In July of 1942, the Allies were fighting a defensive war with the Axis powers of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Nowhere in the world were the forces of Freedom or Liberty gaining any significant advantage except perhaps in the Pacific where the U.S. Navy had just inflicted a major surprise blow against Japan at the battle of Midway, causing Japan to loose the cream of her carriers and naval aviators, and dealing a bitter defeat to the Admirals who led and planned the Pearl Harbor strike in December of the previous year.
America can find some glaring parallels today to what we faced 6 decades ago. We are fighting a war of attrition against another intractable enemy, Islamofascism. This enemy however, does not have a nation-state to call home as did the Germans or the Japanese. They live in small groups and fight asymmetrically in many locations throughout the world. Presently, however, we have come to grips with this enemy in the far-off reaches of southwest Asia in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This savage fight has cost us dearly but we have had some success, but more needs to be done and more will be needed from America and her Allies if we are to be victorious.
In June of 2009, the theater commander, Gen. Stanley McCrystal issues a report that summarized the situation in Afghanistan and ended by asking for an additional 40, 000 combat troops to help him increase the presence, increase pressure on the enemy and to expand security to the remote reaches of that country. These forces will be needed until the national Afghan military has sufficient training and capability to act on its own. This “surge” would be in the same vane as the successful one conducted in Iraq a couple of years ago.
Now we find ourselves 5 months later, getting ready to cook up Thanksgiving turkeys and the President has yet to make a decision as to weather of not he will honor the requests of his field commander, and give the support requested.
Why the dithering?
Why the vacillations?
If you look at the historic record, this lack of action seems laughable if not down right criminal. People are fighting and dying in a war against terrorists and the President and his sycophants sit around the White House, seemingly baffled as to what they should do. It seems that neither community organizing, nor a Harvard law degree gives a man the tools, talent or temperament to be Commander and Chief of the Armed forces any more than it gives him the insight to understand economics, the business cycle or the healthcare delivery system. One merely has to see look at the state of the nation and our war effort to see this. Q.E.D.
When looking at the historical record, I think back on those dark days of 1942, and look at all the challenges we as a nation faced along with our beleaguered allies, I can’t understand the leadership (of lack thereof) we have in Washington today. I feel we are really in greater trouble now then when we were then. In the waning days of July, 1942, the allies decided on a massive invasion of North Africa to begin the process of pushing back the Germans and forcing our will against the fascists. A newly promoted and untested commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was given the task of planning then leading an Anglo-American attack against North Africa and her Vichy-French garrisons.
In a matter of a little more than 3 months, Eisenhower and his staff had planned, staged and then executed the massive invasion of North Africa, called Operation Torch, which was hugely successful in forcing the German Africa Corps to turn from fighting the British in Egypt and to face a larger combined forces enemy in their rear. What did this action entail?
First; the quantity of forces must be looked at. Seemingly unlike Mc Crystal, Eisenhower was given all the support that a field commander could ask for. He estimated that the invasion would require the largest amphibious effort ever attempted to that time. Over 125,000 troops and support forces were involved in the landings. What makes all this so amazing is that all those troops were trained, placed on slow moving transport ships, with all their armor, ammo, fuel and equipment, then moved by ship over 4000 miles from their ports of origin and under fire, landed and then supplied over beachheads.
The planning for this operation was accomplished in it’s entirety in a scant 100 day’s time.
Flash forward 67 years...
Why is it that the Obama Administration can’t seem to make the decision to move a force a fraction of the size in manpower or equipment that Eisenhower had? Ike did his magic in the middle of a world war, when we were fighting over oceanic distances, with almost non existent air assets and at a time when it took weeks to move materials and forces anywhere. It isn’t as if our troops would be landing in Kabul or Kandahar under heavy fire or that we can’t airlift forces from places we control like Iraq or even from here in the U.S. This lack of support in Afghanistan seems to be a failure of will or a lack of tactical or strategic acumen by the national command authority. Like the Roman Emperor Nero, Rome is burning and Obama fiddles away....
Oh, God in heaven......
How much have the mighty fallen!!!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
It’s amateur hour again and “failure IS an option”....
Eric Holder, the Attorney General is not doing the right thing.
Obama and his administration are making another historically bad mistake.
What have they done now?
The administration has elected to move the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York Federal District Court. This is a huge mistake on so many levels that it defies logic or prudence.
Civil courts are designed to discharge justice on criminal and civil matters involving citizens and aliens that have been in the custody of civilian authority. This is not the case of K.S. Mohammad. He has been in the custody of military authority at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since he was captured. As the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington D.C., he committed acts of war against the United States. War is a military act and thus a military tribunal is more appropriate a venue for seeking redress against this man.
There are many issues that need to be considered, and Mr. Holder has not done so to any objective standard that can be judged reasonable. In fact, there is no known legal process in place to deal with this sort of situation.
First, as this will be a civil trial, how will the issues of military pretrial confinement (Guantanamo Bay), detention and treatment at the hands of CIA and military interrogators (the water boarding sessions) and lack of Miranda Rights (he was captured on the battlefield, not “arrested’ by cops on the street) be addressed? If he prosecuted in a civil court, aren’t the issues involving the lack of correct civilian treatment and observation of customary civil procedure and defendant rights going to be an issue? After all, any criminal is entitled to those protections and since he didn’t get them, doesn’t it logically follow that the possibility exists that there could be a mistrial or outright acquittal on the grounds that the defendant didn’t get due process protections and was denied his “civil rights”? On this, Mr. Holder is silent.
Secondly, there is the issue of his confession. He confessed his role in 9/11 and was later water boarded in order to extract additional information. It might be argued by the defense that his confession was coerced as well and that since he was “tortured”, he should be released. The “cruel and unusual punishment” issue will come up at some point too.
Thirdly, what about the defense for the accused? In a civil trial there is a discovery process. In this process, the prosecution must surrender all its information used to formulate its case and release a list of witnesses. That information will now be in the hands of people who are under no obligation to the nation to ensure that confidential elements don’t leak out. That means that potential witnesses on that list will now be known and at possible risk of retribution. National security data used in the arrest, and the content and scope of information extracted from the defendant during interrogation will most certainly make its way into the public domain, potentially destroying its value to those who are charged with the defense of the realm. This process will allow our adversaries worldwide information useful to them in countering our intelligence gathering efforts against them or allow them to gauge the knowledge of what we know from interrogations that were conducted in the past.
That begs the questions: What will be admissible? What will not?
Many of these issues make it possible that this process could go badly for the government, and in fact, could have many unforeseen consequences. There is the nightmare scenario of the defendant being found not guilty or this proceeding being declared a mistrial, or the judge could simply order him released on some technicality.
When asked what would happen if the defendant were found not guilty or the case thrown out; Attorney General Holder said “Failure is not an option”.
What is that supposed to mean? Does that mean that the fix is in on the terrorist trial?
Does that mean this is all just one, big kangaroo court...all for show, just like the old Soviet show trials that we saw in the bad old days of the Cold War?
There is also the issue of security.
Would you want to sit on a jury in this trial and risk becoming a target of jihadist cells here if you found him guilty or the target of ire and/or violent revenge from your fellow Americans if you found him innocent? Would you want to risk your families?
Would you want to be a judge in this trial for the same reasons?
What about the fact that now New York is now back in the spot light again? The terrorist element has a new reason to target New York and vicinity, as if they needed another reason to do something to that city and its people...
What about trial security? These folks love car and truck bombs and other such things. This makes a rational person wonder if anyone with intelligence and forethought considered any of these possibilities.
What about a possible escalation of terrorist activity to our nation or to our interests abroad? As Islamo-fascists worldwide see this legal evolution, it may become an impetus to act against us more than they have already.
The questions and issues abound. Attorney General Holder has no answers, just platitudes, assurances and no game plan that is discernible. He claims all is well and that the system will work as promised.
Are the people of this country ready to take the word of a man who helped get FALM terrorist released? How about trusting the motivations of a man who lets the likes of the New Black Panther Party get away with intimidating voters with clubs outside voting stations in California during the last general election? Do we trust the words and judgments of this man or his boss, Barrack Obama, to make this work?
In my mind, the jury is still out on that trust.
Obama and his administration are making another historically bad mistake.
What have they done now?
The administration has elected to move the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York Federal District Court. This is a huge mistake on so many levels that it defies logic or prudence.
Civil courts are designed to discharge justice on criminal and civil matters involving citizens and aliens that have been in the custody of civilian authority. This is not the case of K.S. Mohammad. He has been in the custody of military authority at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since he was captured. As the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington D.C., he committed acts of war against the United States. War is a military act and thus a military tribunal is more appropriate a venue for seeking redress against this man.
There are many issues that need to be considered, and Mr. Holder has not done so to any objective standard that can be judged reasonable. In fact, there is no known legal process in place to deal with this sort of situation.
First, as this will be a civil trial, how will the issues of military pretrial confinement (Guantanamo Bay), detention and treatment at the hands of CIA and military interrogators (the water boarding sessions) and lack of Miranda Rights (he was captured on the battlefield, not “arrested’ by cops on the street) be addressed? If he prosecuted in a civil court, aren’t the issues involving the lack of correct civilian treatment and observation of customary civil procedure and defendant rights going to be an issue? After all, any criminal is entitled to those protections and since he didn’t get them, doesn’t it logically follow that the possibility exists that there could be a mistrial or outright acquittal on the grounds that the defendant didn’t get due process protections and was denied his “civil rights”? On this, Mr. Holder is silent.
Secondly, there is the issue of his confession. He confessed his role in 9/11 and was later water boarded in order to extract additional information. It might be argued by the defense that his confession was coerced as well and that since he was “tortured”, he should be released. The “cruel and unusual punishment” issue will come up at some point too.
Thirdly, what about the defense for the accused? In a civil trial there is a discovery process. In this process, the prosecution must surrender all its information used to formulate its case and release a list of witnesses. That information will now be in the hands of people who are under no obligation to the nation to ensure that confidential elements don’t leak out. That means that potential witnesses on that list will now be known and at possible risk of retribution. National security data used in the arrest, and the content and scope of information extracted from the defendant during interrogation will most certainly make its way into the public domain, potentially destroying its value to those who are charged with the defense of the realm. This process will allow our adversaries worldwide information useful to them in countering our intelligence gathering efforts against them or allow them to gauge the knowledge of what we know from interrogations that were conducted in the past.
That begs the questions: What will be admissible? What will not?
Many of these issues make it possible that this process could go badly for the government, and in fact, could have many unforeseen consequences. There is the nightmare scenario of the defendant being found not guilty or this proceeding being declared a mistrial, or the judge could simply order him released on some technicality.
When asked what would happen if the defendant were found not guilty or the case thrown out; Attorney General Holder said “Failure is not an option”.
What is that supposed to mean? Does that mean that the fix is in on the terrorist trial?
Does that mean this is all just one, big kangaroo court...all for show, just like the old Soviet show trials that we saw in the bad old days of the Cold War?
There is also the issue of security.
Would you want to sit on a jury in this trial and risk becoming a target of jihadist cells here if you found him guilty or the target of ire and/or violent revenge from your fellow Americans if you found him innocent? Would you want to risk your families?
Would you want to be a judge in this trial for the same reasons?
What about the fact that now New York is now back in the spot light again? The terrorist element has a new reason to target New York and vicinity, as if they needed another reason to do something to that city and its people...
What about trial security? These folks love car and truck bombs and other such things. This makes a rational person wonder if anyone with intelligence and forethought considered any of these possibilities.
What about a possible escalation of terrorist activity to our nation or to our interests abroad? As Islamo-fascists worldwide see this legal evolution, it may become an impetus to act against us more than they have already.
The questions and issues abound. Attorney General Holder has no answers, just platitudes, assurances and no game plan that is discernible. He claims all is well and that the system will work as promised.
Are the people of this country ready to take the word of a man who helped get FALM terrorist released? How about trusting the motivations of a man who lets the likes of the New Black Panther Party get away with intimidating voters with clubs outside voting stations in California during the last general election? Do we trust the words and judgments of this man or his boss, Barrack Obama, to make this work?
In my mind, the jury is still out on that trust.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I like Facebook.....
I admit that I like this social network site and spend an hour or two a day reading posts, answering inquiries and posting information on a variety of subjects. Facebook lends itself well to my newest passions, political and social discourse, commentary and blogging. It allows me to share and compare with others who view the world as I do and even those who don’t.
I have expanded my footprint on the web, and as a result of that expansion, I have received a great deal of feedback on my specific views and my personal life. I welcome and am thankful for that feedback as it keeps me honest. Some think I just espouse a partisan position without anything to back it up. They who think this would be very wrong indeed. What most people don’t know is that I spend a great deal of time looking up the information that I comment on then post.
One characteristic most people focus on when they look at my positions is how vociferous I am about my feelings, especially about the way the elitist leadership class has failed to govern well and true by constitutional principle. The failure to do so lies in both parties that dominate the political landscape we live. Somewhere we left the concept of rigorous constitutional adherence and began attempting to pursue something else entirely. That something else is the attempt to govern in an ad hoc/by-the seat-of –your-pants manner against common sense and against the constitution. Few people today remember the basics from high school civics, but Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the specific powers of the Federal Government. These were all that the folks in Washington were supposed to do. The states and the localities and the people were to do the rest. We need to stick to these specifics and cut back on the extra-constitutional ones that have come into being. This federal power creep has robbed the American people of freedom and have put our nation into near-fatal financial jeopardy.
As of the last published reckoning I saw a couple of weeks ago, the present administration, led by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have borrowed and spent over $1.42 TRILLION dollars. None of this money is ours (America’s). It was borrowed, every dime of it, from Communist China, the Oil Monarchies in the middle east, or from private financiers in Europe and Asia. What responsible government borrows more (almost) money than it raised in tax revenue, especially when it is over 13 TRILLION in the rears already? What responsible government spends in 9 months more money than the previous administration did in its entire second term in office, especially with no discernible improvement in the national economic position which was promised?
Another bone of contention I have commented on, rather forcefully, I might add, is that the President is not acting as a Chief of State should. I am asked why I am so harsh a critic; why can’t I just give the guy a break. Why am I so mean or so disrespectful to he who must be obeyed?
The answer is that I am hard on anyone who shows abject and serial incompetence and banality. I was harsh on Bush for his war policies as he had demonstrated a lack of vision or historical understanding of how to properly wage war. Bush and his clan did not read history of the Mideast (or anywhere else for that matter...) and realize that unless you are ready to fight a total war, willing to root out and kill the enemy and break his stuff en mass, you will loose.
Obama and Company have made some horrible decisions and have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how our economy works. He and his minions are apostles of gospel of class warfare and wealth envy. Every policy and spending bill now on tap will result in higher taxes on the so-called “rich” and non-rich alike. 80% of Americans are employed by small businesses. The owners of these small enterprises do their business taxes on their personal tax forms, thus marking them as targets for additional attention of the Looters in Washington. These “rich” people, who are the job creators for most of us Americans, are going to be the ones who bear the brunt of all the tax schemes that Obama and Pelosi have in store. Since they are as myopic about economics as Bush was in the art of war, we can expect the economy not to improve much as government sucks up all the cash it can from the private economy (those “rich” folks)and shunt it to government spending programs for the Moochers and incompetents who tanked the economy. This will destroy the ability for their small business to have the capitol available to hire more people or to expand their businesses or to by the means to improve productivity.
My latest rant on the present occupant of the White House is his general deportment. As a former military type who had the pleasure and privilege to escort many VIP’s, their staffs and families about when overseas or here at home, I can tell you that Obama has made many serious and embarrassing gaffes in his interactions with other heads of state. These were of the sort that I or my shipmates would have been excoriated had we made them. We were briefed and trained better than that.
His use of the bow is especially heinous. The President NEVER BOWS...EVER! This is an act of a subjugation to a potentate or a King. We fought a revolution against a monarchy to have the right NOT to bow to anyone...ever. This has been the case since George Washington’s time and still goes today. Obama has done the bow-down on two occasions when it was very public and particularly distasteful; first, his kowtow to the King of Saudi Arabia, and second, the apology bow to the Emperor of Japan. As a matter of “bow etiquette” the second incident with the Emperor was done badly from the get go. Strictly speaking, only “subjects” bow. If you bow, you are showing subservience. By bowing, the President showed a perceived weakness and subservient posture to the Emperor. It was totally inappropriate. The Emperor comes from a country that uses the bow as a matter of courtesy and course. Obama obviously didn’t get the protocol brief or ignored it as you never shake hands when bowing nor do you bow lower than another unless showing contrition for some crime or misdemeanor to the person you are bowing to. Emperor Akihito looked surprised and embarrassed by the Obama bow and did not return it. He ignored it because it was done badly and to return it would have been to compound the error. The man is a walking, talking faux pas; a protocol train wreck incarnate. This may seem minor to the uninitiated masses, but in global statecraft, perception is reality.
One last thing I should like to address is my enjoyment of the shooting arts. I like guns for a multitude of reasons. As a resident of the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia, I get to carry a concealed one and do so (from time to time). I have a very simple, unequivocal view on the subject. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and exercise my right just as some exercise their right to free speech or to worship God in their own way. But above all that, I have a right to protect myself and those near and dear to me and my property. Make no mistake, I take this very seriously!
I also get a real charge taking a small slug of lead and placing it precisely down range exactly where I want it. I am very good at it and this month, my son, his girlfriend and a couple of old Navy buddies are going to go to the rifle and pistol range and punch some holes in some paper. This will be the last SHOOT-EX of the year due to the ever chilling weather, but I will still bask in the warm glow of comradeship and fun as we spend the afternoon all together punching holes in man-shaped silhouettes at long and short range. I firmly believe in the adage “Peace can only be achieved through superior firepower...” or a much more ancient Roman axiom “Si vis pachem, para bellum” or “If you want peace, prepare for war.” It works for nations, it works for people too.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Another Obama foreign policy blunder....when will they stop?
I guess President Barack Obama didn’t take any history classes when he was in school.
Nor did he have a teleprompter available to refer to when queried about the historical significance of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in August of 1945.
The Community Organizer and Chief has embarrassed his country once again and made himself look the uneducated, uninformed and tactless rube when he was questioned by Japanese media during the joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan.
The reporter asked the President about his desire to visit those two cities and what his understanding was of the historical context of the atomic bombings of the cities and weather or not he felt the attacks were justified. Looking like a deer in the headlights, the President began a very disjointed reply about his desire to pursue an active anti-nuclear proliferation policy and how he has begun to cut back America’s nuclear stockpile. He commented on the unique perspective that Japan and her leadership had on the subject of nuclear weapons and their use. Then he commented on his lack of firm travel plans to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Stammerer and Chief then went off on a tangent about North Korea.
What was blatantly clear was that he was unprepared to for the question and equally unprepared to defend the actions of the United States or its leadership who at the time were fighting a war to preserve not only our freedom but the freedoms and the sovereignty of all the free nations of the world against the forces of German and Italian Fascism and rabid Japanese Militarism. In fact, he dodged the subject all together.
I don’t know who he thinks he is fooling by changing the subject. He clearly didn’t want to answer the question and was very uncomfortable with the subject. Uttering platitudes on the subject of non-proliferation is comfortable, appealing, politically correct, but most of all, safe. Defending the reputation and motives of a past administration desperate to quickly end a world war that had cost millions of lives by the most expeditious means possible, seemed beyond his capabilities. He seemed stymied by the prospect in fact.
It is unfathomable to see that over 60 years after the end of the second world war, we, the United States of America, are still having to explain our actions to the very people who attacked us on December 7th, 1941, or that we are made to feel as if we have somehow done something evil in using nuclear weapons to end the greatest war in the history of the world. It is the United States and her nuclear shield that has in fact deterred aggression in the world ever since the end of that war.
What were the alternatives?
Militarily, we could have blockaded Japan and just stood off and bomb them and shelled them and hoped they grew tired or hungry enough to surrender... The odds of this working were small. The fact that allied prisoners of war in their thousands were also being held in the home islands of Japan, suffering untold agonies and miseries meant that they would probably be wiped out as retribution by their desperate and angry captors who were not very humane with prisoners under the best of circumstances. Civilian casualties from an unrestricted bombing campaigns and from the starvation and disease that would have resulted from a prolonged quarantine and from continued military attacks around the clock, day in and day out would have been horrific. Casualties would have certainly been in the millions.
The option of just demonstrating the weapon to the Japanese rather than actually using it on them was not an option as we had so little material to use in actual weapons that we couldn’t risk expending it and it not have a tangible military result. Nor could we risk letting other countries know just how far we had progressed in the development of nuclear weapons, especially the Soviet Union, who we viewed as a potential rival in the future. There was also the altogether not unreasonable belief that even having seen a demonstration that Japan’s leadership would have acquiesced and given up.
That left a conventional amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands of Japan.
The plans for that eventuality, Operations Olympic and Coronet were being formulated at that time. Previous attacks against Iwo Jima and Okinawa had given war planners some idea what to expect if the U.S. and her allies were to attempt such a venture. The prospects weren’t good at all. Unlike Europe where civilian populations were seen as non-combatants, and for the most part behaved as such, this would not have been the case with Japan. The militarist government there had conditioned and trained the populace over the previous years to take an active role in defending the home islands from invasion. If the civilians had actively resisted and the military elements in Japan proven as stubborn and intractable as they had in previous operations like Okinawa, the projected casualties on both sides would have been astronomical. The Okinawa, Iwo Jima and the Philippine campaigns were the basis used to gauge how a possible amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands would be resisted. Okinawa had generated 72,000 American casualties in an 82 days action. The liberation of the Philippines took nearly a year, and cost Japan 336,300 dead and the Americans 62.514 dead or wounded. Iwo Jima’s “butcher bill” was nearly 22,000 Americans killed or wounded, with only a little over 1,100 prisoners taken out of a defending garrison of over 22,000 Japanese soldiers, marines and seamen.
In contrast, the planners of the invasion of Japan envisioned a nightmare scenario of over 1.2 million casualties to Allied forces and 5-10 million military and civilian casualties to the Japanese. With those sorts of numbers, it was no small wonder that any responsible, reasonable or humane leader would have looked for other options to that sort of body count.
When viewed objectively, when all the aforementioned options were looked at, even in hindsight, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best options in a bad situation for all parties concerned. They provided a stark reality check to the leadership of Japan as to what their futures would be if further resistance continued. Were the results horrible? Certainly they were. Were the results desirable? When viewed against the possible loss of life and treasure in a conventional attack, the answer is and unqualified YES.
Too bad President Barack Obama didn’t seem to know any of this and too bad he seemed unable or unwilling to articulate these facts to the world at large.
Maybe he’ll get it right next time....
Nor did he have a teleprompter available to refer to when queried about the historical significance of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in August of 1945.
The Community Organizer and Chief has embarrassed his country once again and made himself look the uneducated, uninformed and tactless rube when he was questioned by Japanese media during the joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan.
The reporter asked the President about his desire to visit those two cities and what his understanding was of the historical context of the atomic bombings of the cities and weather or not he felt the attacks were justified. Looking like a deer in the headlights, the President began a very disjointed reply about his desire to pursue an active anti-nuclear proliferation policy and how he has begun to cut back America’s nuclear stockpile. He commented on the unique perspective that Japan and her leadership had on the subject of nuclear weapons and their use. Then he commented on his lack of firm travel plans to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Stammerer and Chief then went off on a tangent about North Korea.
What was blatantly clear was that he was unprepared to for the question and equally unprepared to defend the actions of the United States or its leadership who at the time were fighting a war to preserve not only our freedom but the freedoms and the sovereignty of all the free nations of the world against the forces of German and Italian Fascism and rabid Japanese Militarism. In fact, he dodged the subject all together.
I don’t know who he thinks he is fooling by changing the subject. He clearly didn’t want to answer the question and was very uncomfortable with the subject. Uttering platitudes on the subject of non-proliferation is comfortable, appealing, politically correct, but most of all, safe. Defending the reputation and motives of a past administration desperate to quickly end a world war that had cost millions of lives by the most expeditious means possible, seemed beyond his capabilities. He seemed stymied by the prospect in fact.
It is unfathomable to see that over 60 years after the end of the second world war, we, the United States of America, are still having to explain our actions to the very people who attacked us on December 7th, 1941, or that we are made to feel as if we have somehow done something evil in using nuclear weapons to end the greatest war in the history of the world. It is the United States and her nuclear shield that has in fact deterred aggression in the world ever since the end of that war.
What were the alternatives?
Militarily, we could have blockaded Japan and just stood off and bomb them and shelled them and hoped they grew tired or hungry enough to surrender... The odds of this working were small. The fact that allied prisoners of war in their thousands were also being held in the home islands of Japan, suffering untold agonies and miseries meant that they would probably be wiped out as retribution by their desperate and angry captors who were not very humane with prisoners under the best of circumstances. Civilian casualties from an unrestricted bombing campaigns and from the starvation and disease that would have resulted from a prolonged quarantine and from continued military attacks around the clock, day in and day out would have been horrific. Casualties would have certainly been in the millions.
The option of just demonstrating the weapon to the Japanese rather than actually using it on them was not an option as we had so little material to use in actual weapons that we couldn’t risk expending it and it not have a tangible military result. Nor could we risk letting other countries know just how far we had progressed in the development of nuclear weapons, especially the Soviet Union, who we viewed as a potential rival in the future. There was also the altogether not unreasonable belief that even having seen a demonstration that Japan’s leadership would have acquiesced and given up.
That left a conventional amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands of Japan.
The plans for that eventuality, Operations Olympic and Coronet were being formulated at that time. Previous attacks against Iwo Jima and Okinawa had given war planners some idea what to expect if the U.S. and her allies were to attempt such a venture. The prospects weren’t good at all. Unlike Europe where civilian populations were seen as non-combatants, and for the most part behaved as such, this would not have been the case with Japan. The militarist government there had conditioned and trained the populace over the previous years to take an active role in defending the home islands from invasion. If the civilians had actively resisted and the military elements in Japan proven as stubborn and intractable as they had in previous operations like Okinawa, the projected casualties on both sides would have been astronomical. The Okinawa, Iwo Jima and the Philippine campaigns were the basis used to gauge how a possible amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands would be resisted. Okinawa had generated 72,000 American casualties in an 82 days action. The liberation of the Philippines took nearly a year, and cost Japan 336,300 dead and the Americans 62.514 dead or wounded. Iwo Jima’s “butcher bill” was nearly 22,000 Americans killed or wounded, with only a little over 1,100 prisoners taken out of a defending garrison of over 22,000 Japanese soldiers, marines and seamen.
In contrast, the planners of the invasion of Japan envisioned a nightmare scenario of over 1.2 million casualties to Allied forces and 5-10 million military and civilian casualties to the Japanese. With those sorts of numbers, it was no small wonder that any responsible, reasonable or humane leader would have looked for other options to that sort of body count.
When viewed objectively, when all the aforementioned options were looked at, even in hindsight, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best options in a bad situation for all parties concerned. They provided a stark reality check to the leadership of Japan as to what their futures would be if further resistance continued. Were the results horrible? Certainly they were. Were the results desirable? When viewed against the possible loss of life and treasure in a conventional attack, the answer is and unqualified YES.
Too bad President Barack Obama didn’t seem to know any of this and too bad he seemed unable or unwilling to articulate these facts to the world at large.
Maybe he’ll get it right next time....
Monday, November 9, 2009
Fallout from Fort Hood: Don’t allow Islamofacism lead to gun control
In the wake of the Ft. Hood massacre, the gun control cabal has now found another cause to rally around.
There have been rumblings that the terrorist, Major Nidal Hassan used a “cop killer” gun in his assault on the unarmed soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq. This is of course, the rantings of the shrill and uninformed anti-gun lobby and their willing accomplices.
The weapon in question is a FN Herstal Five-seveN Tactical Pistol in 5.7x28mm. This is a very finely made pistol is designed for close quarters combat (CQB) operations by military, police and civilians in need of an excellent personal defense weapon. The cartridges for this pistol come in many types and capabilities depending on the task and the user. The pistol also has the added flexibility for sporting use as it can be fitted with optics and can be used for hunting or precision shooting.
That this particular pistol is being called a “cop killer” is complete diatribe and just plays to the fears and emotions of the uninitiated in our population who have little or no knowledge of firearms. Let’s be clear on some facts here in the real world, not in the popular press pages.
1. The pistol in question is no more a “cop killer” than any other pistol made and available to the general population. In the hands of a trained military shooter it would be more effective only in the sense that the person using it has greater firearms proficiency than the average person. If I, a former member of the armed forces were so inclined, I could have probably done the same damage Maj. Hassan did with my 9mm Glock or my .45ACP Government Colt Automatic if I had prepared properly for the assault as he seemingly did. His only problem was the armed woman who actively objected to his shooting spree by shooting back, once again showing that an armed citizenry is the best defense against nut jobs, criminals or in this case, terrorists.
2. The Ammunition and gun in combination make it a “cop killer” argument is also false. As previously stated, the ammunition that can be used in this weapon comes in many types. There is a standard military “ball” cartridge, hollow point hunting cartridge, and “tracer” and armor piercing cartridges for military and police use only. We don’t know what Maj. Hassan used, but any of the cartridges available would kill a human, as would all similar types used in any other pistol in almost any caliber you could name. We must not allow the anti-gunners panic the populace in believing that they are in greater danger than before or that our police are facing a “super weapon” wielded by Al Qaeda wannabe’s. Nothing has changed since last week.
3. It is a well known fact that almost any rifle caliber of sufficient velocity and size will defeat a KEVLAR vest used by most police. Military grade vests are better, but much more bulky and used only by SWAT teams as they are not worn except in specific high-risk circumstances. My World War 1(1915) vintage British Lee Enfield Bolt Rifle will defeat police grade body armor easily out to several hundred yards, as would my model 1895 Krag Jorgensen rifle. Both these weapons are nearly 100 years old or older and both considered museum pieces. Why are they not labeled “cop killers”? My old CZ-52 pistol armed with ancient World War 2 vintage 7.62x25mm ammunition could very possibly defeat light body armor (class 1, 2, and 2A) as it does generate speeds in excess of 1400 feet per second. A common 12 Gauge shotgun armed with sabots (slugs) could also “defeat” light police body armor by delivering fatal or near fatal damage to personnel via blunt force trauma at close range.
We would do ourselves and the world a favor by not allowing ourselves to become overwrought by the events at Ft. Hood. We must remember that a weapon is tools. How that tool is used and by whom determines the good or evil of a thing or action. Major Hassan did evil by killing innocents, and should face the ultimate penalty for such an action. He used a tool in an evil way to do evil work. He could have just as easily have used a bomb or some other means of human destruction. The woman who took him out used her weapon for good, defeating a terrorist and defending innocent life. Her use of a firearm, like millions of other Americans have done before her, was the quintessential proper use of a firearm and should be lauded. We must not allow particular types and classes of weapons to become bogeymen for the anti-gun crowd. Terms like “cop killer” are created to incite and to inflame the unknowing and to create media buzz. We have to be objective and clear headed on what the problems are and how to solve them.
Maj. Hassan, his belief system and motivations were at fault, not the choice of weapon. The Army, neutered and corrupted by the Political Correctness/Multi-culturist idiocy that the rest of us find ourselves mired in, failed to act decisively in removing a malcontent from its ranks for fear of being labeled discriminatory, or racist. This nonsense must stop. A couple of years ago, a young Muslim convert committed fratricide within his own unit in Kuwait, in a zeal to punish the infidel for perceived crimes and misdemeanors against the faithful. It is time to seriously challenge the Islamic community here in America and demand that they police themselves, that they make a real and fundamental attempt to route out the dangerous radicals in their mosques and places of worship or face the whirlwind. It also may be time to take a serious look at the military’s policies and procedures on dealing with Muslim’s in its ranks and how they view their duties in the military and indeed how they feel about our nation. We can’t have an active Islamofacist 5th column within the very services that we rely on for our national security and survival. We should also consider a moratorium on further immigration from lands whose populations are predominantly Islamic as they do not seem to integrate well into our much more permissive and liberal culture. Why import potential trouble?
Friday, November 6, 2009
My open letter to Rep. Glenn Nye
This is the letter I sent to my Congressman here in the 2nd district of Virginia. I cobbled this letter together as a way of voicing my displeasure at the attempt of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the Liberal Democrats to blitzkrieg the Pelosi Health care bill through this weekend. We shall see what happens....
November 6, 2009
Hon. Glenn C. Nye
116 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Nye,
I wish to register to you my absolute and incontrovertible opposition to any measure presently under consideration in the House or Senate on the issue of healthcare reform.
We have seen so many versions of health care reform from both the House and Senate that most of the people of this nation are completely confused. Even legislators are confused as they themselves are forced to await simple language versions of the bill sent to committees for review and vote. The size and arcane nature not to mention the scope of the bills themselves preclude the average person, let alone Congress members or Senators from even reading and understanding the cost, benefits, detriments and effects of these bills they must consider.
The latest incarnation has been brought to us by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In a delusional flight of fancy, she and her denizens have drafted the largest, most convoluted piece of tripe to come down the pike yet. At 1990 pages and over 400,000 words, HR 3962 is by far the biggest health care / tax raising / freedom killing proposal yet in a cacophony of bills on the subject.
As contrast; the Social Security act of 1935 was only 50 pages and 15,600 words...
The Congressional Budget Office has made preliminary estimates that this bill will cost approximately 1.055 TRILLION dollars. Dollars that must be raised on the backs of individuals and businesses in an economy still reeling from the financial crisis the entire nation finds itself. The revenue to cover this will have to be borrowed from foreign sources like the Communist Chinese or the oil monarchies of the mideast, or generated via offsets from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage ($426 billion), tax increases ($572 billion), or by expansion of Medicaid enrollment by some 15 million persons due to expanded eligibility rules in the bill.
One of the interesting aspects of this bill is the list of revenue targets that Speaker Pelosi and Co. has created.
Medical device and drug makers: The House added $20 billion in taxes on sales of medical devices like artificial hips, pacemakers and heart stents to the legislation. The measure is even worse for the pharmaceutical makers, an industry that agreed to a deal with Obama and key senators to hold down its costs. Pharmaceutical companies agreed to pay protection to government up to $80 billion in the health overhaul. It would give the federal government power to negotiate (compel?) drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
Specific language in the bill has many facets. Some of the more glaring examples are:
Page 94 Section 202 (c) which will prohibit private insurance purchases not approved as part of the “public option” pool exchange created by the federal government. In other words, if you change job, and your coverage changes with employer after 2013 (Y1 or Year 1 of the start of enforcement), you MUST buy from approved plans via the government.
Page 110 Section 222 (e) states: “ COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
The aforementioned paragraphs 4(A) and (B) are specific abortion sections. 4(B) describes the abortion program elements that are allowed and 4(A) describes abortion prohibitions, which means that that Public Option Plans will be able to cover abortions...ergo, by extension; public monies will be able to cover abortions through this legislation.
Page 225 Section 330 allows for but does not require members of congress to enroll in the “Public Option”. Mind you, all the rest of us will be required to participate if we don’t have coverage or if our existing coverage’s lapse and we need to buy new plans or change carriers or coverage. Once again, congress has made a law that is elective for them but mandatory for the rest of us.
Page 297 Section 501 describes a 2.5% tax on individuals who fail to purchase “approved” insurance plans. This is in direct conflict with Barack Obama’s promises NOT to raise taxes on poor or middle income earners; those who make $250,000 or less.
Page 520 Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, placing millions of seniors’ existing coverage in imminent jeopardy.
Page 704 Section 1308 provides for coverage of marriage counseling... There’s a vital service that needs government support subsidy and protection.
Page 1131 Section 1771 describes specific dollar amount increases in payments to the territories and possessions and protectorates of the United States that amount to billions in increased spending and subsidies to areas of the country that don’t have federal income tax burdens. We mainlanders in the 50 states will foot the bill for those who don’t have the same tax burdens that the rest of us do.
As you can see, I and my friends have spent several hours looking this bill over and are well versed in many of its aspects.
This bill is a major blow against all Americans who believe in freedom and liberty. Looking at the arcane legalisms are enough to put a speed freak to sleep, but if honest analysis is done by thoughtful people, it becomes blatantly obvious that the purpose of this bill is nothing short of placing all Americans solidly under the thumb of federal bureaucrats and removing choice from as to what health care we can expect in our futures and wealth from the private sector to government. Barack Obama said in a speech to members of labor unions prior to his election as President that he wanted to see America onto a single payer system like those used in Great Britain and Canada and other nations in Europe. He acknowledged that it may take many years, but that was his objective.
This bill will put that objective on a fast track. This bill will lead to huge increases in the deficit and in tax burdens and reductions in existing programs and coverage’s for most everyone.
The Second district that you serve is a very conservative one, and I am sure you are finding that my sentiments are quite common. I would sugjest you find it within yourself the will to resist the urge to follow the more liberal of your colleagues who favor this abhorrent piece of legislation. I further urge you in the most strenuous manner to actively oppose and strike this bill down, or you will most certainly find yourself facing an energized and hostile electorate in the 2010 elections next November.
Respectfully yours,
Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
November 6, 2009
Hon. Glenn C. Nye
116 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Nye,
I wish to register to you my absolute and incontrovertible opposition to any measure presently under consideration in the House or Senate on the issue of healthcare reform.
We have seen so many versions of health care reform from both the House and Senate that most of the people of this nation are completely confused. Even legislators are confused as they themselves are forced to await simple language versions of the bill sent to committees for review and vote. The size and arcane nature not to mention the scope of the bills themselves preclude the average person, let alone Congress members or Senators from even reading and understanding the cost, benefits, detriments and effects of these bills they must consider.
The latest incarnation has been brought to us by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In a delusional flight of fancy, she and her denizens have drafted the largest, most convoluted piece of tripe to come down the pike yet. At 1990 pages and over 400,000 words, HR 3962 is by far the biggest health care / tax raising / freedom killing proposal yet in a cacophony of bills on the subject.
As contrast; the Social Security act of 1935 was only 50 pages and 15,600 words...
The Congressional Budget Office has made preliminary estimates that this bill will cost approximately 1.055 TRILLION dollars. Dollars that must be raised on the backs of individuals and businesses in an economy still reeling from the financial crisis the entire nation finds itself. The revenue to cover this will have to be borrowed from foreign sources like the Communist Chinese or the oil monarchies of the mideast, or generated via offsets from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage ($426 billion), tax increases ($572 billion), or by expansion of Medicaid enrollment by some 15 million persons due to expanded eligibility rules in the bill.
One of the interesting aspects of this bill is the list of revenue targets that Speaker Pelosi and Co. has created.
Medical device and drug makers: The House added $20 billion in taxes on sales of medical devices like artificial hips, pacemakers and heart stents to the legislation. The measure is even worse for the pharmaceutical makers, an industry that agreed to a deal with Obama and key senators to hold down its costs. Pharmaceutical companies agreed to pay protection to government up to $80 billion in the health overhaul. It would give the federal government power to negotiate (compel?) drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
Specific language in the bill has many facets. Some of the more glaring examples are:
Page 94 Section 202 (c) which will prohibit private insurance purchases not approved as part of the “public option” pool exchange created by the federal government. In other words, if you change job, and your coverage changes with employer after 2013 (Y1 or Year 1 of the start of enforcement), you MUST buy from approved plans via the government.
Page 110 Section 222 (e) states: “ COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
The aforementioned paragraphs 4(A) and (B) are specific abortion sections. 4(B) describes the abortion program elements that are allowed and 4(A) describes abortion prohibitions, which means that that Public Option Plans will be able to cover abortions...ergo, by extension; public monies will be able to cover abortions through this legislation.
Page 225 Section 330 allows for but does not require members of congress to enroll in the “Public Option”. Mind you, all the rest of us will be required to participate if we don’t have coverage or if our existing coverage’s lapse and we need to buy new plans or change carriers or coverage. Once again, congress has made a law that is elective for them but mandatory for the rest of us.
Page 297 Section 501 describes a 2.5% tax on individuals who fail to purchase “approved” insurance plans. This is in direct conflict with Barack Obama’s promises NOT to raise taxes on poor or middle income earners; those who make $250,000 or less.
Page 520 Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, placing millions of seniors’ existing coverage in imminent jeopardy.
Page 704 Section 1308 provides for coverage of marriage counseling... There’s a vital service that needs government support subsidy and protection.
Page 1131 Section 1771 describes specific dollar amount increases in payments to the territories and possessions and protectorates of the United States that amount to billions in increased spending and subsidies to areas of the country that don’t have federal income tax burdens. We mainlanders in the 50 states will foot the bill for those who don’t have the same tax burdens that the rest of us do.
As you can see, I and my friends have spent several hours looking this bill over and are well versed in many of its aspects.
This bill is a major blow against all Americans who believe in freedom and liberty. Looking at the arcane legalisms are enough to put a speed freak to sleep, but if honest analysis is done by thoughtful people, it becomes blatantly obvious that the purpose of this bill is nothing short of placing all Americans solidly under the thumb of federal bureaucrats and removing choice from as to what health care we can expect in our futures and wealth from the private sector to government. Barack Obama said in a speech to members of labor unions prior to his election as President that he wanted to see America onto a single payer system like those used in Great Britain and Canada and other nations in Europe. He acknowledged that it may take many years, but that was his objective.
This bill will put that objective on a fast track. This bill will lead to huge increases in the deficit and in tax burdens and reductions in existing programs and coverage’s for most everyone.
The Second district that you serve is a very conservative one, and I am sure you are finding that my sentiments are quite common. I would sugjest you find it within yourself the will to resist the urge to follow the more liberal of your colleagues who favor this abhorrent piece of legislation. I further urge you in the most strenuous manner to actively oppose and strike this bill down, or you will most certainly find yourself facing an energized and hostile electorate in the 2010 elections next November.
Respectfully yours,
Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)