. It has merely rescheduled it.

In 1986, Osama bin Laden formally declared war on the United States. He is still at war with the United States whether anyone is paying attention or not. And we are not. The Iranians, as crazed as bin Laden, have made their intentions clear by declaring “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel” every single day since seizing our diplomats in 1979 and holding them for 444 days.

After 9/11, George W. Bush did not hesitate to pursue war against bin Laden in Afghanistan and against a man, Saddam Hussein, and nation, Iraq, that were the object of dozens of useless United Nations resolutions as an instigator of wars. Obama’s response has been to denigrate our military achievement in Iraq and demand that Guantanamo be closed down.

Barack Obama is going to get a lot of Americans killed with his poetry about diplomacy.

The lessons of history are lost on this fool. Buchenwold concentration camp and the beach at Normandy are just background for “photo ops” to this greatest of narcissists. He is too busy waging his own war on America while seeking yet another stage on which to strut.

To become a nation in its own right America took on the greatest military power of its time, Great Britain, and won. It fought Barbary pirates. It waged a bloody civil war for its soul and won. It fought Mexico and added territory by winning. It fought Spain. It fought insurgents in the Philippines. It fought two world wars. It fought Communists in Korea. It fought them again in Vietnam. It forced the Russians to back off in Cuba. It fought Communists on the island of Granada and it fought a drug lord in Panama. It fought Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. It fought the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and it again fought a despot in Iraq. We are still in both these places.

On September 10, 2001 Americans thought they were not at war with anyone. They were wrong. The only thing that has kept us from another attack was the policy enunciated in the quote with which I began this contemplation of war and peace. The man who said it is former President George W. Bush. The date was November 19, 1999

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com . He blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com .