The blogosphere schools Barack Obama in asymmetric warfare
Does Barack Obama understand the concept of asymmetric warfare? Barack Obama complains that no one wants to talk about the “issues.” Well, his abject ignorance of warfare in the 21st century is an issue that can’t be emphasized enough.
And the right side of the blogosphere has been all over it.
From Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades:
By stating that Iran isn’t a threat because they spend much less on defense than the US, Obama displays a complete ignorance of how asymmetric warfare operates. The AQ “defense budget” for pulling off 9/11, was by comparison to the US, essentially zero.
An analysis of the Iranian order of battle and where they’ve been spending their defense dollars over the past 10 years would show that they are a serious threat in certain specific areas. They’ve been investing heavily in coastal batteries, anti-ship missile systems, silent diesel electric subs, and such. They could turn the narrow strait of Hormuz into an unnavigable scrap yard faster than the US Navy could stop them or the US Air force could neutralize those batteries and missiles.
Are the Iranians going to bomb NYC or invade Chicago? No. Can they be a major PITA to the rest of the world if they decided to suicidally squeeze oil shipments through the straight? Absolutely.
Make sure to watch the whole clip if you haven’t seen it yet. It’s not just Obama’s blather about who we should talk to, which everyone’s been focusing on–and rightly so. But more to the point, more to the core issue, it’s his idiotic emphasis on how big the military budgets of our enemies are as the measure of the threat they pose.
Barack Obama: The epitome of a 9/10 Democrat.
Obama apparently believes that Iran and other rogues states (he lists Iran, Cuba and Venezuela) “don’t pose a serious threat to the U.S.” Iran, specifically, he tells us spends so little on defense relative to us that if Iran “tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn’t . . . they wouldn’t stand a chance.”
So, taken literally, he seems not much concerned about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorist organizations, its commitment to eradicate Israel, its current actions in supplying weapons that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq, and its role in eroding Lebanon’s sovereignty through its client Hezbollah…
…You can understand why every attempt by John McCain to discuss global threats is labeled “fear-mongering” by Obama. In his world this is all a fantasy and we are not at risk. All perfectly logical . . . if you divorce yourself from reality.
…in an era of asymmetrical warfare, a group’s budget and spending do not necessarily reflect the scope or danger of the threat. The 9/11 Commission report stated the attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan; the short-term costs alone to the U.S. from the attacks are estimated at $27.2 billion…Let’s look at those nations Obama describes as “tiny”…
Karl at Protein Wisdom: “Yesterday, Iran did not pose a serious threat to the US. Today, Obama declares Iran to be a ‘grave threat.’ Tomorrow, who knows? If it’s Tuesday, it must be Tehran!”
Ed Morrissey: Iran is not a “serious threat?”
John Hinderaker: “Can someone explain why it is, exactly, that Barack Obama is not a laughingstock?”
You know, this conversation is not helping Michelle Obama’s kids.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Iran is “Tiny”? « The View from Alexandria
- Political Exiles
- Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 05/20/08
- Plumb Bob Blog » Question of the Day: Obama and Iran
- R_V » Busy Tuesday blogroll roundup
- Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » Democrat of the Week: Saturday Morning Roundup
- Just a speech? - Page 15 - TanToday - Helping Salon Owners, One At A Time, Since 2000!
- Michelle Malkin » D’OH-bama’s mortgage industry mess
- Michelle Malkin » The next MSM brouhaha: McCain’s joke about cigarette exports to Iran
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Mudville Gazette
» The Red Pill (Part Two)
Patterico
» Alito Whacks BidenNewsBusters.org
» NYT: Make The Mormons Walk To Wal-MartStop The ACLU
» Where Should Obama Give His Great Middle East Speech?Gateway Pundit
» Sweet!... Danish Navy Sinks Somali Pirate Ship (Video)Riehl World View
» Breaking News On Obama SpeechJawa Report
» Danish Warship Sinks PirateNewsBusters.org
» Matthews: It's 'Really Hard' to 'Salute Sarah Palin'Stop The ACLU
» Lawsuit Over Obama’s Birth Certificate Goes To SCOTUS FridayRiehl World View
» Is Barack Hussein Obama Going All Native On Us Already?Marginal Revolution
» Why do so many more women study abroad?Right Wing Nut House
» ISRAEL GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF PLANNING IRAN ATTACK?
like Hanford? lmao..
It only took 19 men, Senator. I like the illustration.
Right, Obama’s glib talk distracts itself from simple logic, especially in terms of the compact military hardware available to rogue nations. I’d be an idiot to think an Iranian cigarette boat couldn’t blast a nasty hole in the side of one of our ships if it got close enough; and they’re constantly testing to see how close they can get.
Welcome to
DisneylandObamaland.They are building leverage in the region. We are trying to do the same in Iraq, but our enemies, both foreign and domestic, are doing their best to prevent that from happening.
But of course, Obama will “talk” to them and encourage them to embrace the Great Satan. Yeah, right. When monkeys fly out of my butt.
When the Koran instructs you to lie to infidels (us) and do so routinely, and there will be no punishment for doing so, why would we believe word #1 from them?
In answer to Hinderaker: Obama IS a laughingstock, at least among those that have a shred of common sense, and a useful tool of dictators around the world. Why else would they support his candidacy (Hamas, FARC, others?)
Vietnam had a fraction of the resources of the USA, and beat us. Ditto Korea, and they fought us to a stalemate.
So, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, it isn’t the amount one spends, but how one spends it, and what one’s abjectives are.
Could Iran come invade the USA? Probably not. But that isn’t their objective. Could they cut off our oil supply? You betcha. And that IS their objective.
I would think that intent, as opposed to what is spent on defense[though I would argue that the correct term here is offense], would be a better measure of threat.
Doesn’t matter, the sheeple will vote for him anyway, they’re too mesmerized to think for themselves.
John Hinderaker: “Can someone explain why it is, exactly, that Barack Obama is not a laughingstock?”
Because his base is more ignorant than he is. To them, this man is learned.
I understand this. The US can not afford to be the policemen of the world. I think this topic will be a loser for McCain.
Easy. In order to re-live the glory days of Vietnam and beyond, the left needs another “Jimmah Cahhh-tuh.”
Done.
Al-Qaeda spent half a million to attack us and we are in the process of burning through all the money that we could have spent to butress Medicare or rebuild our decrepit infrastructure, upwards of a trillion dollars, in response. What an amazing return on investment for Osama Bin Laden, who, for all of our money spent, still hasn’t been brought to justice.
Who is the laughingstock now?
I think he needs to get back to basics like what’s the number one, irrefutable, qualification he has for the US presidency? He’s not white. In light of how stupid he is it has to be the only thing the liberal voting public cares about.
It’s Obama’s 9/10 world and we’re all just living in it.
#11
If Osama and others like him were left unchecked, I’m guessing that it would have cost the US much more than a trillion dollars, not to mention lives lost and freedoms curtailed, there is no price that could be put on those.
You.
I beg to differ, they could bomb any city in the usa. If they get nukes, all they would need to do is put it in a shipping container and estentauly just mail it to an operative already in the usa who would set it off. Its not like they lack people who would mind pushing the button on a nuke while standing right next to it. They don’t even need nukes. Iran hardly lacks conventional weapons. I am going to check on the BC of NBC now.
You sound like one of Obama’s national security advisors…and thats as funny as obama talking about the issues.
IRAN also seems to have chemical and biological weapons programs as well. Both could also be used in suicide attacks. Obama just doesn’t get that you don’t have to have billions to kill thousands, you just have to spend what money you have correctly.
Obama’s advisors need to stop letting him “shoot from the hip” in speeches because he’s shooting himself in the foot. Digging deeper…deeper…These comments will come back to haunt him, and I hope they do in a Walter Mondale landslide election loss sort of way…(and one would hope the left would learn to stop trotting out the extreme, ignorant candidates, but they won’t)
How is Barack Obama now any different than Dennis Kucinich with his wackiness? I’m just waiting for this sideshow clown to spin around on stage with his arms out but instead of no “strings”, he’s got no sense.
I think the O in Obama now stands for “O, what I meant was…”
Ok Obama. You win. Go talk to Iran. Now please.
Tre, I agree with you except for one thing. North Vietnam had China’s and the Soviets’ support.They did not stand alone. We were not defeated in a military sense. We gave up. As one North Vietnamese leader observed. They won the war on America’s college campuses.
Our war with jihadists has its roots in our forfeiture of Vietnam.
Given the historical evidence given by others on this thread, I wonder why American military strategists havn’t adopted the asymmetrical warfare concept for use by our military.
I’m beginning to wonder if Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex” was more prescient than even he realized.
Is our apparent divotion to massed armies and expensive military technology leaving us unable to function on the current battlefield?
Honestly? I don’t know the answer to this question.
All I have to say to that is it sounds like a fun new game we could play everyday called “Where in the World is Obama on the Issues”.
#22
It has prevented things like having to carpet bomb cities to hit one building.
I would point out that your statement, on its face, seems to be one of defeat. I’m not sure how to address you other than pointing out that your “well, we’ve got egg on our face” seems smug and ill placed.
I believe a major problem we face is that our military basically has its hands tied behind its back in regards to response and engagement.
Our enemies do not respect Rules of Engagement, do not respect the Laws of War, and I believe its high time that we at least loosen our restrictions a little to deal with someone who fights neither with honor or discretion in their targets.
You can also call it economy of fire. The correct application of fire, even though it is not as large, can change the outcome of a battle.When you have less troops/weapons/ammo you have to use economy of fire. It can be a battle winner, but over the long run its not a war winner if the enemy is pressing you. Which we are not doing to Iran.
So we should become more like our murderous enemies who have no respect for human life.
I understand now.
Asymmetrical warfare only works if you can’t effectively hit back. A national government can’t engage in (but it could support) assymetric warfare. Unlike bin Laden, Iran is very clearly on a map. Iran can’t sneak into a neighboring country. It can’t hide in a cave. Iran is where Iran is. We could drop bombs on Iran, and that’s a deterrent. We couldn’t drop bombs on bin Laden, so that wasn’t a deterrent. Unless the Pentagon has been lying my entire life about how technically advanced our missiles and bombers are, then I’m pretty sure that if Iran did anything to us, we’d blow it the hell up. I don’t think you can wage assymetrical warfare against us if we can find you on a map. Look, it’s right there:
View Larger Map
This doesn’t mean it’s an innocuous country. It does mean that whatever threat it poses isn’t an Al-qaeda-esque threat, but is rather conventional.
IndependentTom said:
A funny thing Tom, Eisenhower’s nom de guerre for the demagogues selling out our country was originally the “military-industrial-congressional complex” but they made him change it. It makes a lot more sense this way.
Obviously, they are not ahead of us in the ability to wage war and kill….but, they are way out front in their willingness…and they recognize that as a major advantage..Our “Holy Holy” policy kills more Americans than any aggressive war would do..Please, no more Iraq style war…Dresden and Berlin are perfect examples of how to wipe out an evil, radical, ideology….Subjugate is a word the Koran and the jihadists throw around abundantly….We should pick up on that…destroying their “willingness” is the only way…just like Nazi-ism..
JRRoberts #28, Iran fights it’s asymmetrical war via it’s proxys, Hamas & Hezzobollah.
We spend our money in the military so we can fight and win a war without killing people (precision guided bombs, fortified defensive measures and equipment - unmanned drones, armored vehicles).
They don’t have the money so they can’t waste any worrying about collateral damage. The less money they have the more likely they’ll miss their intended target and kill innocent people in the fight. Obama is plain scary with his talk of our getting rid of our nuclear weapons and appeasing terrorist states. The only reason McCain has even the slightest chance is because Obama is sooo bad. Definitely not voting this year.
No clearly you don’t. We have bent over backwards to be the “good guy”. No army in history has done more to respect human rights than the us army in iraq. It has done us no good. The major reason we hear for restraint is that the enemy will do the same to our troops. In fact the enemy has tortured and killed every single soldier they have captured, except for the one that escaped. So you can understand why us soldiers say, why are we holding back? It is doing us no good.
You clearly have less knowledge on this subject than Obama. Why don’t you quit before you dig the hole even deeper?
Read Col. Tom Peters’s column in today’s New York Post. We are winning impressive victories in Iraq and the MSM is censoring the good news.
Liberal Progressives are the Elite of Intellectuals.
The absurd comments spewing from Barrack Obamas mouth in recent days showcases the 21st Centuries version of the onset of the “Fall of Rome”!
There is no doubt in my mind that Jimmy Carters actions as Democrat president in the late 70’s set the table for world staging of current terrorist events.
The next Democrat president in line Bill Clinton’s decimation of our military, catastrophic reduction of our national defense budget, his “yellow-bellied” blind ignorance and willful inactions of the terrorism against the USA during his term emboldened our enemies immeasurably.
The CORRUPT MEDIA coordination with Democrats to portray George W Bush in a constant negative light during wartime fraudulently framing the national mood using dubious polling as news and hiding the real facts of how many Al Queda we’ve destroyed in the last 7 years has placed the USA in a very perilous position.
Now comes the messianic Barrack Obama the next Democrat President whose liberal arts based affirmative action education with “real world” IGNORANCE and Media shielding will surely destroy our great country in 4 short years or less.
Three STRIKES and we’re OUT of here.
God Help us All!
Morality isn’t tit for tat. We bend over backwards to spare civilians and treat prisoners fairly because it is the right thing to do, not because we have any expectation that the enemy will do it.
We have to abide by the rules and the standards of humanity and morality no matter what our enemies do precisely because the standards are absolute and not relative. Once we lose sight of that, we have lost.
What an ignorant view. Your understanding, and the lack thereof, is displayed for all now. Thanks.
Having respect for life is one thing. I certainly said nothing about “well, lets just blow them all up and let the coroner sort out the parts”. The fact you took that view and ran with it, without anything else to go on, doesn’t fly.
What I am saying is, in part, that we need to not prosecute soldiers when they do open fire in good faith. What I am saying is that we need to find effective means of dealing with an enemy that does not adhere to conventional rules of engagement. What I am saying is that we should swiftly and conclusively deal with our adversary. That does not remove respect for life. But it does mean being able to deal with this type of warfare. At no time should we disregard human life, or trivialize it. But there comes a time when one has to deal with the situation at hand, and requires us to respond to an enemy under nonconventional means.
But thank you for trying to throw the straw man into the discussion.
Calpygian is quickly reaching lgm status, and in record time too.
“not because we have any expectation that the enemy will do it” Actualy this was the reasoning behind the geneva conventions in the first place. The idea was to revent abuses by all sides not just the usa. This is a major problem I have with leftists and liberals. They expect perfect compliance from the us military but ignore widespread constant non-compliance from whoever we are fighting at the time. Well guess what, when compliance looks like its going to get one of my people killed, i am going to violate thoses rules. If that means calling in an MRLS strike on a hospital, so be it. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I am sick of judgements from absolute moralists* who have no idea about the reality of the situation on the ground.
* applies to american soldiers only.
Actualy if you are recieving fire from a hospital, it loses its protected status under international law. Just for the lawyers who will now want my head.
Solid points.
For cal, I would offer the following, using wiki as a source for the text.
Please answer either “US” or “Al-Qaeda” as to whom most closely resembles the following, in regards to the laws of war and the Geneva Convention protections:
1. The wearing of a uniform or other signs of affiliation visible from a distance.
2. The declaration of intent or of war against an adversary.
3. Prevention of collateral damage, including attacking civilian, medical, and non-military personel or targets.
4. Prohibitions of taking hostages.
5. Using protected people or property as shields or camouflage.
Just saying. We go to extraordinary lengths to maintain these rules.
Our enemy has been less than compliant.
Speaking of LGM, where is that spineless little creep ?
Can we please stop talking about all this war and such???
We need to get back to GLOBAL WARMING CHAT and Obama’s nicotine habit.
Exactly. We need to be. And we need to continue to be. Deviating, or even talking about deviating from those standards says more about us than it does about them.
Just sayin’.
Exactly. We need to be. And we need to continue to be. Deviating, or even talking about deviating from those standards says more about us than it does about them.
Just sayin’.
Exactly, because they want US to loose, then “they” can take over, negotiate with the terrorists and hope that they will be elevated to a position of power and authority. What they fail to understand in their ignorance is that there is no honor among thieves or terrorists.
You hit the nail right on its’ head! They are an enemy to US.
Here is some CRAP!
And blind compliance to rules that get people killed says what about us? To me it says we are stupid.
Lets take a little test here calipygian, you are on patrol and you come under fire. You can save 3 of your mean but only if you shoot the gunman who is hiding behind his 12 year old son. If you fire you will kill a 12 year old boy and be called a child killer, but you 3 guys live, if you don’t fire the gunman gets away, the boy lives, and your 3 guys die. What are you going to do, you have 2 seconds to decide.
Go
Maybe if the sniper had strapped explosives to himself and blew himself up at a childrens party the Iraqi’s would understand.
It’s all about the context. Blowing yourself up is ok. Oh, and why wasn’t Maliki running his pie-hole when Saddam was having people rounded up and shot, tortured or thrown off the top of buildings. Maybe Maliki was having a glass of Chardonnay in Paris.
This faux indignation sickens me.
Liberals sicken me.
Calipygian doensn’t have the balls to be in the military.
He’s be negotiating with the gunmen via satellite phone.
Maybe i’m being obtuse. Sorry if thats the case. I’m not saying deviate from doing the right thing.
I’m saying that we need to adjust the tactics that we use to deal with an enemy that often times is faceless and evasive.
But make no mistake. I still hold the idea that a dead terrorist can do no more harm.
Ahmediniziad is a terrorist.
What should we do with him.
Chat mayhaps?
#49
It doesn’t help when the rules change in mid-fight for example white phosphorous was never considered a chemical weapon until some weenie in the un decided it was and called us troops war criminals for using the “shake and bake” techneque we had been using since before world war 2.
Is calling his lawyer a choice?
know you were asking, but…i wanted to answer too..
That’s a judgment call…and a tough one.
I’m going to go with my best Keanu Reeves impression from Speed. Shoot the hostage.
in such an extreme situation, one must way the needs of the many (the soliders) against the needs of the few (the child). Death is a somber business, and should always be taken seriously. But the child, regardless, is less of a blow than losing everyone involved. A minor point of mention, who knows if the kid isnt helping his father, and he’s playing on our sympathy for children to lower his guard. Reminds me of stories where, in wars past, people would strap children with explosives and run them up to soldiers.
Make no mistake that it would be sad, and regretable. And a child, no less, would compound the issue.
I’d pull the trigger. And do so as much as was necessary.
calipygian said:
Tell that to this guy if you have the nads for it; which you don’t.
#40 Sonofdy
I agree with you that, as Americans, we should take the moral highground as much as possible, but not if it’ll get an American killed.
It burns me up that liberals forgive our enemies for hacking peoples heads off with a knife, because “we’re over there.” But, when Americans pour a little water up someones nose, or make them take their clothes off, or disrespect a book, suddenly WE are the bad guys!
Loved that picture, saw it yesterday. I am glad he’s safe.
Can you imagine an ad that shows clips of Barack denying Iran’s a threat one day and then saying Iran’s a grave threat just a day later?
This election is going to be a blowout! It’ll be President McCain, which is far better than the alternative.
My only fear is that the Dem “superdelegates” won’t nominate Barry! Then we could have a real contest on our hands.
ABSTRACT, my answer would be I would do what I thought was right at the time. I THINK that would be to shoot, but until you are there… It just makes it harder when moralistic extremists* judge you for days for a seconds decision they could never make.
*applies only to us military.
point taken
Having flown combat support mission in the mid-80s when President Reagan reflagged the Kuwaiti tankers it would not be very hard with the current Order of Battle Iran has been amassing over the last couple of years to completely shut down the Straits of Hormuz until enough force could be brought to bear against them and wipe out their land based offensive/defensive systems. The gulf region is pretty shallow and not the ideal environment to operate submarine warfare (at least during daylight hours). Obama Lama Ding Dong is completely out of touch with reality when he claims Iran’s small stature and asymmetrical warfare on our country is not a threat. Since 4 Nov 79 when they stormed our embassy we have been fighting a war of a thousand cuts slowly losing irreplaceable personnel and equipment without anyone in our nation’s leadership having the guts to “fire a warning shot into the bridge” of the Mullahs controlling Iran. As long as we refuse to act the more brazen their attacks have become. It is bad enough the current leadership is not willing to lob some of our precision ordinance into a few strategic places in Iran to give them a wake up call on their continued meddling in Iraq. The abject nativity of the empty suit is going to get many people killed or at a minimum allow a complete shutdown of oil shipments from the region to make today’s pain at the pump look like the good old days.
I wonder what the defense budget of the Vandals and Visigoths was compared to that of the Roman Empire.
29VICTOR, the romans ended up paying for thier own conquest. Bribes, gold, land, slaves…. Because the average roman would not fight. They lost thier resolve.
Because his
followersworshipers are as ignorant as he is.There, fixed that for you sonofdy
About the only thing BHO said in that video clip that was correct was, “Kennedy spoke to Khruschev.”
Kennedy, however, did not speak to Castro, before the Bay of Pigs, nor did he speak to Ho Chi Minh before getting us involved in Vietnam.
Tre, Obama and his big mouthed wife don’t even give us the benefit of the doubt. What do we have to do to gain the moral high ground.
Answer: Make our women wear burqas and pray to Allah.
Nothing else will suffice. I don’t give a sh!t what others think. I’m American.
How did the quote go…?
“I knew Jack Kennedy/Ronald Reagan and you Jesus Obama are no Jack Kennedy/Ronald Reagan.”
Obama is a clown. The left is a circus.
On May 20th, 2008 at 1:06 pm, sonofdy
Yeah.
On May 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm, AlohaGuy
Heh. (And, yet, not so “heh”).
kennedy has a brain tummor. No joke.
Okay, let me peer in to my crystal ball and look at Iran for a minute:
1. They won’t close the Straight of Hormuz until they have a nuclear weapon, probably several. They’re suicidal, homicidal maniacs (by our definition) but they know that to keep the other countries in the regions from kicking their butt over stalled oil shipments, they’ve got to have a “big stick”, and a nuclear-tipped missile is just that.
2. Will they attack Israel? I seriously doubt the Israelis will wait that long. I can guaran-damn-tee that there’s a flight plan already filed by the Israeli Defense Force.
3. Will Iran attempt to take over Lebanon? Undoubtably, as it opens a second front on Israel’s northern border.
4. Will Obama be dumb enough to talk to them? Oh I dearly hope so! Can you imagine the righteous anger of the Left if their “annointed One” should be taken hostage by Iran?
5. Will McCain win the election? You know what, I think this one’s completely up for grabs, and might come down to an election actually being settled in a court room, if the elections of 2000 and 2004 are any indication of the country’s political split. Seeing as how McCain is only slightly to the right of either Obama or Clinton, I hardly see any differences between the three. I could not possibly be more disgusted with either partys’ offerings this year!
6. Iran’s nuclear weapons program is a scam. They’ll buy what they need from North Korea. Sure they’d like to build their own, but Israel will never allow them to have a reactor. This is why they’re using centrifuges. They’re trying to replicate the results of the Manhattan Project. Obviously, they’ve got the instructions on how to BUILD a nuclear device already. Obviously they’ve already got uranium, it’s just not sufficiently enriched to plutonium of a weapons-grade. Again, as North Korea already has it, they’ll probably offer the crazy Imams a deal.
Now to address the stupidity of the comments about Vietnam and Korea. Wow, you really need to get a history book! We had only light tanks in Korea, and had traveled almost to the Korea/China border when the Chinese panicked and threw heavy Soviet-built armor across the border, along with several million men. Yes they whupped us for a time as we lacked the supply lines and infastructure in Korea to resupply our own men. We eventually recovered and counterattacked with a brilliantly-planned amphibious landing at Inchon, effectively cutting the Chinese supply lines across the pennisula and stranding their men. We ESTABLISHED a stalemate RATHER than continue to fight a larger battle against the Soviet sphere of influence, and wisely avoided open warfare with the Soviet Union.
In Vietnam, a similar situation happened again, and politicians who cut their teeth in the 1950’s bowed to political pressure, and withdrew rather than commiting the forces necessary to invade, conquer, and defend Vietnam. We fought “firefights” rather than one continuous battle. We “supported” the Vietnamese people, and when their army took it in the teeth, we cut and run rather than fighting harder and commiting the necessary forces to give them their country back. It was a stupid political decision, not due to any sort of military necessity.
There is a methodology which WOULD work in Iraq. We capture every single person there, host them in a giant containment camp, and level every structure in the country down to mounds of pea gravel! Then we help them rebuild it all. Sure it’s costly, but that WAS the plan for conquering Japan, before we blew two cities off the map and convinced them that surrender might be in their better interest. If the Japanese had known that we only had one more functional bomb, and if they’d had the suicidal mind-set of today’s Islamic Fascists, they might have rolled the dice and decided to fight on.
Iran is gambling. They could be wiped out, BUT they think we won’t do it. I think they’ve misjudged us. I think they will launch a nuclear attack against either us or Israel using warheads assembled and provided to them by North Korea. They’ll have several in hand before they act, and they’ll use one, possibly even in Iraq, to try to establish control over the region before attacking Israel or the US. But make no mistake about it, they WILL attack us again.
Only by the heel of a very firm boot has that region ever known peace. Even God made that clear in the Old Testament. All this talk about “Should we negotiate with Iran?” is the dumbest, least-informed, historically-incorrect discussion in the annuls of the Internet!
I can almost imagine the phone calls from other oil-producing nations to Iran:
“Hey, would you knock off all of the ‘armegeddon’ stuff already? We’ve got a great thing going right now, with oil prices spiraling, and you’re just pissing off the horse that pulls the cart!”
We will pray for him, again.
Seriously, if I were kennedy, I would quit the senate and spend the rest of my days doing whatever I wanted. Poor guy. Good luck too him but it doesn’t look good.
There you have it in a nutshell, Michelle.
Don’t you need to have a brain first?
Mary Jo Kopechne gets her revenge (karma’s a bitch).
In order for those conventions to carry any weight, there has be penalties for violating them. The Geneva and Hague conventions have provisions for consequences for violating the rules. Do you have any idea what they are?
On May 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm, undrseige247 said:
Again…Mary Jo was unavailable for comment.
dont jack the thread with this
OK back on topic.
Thanks for the posts about the ROE and the “military-industrial-congressional” complex. I’ve read what everyone’s said and I appreciate the new facts I’ve been given. I did read Col. Peters article in the New York Post also.
Obviously McCain is the best choice for a commander-in-chief. My problem with him is that he falls far short on domestic issues.(his repeated attempts to force “shamnasty” down America’s collective throat, for example)
When you add to that a very strong temptation to B-slap the Republican party for incompetence, pandering, and malfeasance, it does make it hard to cast a vote for him.
Iran isn’t a “real” threat since they don’t have the military budget that we have?!
Senator Obama, you are the fear monger. How dare you scare me into voting for McCain by spewing this naive foolishness!
Seriously, this might actually convince me to vote for… shudder… McCain.
sigh
Sorry tre but wrong on both counts.
We kicked North Viet Nam’s butt each and every time they came out to fight. After Tet they were decimated and the Cong were basically gone. We surrendered unilaterally for political reasons, not military. They were on the ropes several times and we were ordered to stop by Loser Boy Johnson or “I’m not a crook (just stupid)” Nixon. A Demoncrat Congress pulled the rug out from under South Viet Nam after Congress pulled our troops out.
In Korea it was similar. The chicken $hit Truman was terrified of the Chinese. It was the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans that fought us and we were winning until Truman wussed out. We were shooting down Russian pilots in Korean MiG’s but we couldn’t follow them to their home bases in China (offically). That’s why we ‘lost’ that one as well as Viet Nam. A bunch of slackers and progressives screwed up a military victory with their stupidity and incompetence. We needed the money for welfare instead.
Obama seems to be suggesting that large scale casualties of Americans is acceptable if it does not result in the occupation of our country or overthrow of our government. Who comprises his foreign policy team - a bunch of Che-shirted college sophomores?
In a word yes. They really have no clue as to the real world since they have never been in it.
Mosquitos are not a threat to man, either, unless they carry some type of WMD. Typhoid, Yellow Fever, Malaria, etc, etc. It was ignorant, and elitist for Obama to make a size/military spending argument about Iran. Narrow-minded thought is NOT what America needs right now.
At least Obama has a bomb expert (Bill Ayers), a speech writer (Jeremiah Wright), and a muse (his wife, Michelle) to advise him on, and direct him to, the correct path of action. God save us!
There should be only one Rule of War.
1. There are no rules.
I did watch the whole clip.
Obamessiah (PBUH) says:
“[Let us] be bold enough to go ahead and listen [to our enemies].
Obama isn’t black. He isn’t white. He’s green, very green. Very little wisdom there. It’s scary that he might become the prez. Let him learn something and get back to us in another 10 or 15 years.
thats funny.
He plans to fix them with his fiery glare!
That should do it.
WOW WOW You do not have even the beginnings of a clue do you???? WOW
I will truly weep for the US if he is elected CinC.
On a side note, the most complex part of the US Armed Forces turns out to be its biggest obstacle, that is the RoE.
Well, you are, for so may reasons. Hell, you still think this is a war against Osama bin Laden, for goodness sake.
We have an annual budget of over 3 trillion dollars, and you’re worried about the 80 billion annually we’re spending on the war, an expense that is actually covered under the Constitution, unlike Medicare and other entitlements lol?
The problem with Democrats is that when they screw up and need to call in the troops, they can never do so without a mass mobilization. I’d druther have a Republican war than a Democratic one.
But that’s all moot. Wait’ll our kids come back to a nation owned and run by the former illegals.
I hate the term “asymmetric warfare.” It’s nothing more than a “sexy” word used by conventional thinking people to describe a type of war that is thought different, yet really is not. All war is asymmetrical. Unless one wishes to lose, you have to consider the terrain (in terms of people, organizations, and the physical), composition and disposition of the enemy, time available, and perform a cost-benefit analysis of the target itself in terms of the accessibility of the target, how easily the enemy can recover, and the physical and psychological impact of an operation. These considerations, as are OCOKA, METT-TC, ASCOPE, and the principles of war, are all used during so-called “conventional” and “unconventional” warfare. As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun.” You measure up your opponent then shoot for the weak points however you can.
It’s obvious that Obama sees warfare in terms of arithmetic, rather than an art and science. It’s ironic that this discussion revolves around Iran and the West. Leonidas had far fewer troops, whom the Iranian King, Xerxes, figured he could easily destroy with his 150,000-250,000 troops. History tells us the Persians won a Pyhrric victory. War is not that simple when you consider things such as, in the case of Thermopylae, terrain and the training of the enemy. For a more modern example, look at how the Afghans, with clandestine American aid, defeated a better trained, better equipped Soviet Army. Why? Better use of terrain, greater aid of the population in terms of logistics and intelligence, etc. How about Operation Restore Hope? Though we killed far more than they did, we left without victory. Why? How? It’s obvious Obama does not understand such things.
It’s amazing that a prospective leader of the free world would not understand such basic concepts of warfare.
When I see comments like Obummer’s, calipygian’s, and Independent Tom’s, it becomes pretty obvious that there is a fear of the military, even a resentment. There is a willingness by many Americans to say that the Iraq War was just a scam to further the “military industrial complex.” When I see comments like these, I wonder why the hell my husband is in the military fighting for your rights when all you sanctimonious nitwits can do is throw his service in his face. He and I have given up a lot, as have many other military families, for the ungratefulness now expressed.
Iran not a threat? Puleeze. Obummer is not a foreign or economic policy expert. He leaves that to his advisers. As long as he can insert hopeful, changeling dialogue, the world will be a beautiful, benificent, non-violent place.
If anything, I’ve seen what the country has turned into. It’s not been pretty. Both parties did their part to ensure it. However, to say that a terrorist-supporting country who wants nuclear, hegemonic supremecy in the Middle East is not a threat is sheer lunacy. I don’t get it.
I wish I was like Obummer, Independent Tom, and calipygian who’ve turned their backs on the military. My husband, like the military, is a chew toy that political parties and their ignorant American masses can haggle over. How much do we cut the military? How much further do we make their lives difficult? How much further do we discriminate against their spouses? What would the world think if we kept our military intact?
It’s become widely apparent, that with a few notable exceptions (the military, country supporting conservatives of this blog), I no longer recognize this country. Obummer and his acolytes won’t be content until they have their pound of military cutting, domestic entitlement expanding flesh. Is he what’s good for our country?
It’s really sad how low we’ve sunk and how the country has turned against its military. I weep for the country I once thought I knew and the overall, ignorant self-interest guiding Americans to push the country further into the toilet. America is dead… only the death knell of an Obummer presidency will truly signal her demise and that of the once great American military.
Let’s also not forget that Japan was also a “tiny” country.
Obama accuses McCain as being lost in the past, but it is Obama who continues to believe the world operates according to cold war rules.
Iran is not the USSR. A country ruled by a theocracy that has as part of its governing philosophy the concept that martrydom is an open door to paradise is much different to deal with than a secular country with a decided atheistic bent. One is perfectly willing to accept a retailiatory attack while the other is frozen to inaction by the concept of mutual assured destruction.
http://dtom.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/20/the_obama_two_step.thtml
In addition, dealing with a country with thousands of nuclear weapons in much different that dealing with a country or group with one or two. It is the rougue state with one nuclear weapon that is more likely to use in then the country with many.
The Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. Obama is just like Jimmy Carter - without the military background.
Thank you, emjem, to you and your husband for your patriotism and sacrifice for our country.
Just ignore the ungrateful, unwashed, and uninformed masses when they spew their hatred of our fine soldiers.
There are many more of us who appreciate what your husband and your family is doing than those who do not.