Posted on 10/26/2005 2:45:08 PM PDT by haole
This war is for real By Major General Vernon Chong, USAF, ret.
October 1, 2005
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war, and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979 - 22 years prior to September 2001 - with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon, Embassy, 1983; Beirut, Lebanon, Marine Barracks, 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack, 1993 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996; Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Aden, Yemen, USS Cole, 2000; New York, World Trade Center, 2001; Pentagon, 2001; Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 2001
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.
1.. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush
2.. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3.. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslims.
4.. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25 percent.
5.. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominently Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration, or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis forpolitical reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews, or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the attention of the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way - their own people, or the Spanish, French, or anyone else. The point here, is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders, and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do - if the choice was shut up, or die?
6.. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct, and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win, if you don't clearly recognize, and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1.. Can we lose this war?
2.. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - "What does losing mean?" It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered, and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals, and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train, and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20 percent Muslim, and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims?
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore, are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite, and really put 100 percent of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And, it is going to take that 100 percent effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves, by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life-and-death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them, permanently.
And, don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory, and in fact, added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict, and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.
We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.
These are the type of prisoners, who just a few months ago, were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own people, just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago, these same types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was, and is, providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who, for several days, have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.
If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle, as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized, for many years, as being "arrogant." That charge is valid, in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart; that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us; and that with both hands tied behind our back, wecan defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive, if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status, or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war, or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written, or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France, and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them, and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically-correct piece.
And, they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom, and will not apply it to you, or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other, over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope, now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country, and the World.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the Politicians and media of our country, and the free World!
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or need to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.
There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must unite!
We are still asleep. Nine-eleven stirred us but we can't seem to go the distance. The Demogogue Party leadership doesn't care about the country, only their own power. We are in for a very long war, I wish I were more optimistic. I think it's going to take another, more terrible attack. And it's coming.
No doubt...but we wouldnt be numero uno on the list if it weren't for those things, would we?
The one thing he took a step back on was the Muslim religion. It's not just the stated goal of the terrorists to take over the world, it's the stated goal of the religion. The only difference between the terrorists and other Muslims is method, not end result.
============================================================================
I agree with much of his assessment, but disagree with his premise. We will not win if (most of the country) is not united behind the war. However, the political left is not just in opposition to this war, they are in total opposition to most traditional Western ethical moral values. They are in vehement opposition to the concept of the United States - of "America", as it was originally established.
The political left equates Bush and conservative Republicans with the Muslim terrorists, at least in principle. Why would they join with Republicans to defeat Muslim "freedom fighters"? From their perspective, the more Muslim's win, the more American soldiers or civilians who die at terrorist hands, the weaker GOP political power becomes, and the more the political left wins.
The political left wing in this country is not "as bad" as the terrorists, but they indirectly support them. They are a "fifth column" for the Muslims within America, and are privately quite proud of that role.
As the author said, though, recognizing the stakes for this war is essential for developing and supporting a strategy for winning it. He's playing "nice nice" with the left, in hopes that they will realize that they are at risk too, and that it's in the best interest of the Democrat left to subordinate their immediate political aspirations for the sake of the country's benefit in a time of war. The Democrat left will never put the country before party and political power; never!
SFS
This dude for president and I don't even need to know his name (except to vote for him).
His take on this war is solid and his argument is eel-like...he slithers nobly past the left and names the enemy outloud.
Don't be fooled by his early-on statement as to "hopefully peaceful Islam." He knows the truth. All muslims may not be bad, but the bad ones rule and the good ones dance to the tune of the bad ones.
The truth is like a cool breeze on a hot summer's day...and this guy speaks the truth.
Tell your friends to read this one.
If he is rebuked by the President, I am moving to Israel.
Here is the bio of the writer...
MAJOR GENERAL (DR.) VERNON CHONG
Retired Nov. 1, 1994.
Major General (Dr.) Vernon Chong is the command surgeon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany. He advises the commander in chief on all medical matters and health issues that may affect the readiness of military forces in the command. He is responsible for establishing policies for the employment of theater medical resources during crisis, contingency and humanitarian relief operations. Also, he coordinates and integrates medical support activities and develops theater medical plans.
The general entered the Air Force in October 1963 following the completion of a residency in general surgery. He was certified by the American Board of Surgery in April 1964. He has commanded three Air Force medical centers, served as command surgeon of two major air commands, and was commander of the Joint Military Medical Command, San Antonio. The general is a chief flight surgeon, and was a surgeon/flight surgeon member of the DOD launch site recovery team for 15 space launches during the Apollo, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz programs.
EDUCATION
1955 Bachelor of arts degree in basic medical sciences, Stanford University
1958 Doctor of medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
1963 Board qualification in general surgery, General Hospital of Fresno County
ASSIGNMENTS
1 October 1963 - June 1965, staff general surgeon and chief of general surgery service, USAF Hospital Scott, Scott Air Force Base, Ill.
2. June 1965 - June 1968, staff general surgeon, later director of intern and resident education, USAF Hospital Tachikawa, Tachikawa Air Base, Japan
3. June 1968 - June 1970, staff general surgeon and instructor in general surgery residency, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
4. June 1970 - June 1974, staff general surgeon, chairman department of surgery, and director of hospital services, USAF Academy Hospital, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo.
5. June 1974 - August 1976, staff general surgeon, director of hospital services, and deputy commander, USAF Regional Hospital March, March Air Force Base, Calif.
6. September 1976 - October 1978, staff general surgeon, director of hospital services, and deputy commander, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
7. October 1978 - November 1981, commander, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
8. November 1981 - March 1985, commander, Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center, Andrews Air Force Base, Md.
9. March 1985 - February 1987, command surgeon, Headquarters Military Airlift Command, Scott Air Force Base, Calif.
10. February 1987 - May 1990, commander, Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas
11. May 1990 - August 1991, command surgeon, Headquarters Air Training Command, and commander, Joint Military Medical Command, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas
12. August 1991 - present, command surgeon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany
FLIGHT INFORMATION
Rating: Chief flight surgeon
Flight hours: More than 1,600
Aircraft flown: C-141, KC-135, C-130, T-29, C-5, T-39, C-21, C-12, C-9A, T-33, T-38, H-53, H-3, UH-1
MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Distinguished Service Medal
Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Force Commendation Medal
National Defense Service Medal
Vietnam Service Medal
Order of Merit-Brazil
Gold Cross of Honor-Germany
OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS
Order of the Sword - bestowed by enlisted personnel of Air Training Command
Clinical professor of surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio
Ira C. Eaker fellow - Air Force Association, Aerospace Education Foundation
Board of Governors, American College of Surgeons
Board of Regents, National Library of Medicine
Board of Regents, adviser, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Board of Trustees, Air Force Village Foundation
Board of Directors, Alamo Chapter, American Red Cross, San Antonio
EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION
Captain Oct 14, 1963
Major Dec 15, 1966
Lieutenant Colonel Aug 8, 1968
Colonel Jun 15, 1973
Brigadier General Oct 1, 1982
Major General Apr 15, 1987
.
Very true. In an earlier thread, Kerry has demanded a 20,000 man troop pull out of Iraq by Christmas. He thus demonstrates that he learned the real lesson of Vietnam, namely how to lose a war in the most humiliating manner and with the greatest long term repercussions.
I would envision the initial stages of the loss of this war to be as follows:
First, turn increasingly large portions of the war over to the Iraqi without answering the challenge presented by the subversion of the Police and Military by terrorist sympathizers.
Second begin withdrawing US troops according to a timetable and without any connection to the situation on the ground.
Negotiate through the UN with the "new' fundamentalist Iraqi government.Watch with "concern" while the fall of Iraq is followed by the fall of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Use the North Korean model for our negotiations with each of these "new" states.
Reelect Hillery to a second term.
"...The Democrat left will never put the country before party and political power; never!"
USA. RIP. THE WEST HAS TWO ENEMIES. THE LEFT ARE THE ENABLERS OF ISLAM.
....
What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.
This site brings you the history of the Islamic Jihad from a neutral and factual viewpoint.
Site Map
The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)
The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)
The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)
The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)
The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)
The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)
The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)
The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)
The Jihad against Chinese (751)
The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)
The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)
The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)
The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)
The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)
The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)
The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)
The Jihad against Rumania (1350 to 1699)
The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)
The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)
The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)
The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)
The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)
The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)
The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)
The Jihad against Austrians (1683)
Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)
The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)
The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)
The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)
The Jihad against the Germans (1945 onwards)
The Jihad against the Indians (1947 onwards)
The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)
The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)
The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)
The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)
The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)
The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001– ongoing)
Very true
Actually, he lays blame exactly where it ought to be. At the end of the article, he talks about the enemy as Islam.
In the meat of the article he explains that the moderate adherents either toe the line or die (i.e. moderate Islam is the bastion of useful idiocy regarding venomous Islam). They might be nice but the cannot help us or themselves.
Islam is ruled by the hardliners...they want us (non-muslims) converted, subjugated or dead.
This article nails the point very cleverly. Too bad our President would rather hold hands with Abdullah than dissect this deadly issue.
Check one...converted, subjugated or dead.
Those are the options. (Freep this poll?)
Hey Freddie. And what is the goal of jihad?
To keep on adding to the list is my guess...
Islam seeks to destroy all non-muslims.
I don't blame muslims, I blame Islam, the Quran, Mohammed....and Allah/Satan.
This is the final battle.
It isn't a noble thing to obscure the truth...even if only to protect friends and hand-holding buddies of your father.
Our President doesn't see the enemy. History has done us in. The CIA is friends with the Saudi's...and so is W.
The love of oil is our end.
And for you idiots that think I am saying the war is bad...there has never been a nobler war. Islam seeks our death. We must stop it.
Read this carefully, ladies and gents, the good general is spot on!
Spot on as usual, Freddy. Good time-line assemblage.
A.A.C.
"The Final Crusade has commenced!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.