Posted on 10/20/2006 12:04:12 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
I this the sources these gentlemen used might be Secretary Baker's group....
That's true, but only up to a point.
All major US military engagements up to Vietnam were fought with an eye on the clock, in the sense that the national political leadership factored the eventual impatience of our people into grand strategy.
That's why we did Normandy in 1944, for example.
however our leaders keep dancing around the fact that the enemy is fighting a religious war.
The key asset of the enemy is their religious center in Mecca.
Until we start treating Islam like the Nazis of WW II, victory will not be complete.
Boycott Time Warner/CNN. Sell your stock and make sure mutual funds you own don't have Time Warner in the portfolio.
When you say, "treat them like WWII", you have to realize that, at present, there is NO political support in the US to do so. Not one Member of Congress, not one candidate in the upcoming election who can win, not one member of the Cabinet, not one think-tank luminary (except, possibly, Mark Helprin), not one editorial page, and certainly not the President.
If anything, all the political energy is on the other side.
Fortunately, our enemies are nothing like the Nazis (imagine a billion Nazis...)
They arre exactly like the Japanese - malleable, easily led to sacrificial extremism, in the grip of a religious death cult - and they need the same approach - buckets of blood, flamethrowers, napalm, and nukes.
The Left's definition of "change in strategy": cut and run.
Pres. Bush's doesn't change strategy, he changes tactics.
Because that is the important thing in a war, political feasibility.
If Bush doesn't get this, he'll never win re-election in 2008. :-)
Of course, Bush has been changing strategy and tactics ever since we invaded Iraq. And they are actively considering it again. There's been no blind adherance to a single mode of operation, we've been very flexible, and we've tried lots of different things.
Sadly, I'm beginning to think that only the democrats can stage an effective war. The republicans will loyally rally 'round the flag in times of war, regardless of the ruling party. But, the democrats become treasonous and tries to defeat their own country if a republican administration leads during wartime.
"just to prove to the American people that she's tough of terror if it ensured that she would win reelection."
Hillary is more sinister than that, imo. She would go to war to ensure the dominance of the dem party much like WWII and post period.
And, Hillary would be ex-pres calling the shots for the money backers, meaning legislation, policy and gov't kickbacks.
She is the expert at turning $1,000 into a $100k overnite. Think what she can do by directing PORK.
In the unlikely event that she should try to use the military, she will not be able to help herself from micromanaging everything they do and will insist on telling the generals how to perform every last detail of their jobs.
&&
Plus she would insist that none of the warriors be permitted to carry loaded weapons.
Sadly, I'm beginning to think that only the democrats can stage an effective war.
&&
Only the war agains their own country. A win by the Rats would send a signal to our enemy that we are weak and the subsequent behavior of the Rats would enforce this message. They would cut and run and leave us wide open for more and more attacks.
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.