Would Barack Obama have an advantage in dealing with Islamists, since his father was Muslim and Obama was raised Muslim for part of his childhood? The answer is a definite no. First of all, there is no appeasing Islamists. Their…

And to think Pres. Bush managed to accomplish this shift in strategy in spite of the unrelenting efforts by some Democrats in Congress wanting to prevent this from happening so they could declare defeat; how pitiful!!

What are you talking about- with 70% popular support, Bush could have changed tactics on a dime. It took McCain, Gingrich, Hagel, and others to pull Bush, kicking and screaming, into reality. The Democrats have never controlled wartime policies or strategy in Iraq. Bush and Cheney believed that the dead-enders were in the throes of defeat, so more no troops were needed. Rumsfeld in particular, remained adamently opposed to sending more troops into Iraq. But let’s ignore the facts and blame Democrats!

Voters in 2008 won’t be so blinded by their personal political beliefs.

bayam on May 10, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Yes, Truman and your other Democrat examples are rolling over in their graves, but it’s because of their own party’s present-day reluctance to confront our enemies! And don’t forget that even FDR had to fight his own party to pull them kicking and screaming to prepare us for WWII.

Also, Gen. Petraeus did rise to the top through the ranks in Iraq. He performed brilliantly in one area of Iraq before returning to command the whole country. And there was a change in strategy at the same time the surge commenced, which included much more realistic Rules of Engagement as well as keeping coalition soldiers out in the countryside instead of cloistered in the huge main bases most of the time.

And to think Pres. Bush managed to accomplish this shift in strategy in spite of the unrelenting efforts by some Democrats in Congress wanting to prevent this from happening so they could declare defeat; how pitiful!!

Certainly David Petraeus seems to understand insurgencies very well. Wish he had been in command from the get go.

Petraeus may in fact be an outstanding general, but the problems in Iraq didn’t stem from incompetence among the officers running the war on the ground. Keep in mind that General Abizaid, for example, spoke Arabic fluently and had an exceptional understanding of the enemy.

If you look at the past wars, take the Civil War for example, the best generals emerged from success on the battlefield (Grant). Why didn’t that happen in Iraq, given the large numbers of commanders on the ground? The answer is simple- those leaders had their hands tied by incompetent policies coming out of the White House.

So while Bush would like you to think that Petraeus saved the nation from the US military, that couldn’t be any further from the truth. Patraeus was allowed to fight with more troops and to start forming alliances with tribal leaders- requests made by every prior general fighting the war but denied by the Bush brain trust.

The surge put more troops on the ground- what McCain and many generals had been demanding for years before Bush finally relented. It wasn’t a set of new strategies that no one has considered before Patreaeus took charge. So don’t assume that US military leaders are largely incompetent other than Petraeus. Not so simple.

…probably the reluctance of the Europeans to deal with Hitler was a result of over-learning the lessons of WWI. Al Qaeda is unlike challenges in the past in important ways–not being tied to a nation, not relying on infrastructure that can be destroyed, being able and willing to strike the U.S. civilian population domestically …

You’re right, comparing al Qaeda to the Nazis is a huge mistake that the right continues to repeat. The war on terror won’t be won through conventional warfare. This isn’t a topic of debate among military leaders. It’s a different type of war that ultimately will be resolved through other means, not by the number of tanks that the US can deploy to other countries.

You must have missed a documentary that was recently aired about that raid in Norway.

The conclusion was that the loss of innocent life was even more tragic precisely because the Germans had already abandoned their A-bomb program.

corona on May 10, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Didn’t catch the documentary. I know that the Nazi’s weren’t as close to the A bomb as FDR and the military commanders feared. Not sure I follow your point on things being worse because the Nazi’s didn’t get the A bomb.

The conclusion was that the loss of innocent life was even more tragic precisely because the Germans had already abandoned their A-bomb program.

Send_Me on May 10, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Good points. Certainly David Petraeus seems to understand insurgencies very well. Wish he had been in command from the get go.

Fighting the previous war is a mistake that commanders too often make. Probably the reluctance of the Europeans to deal with Hitler was a result of over-learning the lessons of WWI. Al Qaeda is unlike challenges in the past in important ways–not being tied to a nation, not relying on infrastructure that can be destroyed, being able and willing to strike the U.S. civilian population domestically. I agree that the more we learn from history the better, but we also need to unlearn some lessons in order to face an unprecedented challenge.

Great – bad history added to the mix. News flash: Germany abandoned all efforts to produce an atomic bomb long before the Manhattan Project succeeded in building one. German scientists came to believe that it simply couldn’t be done.

corona on May 10, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Sure, but not relevant to a discussion of the Brits containing Hitler without invasion beginning in 1938. The German Army’s decision to not invest heavily in an atomic bomb was driven by its short-term needs–needs that were very short-term and urgent once the U.S. and Soviets joined the fight. The Germans discovered nuclear fission in 1938 and Hitler was interested enough in the bomb that he had Werner Heisenberg pursue it.

Great – bad history added to the mix. News flash: Germany abandoned all efforts to produce an atomic bomb long before the Manhattan Project succeeded in building one. German scientists came to believe that it simply couldn’t be done.

corona on May 10, 2008 at 3:30 PM

I don’t believe the Germans gave up their quest for the atomic bomb. They were moving a large quantity of heavy water from Norway to Germany later in the war, which never made it to Germany, thanks to a commando raid on the ship.

Also, late in the war the Germans sent two submarines to Japan to share technology and nuclear material. I think one sub ended up in US control and was off-loaded and examined at a naval base on the east coast. I don’t remember if the other sub was sunk enroute to Japan or if it made it. I do remember this second sub was actually enroute when Germany surrendered, and chose to continue its mission rather than turn around and surrender.

The 20th century gave us lessons for dealing with dictators in WWII and in the Cold War. Both wars differ significantly from the current war, but perhaps WWII more so.
dedalus on May 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM

All wars are different to a certain degree (i.e. weaponry; specific mission; training, leadership, and motivation of the enemy; available troops and resources; type of terrain; time available, to name a few.) However, the principles of warfare are pretty much constant. Insurgencies are not a new concept. In fact, it is one of the oldest forms of warfare known to man. Whenever faced by insurmountable odds, especially in terms of materiel, manpower, and training, an insurgency is the way to go. How did Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Ernest “Che” Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mussolini, Kim Il Sung, Francisco Franco and many others all attempt, and in some cases succeed, in coming to power? First, they would seek to convert, gathering like-minded people close to them, then when they had enough power, they would squash all dissidents. They would try winning popular support, making promises of a better future, sometimes appealing religion, sometimes nationalism, most times attempting to unite the populace against a perceived common enemy. When enough support was won, they would strike militarily, taking over the government by force. Insurgencies start as wars of information, propaganda, and ideas. Upon taking power they would turn the country into a police state, using tools of fear, both in quelling opposing thoughts actively, and by rewarding those who would turn in their neighbors.
The United States has fought on both sides of insurgencies in the last century, in some cases directly related to the Cold War (supporting insurgents in Afghanistan during the Soviet Invasion, half-way supporting the Cubans in a pitiful attempt to overthrow Castro, and the counterinsurgencies of Vietnam, Lebanon, Central American, and Iran.) It would wise to learn from these successes and failures.

Barack has the entire 20th century worth of evil dictators with whom to serve as a reference for future dictators and the threat they pose.

Send_Me on May 10, 2008 at 11:14 AM

The 20th century gave us lessons for dealing with dictators in WWII and in the Cold War. Both wars differ significantly from the current war, but perhaps WWII more so.

Barry is perfect for the Dhimmicrat party.

He’s anti-white, anti-semite, anti-Israel, anti-military, anti-American, anti-Christian; and, pro-Marxist, pro-abortion, pro-killing born babies who weren’t successfully aborted, pro-massive government.

(All this stuff has come out in his own books, speeches, associations, and voting record. It’s up to the Republicans to patch it all together during the campaign.)

In other words, PERFECT, for the Dhimmis.

An honest question with zero snark inflection for you; what gives you confidence that the Big O will have anymore success at all than the EU3 which spent 3 YEARS talking to iran. What happened with all that? Iran got more and more defiant and a lot closer to its ultimate goal of becoming a nuclear jihadi firecracker stand.

At what point would you concede that talk has run its course and becomes useless? Is there a point for you? We’re way past that point with iran, as far as I’m concerned. They’ve repeatedly declared war on us and our allies. They fund, supply, and wage proxy wars thru syria, hamas, hezb_allah and the mahdi army, and they openly threaten the other powers in the region.

At what point would you deem it prudent to stop talking and take some direct and effective deterrent action? Talking has gotten us nowhere and that will not change.

I’m all for peace. But we will only have peace through strength. This is no time in history to be percieved a candy-ass on the world stage. Weakness is provocative. Our enemies will take advantage, if they can.

Obama is tap water weak.

be afraid of the virulence.

NO OBAMA! this country already has too much on its plate without giving marxism a trojan horse into the white house.

elduende on May 9, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Yep. We need to be constantly mocking them and exposing their true intentions. Regular America isn’t going to go for marxism once they find out what it really means.

Boy was McCarthy ever right, though. We were (and are) infested with communists and marxists that have now effectively permeated our educational institutions, broadcast media, and culture almost completely. Much to our great detriment.

We need to ceaselessly mock them with clever parody and satire. Use laughter to drive home the salient points. Political cartoonists are most effective with this, in my opinion. Something so good it goes viral on the net. Make the marxists the equivalent of troofers, if at all possible.

The trojan horse analogy was spot on, elduende. Stealth candidacy indeed. Good post.

Great thread, HA commentators! Learned a lot. Lots more to learn.

—————

Hitler was an Anglophile. He didn’t want to attack England, and put it off as long as he could.

To argue that Chamberlain was buying time is not credible.

Yes JFK was prepared to fight but his early actions and the Soviets preceptions got us into the Cuban Crisis.

Well President Kennedy had plenty of charisma and was very likable, but while I liked him (as I do Mr. Obama), the perception of what he actually was by foreign leaders created a danger for America. I worry about the results of having an exciting, likeable, but politically and leadership inexperienced and untested president during a time of crisis/war. Those untested and or appearing weak give perception that they are not strong in regards to America’s security.

I was 18 when President Kenney was killed and I remember vividly that he faltered on the Bay of Pigs in Cuba by withdrawing the air support, backed off of confronting the USSR on the illegal Berlin Wall construction and was judged by Mr. Khrushchev in their face to face meeting, according to his memoirs, to be weak which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. And our present enemies have less of an understanding of our culture and politics than did Premier Khrushchev and his advisors. Therefore they may make major judgments on what they see and hear from and about a candidate. Unfortunately that may result an escalation of our enemies actions, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and risk the possibility of an over reaction by an unsure president needing to show his/her strength.

In politics and world affairs, as at the school playground, perceptions are the reality.

the man has a red past. 4 years of this man will tear this nation apart. listen to his supporters. this is not an election it is a “movement” more akin to a cult.

i encourage anyone who has an opportunity to do so to go ahead and insinuate yourselves into a pro obama crowd of supporters and just listen to how they speak.

i’ve had ample opportunity to do so and the things they say as well as the subtle virulence which infects their speech remind me of laurie berenson.

google…laurie berenson…peru…mrta.

find obamas true believers the “grassroots organizers” and listen to them. this is not about “change” and “hope” its about marxism.

i remember i think it was in 1995 after a vicious urban battle with the MRTA, peruvian security forces captured american Laurie Berenson and put her on display for the media. I will never forget the virulence with which this chained and violently anti American marxist screamed and spit on the reporters. it was a spectacle. i remember the peruvians would not walk near her like a rabid dog.

the thing that i will always remember is the virulence. the chavistas in venezuela speak like this too. there’s a latent fanaticism here folks.

be afraid of the virulence.

NO OBAMA! this country already has too much on its plate without giving marxism a trojan horse into the white house.

You should read H.R. McMaster’s book, “Dereliction of Duty”. He has a much different take on it and Kennedy.

MB4 on May 9, 2008 at 3:10 PM

I didn’t say or even imply JFK did things right, just that he recognized talking alone would not accomplish anything of value. JFK is not one of my heroes, but he is head and shoulders better than Obama.

Sounds to me like great hesitation followed by what could reasonable be called appeasement.

MB4 on May 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM

JFK may also have implemented some objectionable Rules of Engagement, but at least he did forcefully resist leaving any Soviet missiles on Cuba. As I recall, naval blockades are tantamount to acts of war. Also, I’m not sure that clandestine communications and negotiations that resulted in us removing our missiles from Turkey in return for the Soviets removing theirs from Cuba amount to appeasement. The result of those communications seems more like compromise, not “something for nothing” appeasement.

the man’s background is red and have any of you guys spoken to any of his committed “supporters”. holy crap its a “movement” not an election. its a cult. be afraid. 4 years of this crap will tear this nation apart.

some of the obama supporters i’ve spoken to remind me of laurie berenson. the same virulence exists in obama’s die hards. google laurie berenson…MRTA…Peru.

after a fierce battle in lima one nite she was captured by peruvian security forces and i will NEVER forget when the Peruvian army put her on display for the media…she was a violently anti american spectacle (in chains, screaming, and spitting on the reporters ). i thought to myself who cares if she’s american there is no redeeming value left in her this Marxist bitch she deserves a bullet. but fujimori was under pressure and took pity.

get to know some of the obama supporters if you can and i’m not talking about the republican backers but some of the “grassroots” folks.

its the virulence. be afraid of the virulence guys.