Obama:Future Commander-in-Chief Gives Advance Notice To Enemy He Will Retreat

[kotzabasis]

OBAMA: FUTURE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF GIVES ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENEMY HE WILL RETREAT

Barack Obama has committed in military strategic terms the cardinal “sin”: Giving advance notice to the enemy when America will withdraw its troops from Iraq, which is the inverse of giving advance notice to the enemy when he is going to be attacked. It’s neither surprising nor astonishing that Senator Obama committed this “hellish” mistake. Sprinkled by Saint John the Baptist with the holy waters of populism--which in present day America many politicians consider it to be the primary pass that will guarantee a presidential candidate to enter and ensconce himself into the Oval Office--the springy and eloquent senator has entered along with other Democrats the contest for the golden trophy of the candidature for the presidency. The White House however, in our dangerous times, is no longer an easy entry for the smooth and the eloquent--as it was in Clinton times--is no longer a treat for the weak. So Senator Obama even if he wins the golden trophy as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, it’s most unlikely that he will be given the chance to put his trophy on the desk of the Oval Office. It’s more likely that he will place it on the mantelpiece of his lounge room rusting as memorabilia. As G.K. Chesterton observed, "a dead thing can go with the stream...but only a living thing can go against it'. Senator Barack Obama is "a dead thing".

The present attack by the leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd on Prime Minister Howard for the latter’s critique of the doltish and politically and militarily irresponsible announcement of Senator Obama, that if he became the next president he would withdraw the troops by March 2008, is a shameful diversion from the real issues of the war, that Rudd will have to carry with obloquy in his public persona. In answering Laurie Oakes’s question Howard by spelling out the verities of the war and reminding Australians of the impending dire consequences that an American defeat in Iraq would have not only in our region but in the West generally, he acted as a responsible leader, unlike Rudd who is gamboling with the vital interests of the nation for his own narrow egotistical political interests. The fact is that the defeat of the US will embolden all the terrorist organizations in our region and will turn the Indonesian archipelago, as I have said in a previous article of mine, into a tidal wave of Islamic fanaticism crashing on the shores of Australia. To defend our country from being subdued the losses of our military will be in the thousands in comparison to the few loses that Australia might sustain with the new strategy of the Coalition forces under general Petreaus. Moreover, the protection of Australia from this great portentous threat will require America to come to our help.

We are at war with a remorseless, fanatic, mortal foe, who furthermore is irreconcilable and deaf to the sounds of reason. The clever thing to do is to destroy this implacable enemy whilst he is still weak and not to give him time to become stronger and hence make his defeat more difficult in the future, and at an enormously higher cost in human lives and materiel. To achieve this strategic end, the new strategy under the command of general Petraeus must not be constrained in using overwhelming force as a last resort to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. History pellucidly illustrates that all protests and demonstrations against war are dissolved in the cup of victory.

Delenda est furor religiosus

kotzabasis
View Public Profile
Visit kotzabasis's homepage!
Find More Posts by kotzabasis

4 Days Ago

[Remington Raidr]

He is playing to the base, and will move center after he gets the nomination. What? You want Hillary? Take a deep breath.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

The clever thing to do is to destroy this implacable enemy whilst he is still weak and not to give him time to become stronger and hence make his defeat more difficult in the future, and at an enormously higher cost in human lives and materiel. To achieve this strategic end, the new strategy under the command of general Petraeus must not be constrained in using overwhelming force as a last resort to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. History pellucidly illustrates that all protests and demonstrations against war are dissolved in the cup of victory.
[

Both your view and that of wunderkind Obama are too narrow. This effort is a world wide movement where the overt acts are visible in Iraq and elsewhere whenever a death occurs in the name of Islam's original terrorist. This demands a many faceted approach with the primary goal of suppressing or containing the primary force(s) that draws Muslims into the radical aspect of their religion. The military actions in Iraq are only draining the puss from the visible pimples blemishing the face of Islam; the underlying causes are still there and are not limited to SWA.

[The Reaper]

I will say that while it may be an unpleasant choice, I would prefer to have the jihadis drawn to Iraq to engage our military forces there, rather than have no clearly defined overseas battlefield and have them coming to Western nations to engage our families in their cowardly attacks on non-combatants.

IMHO, that is the choice we are facing, and Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Reid, Pelosi, and the other cut and runners are in favor of bringing the war back home to our families.

Few would have predicted in the wake of 9/11 that there would not be another significant terrorist attack in the US for more than five years. If the surrender monkeys take over, I expect that streak to come to an end pretty quickly.

TR

[one-zero]

I will say that while it may be an unpleasant choice, I would prefer to have the jihadis drawn to Iraq to engage our military forces there, rather than have no clearly defined overseas battlefield and have them coming to Western nations to engage our families in their cowardly attacks on non-combatants.
IMHO, that is the choice we are facing, and Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Reid, Pelosi, and the other cut and runners are in favor of bringing the war back home to our families.
Few would have predicted in the wake of 9/11 that there would not be another significant terrorist attack in the US for more than five years. If the surrender monkeys take over, I expect that streak to come to an end pretty quickly.TR

This has been brought up time and again...and usually dismissed as 'alarmist' or without sufficient merit - Yet it is exactly what our enemies would rather have as an option, and from their own mouths.
I still remember the vid clip that made open source of UBL threatening Americans who voted for Bush vice the Dems...Why this isn't shown more often is mind-boggling, when the people who want your destruction favor a political party - it's what we call an indicator!

Decisions can't be reduced to soundbites as played out by the candidates - though many fellow Americans are foolish enough to base preferences on those easy to repeat mantras relevant to getting out of Iraq...It's the old lesser of 2 evils choice, do it here or over there...I choose over there - not because of 'regime change', finding WMD, or bring democracy to IZ - but because more Terrorists have been/are being killed in Iraq (from places other than Iraq) than in any other manner possible.
cheers,
1-0

[kotzabasis]

COL Moroney

I think The Reaper and one-zero are closer to the mark than your intellectual (are you sure you are talking about me, this is a term with which I have never been associated and could be considered an insult if I was a sensitive bloke) many faceted approach that in other circumstances when one's life is not immediately and directly threatened would be correct, but not in circumstances when one's existence is instantly at stake. When you face someone who is ready to kill you, you would hardly save yourself by finding, and "suppressing and containing, the primary force (s) that draws Muslims" to their martyrdom. You would only save yourself by killing him.

History has indubitably shown, that in a war with fanatics the best and quickest way to defeat them is to deprive them of their perceived invincibility. Only then will they start having doubts that after all God may not be with them.

That is why I believe that the "world wide movement" of Islamism in its many facets, will sustain a deadly blow in its underbelly by the decisive defeat of the insurgents by the military might of the U.S., used wisely and remorselessly.

[NousDefionsDoc]

So you advocate a war of attrition with a group of people whose potential recruiting pool is in the neighborhood of 1.5 billion? A group who believes that dying in battle is the way to heaven and you want to kill them?

[kotzabasis]

Nous...

No don't kill the extremists, so Western civilization and the U.S., the zenith of this civilization, can burn in "Allah's hell".

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I think The Reaper and one-zero are closer to the mark than your intellectual many faceted approach that in other circumstances when one's life is not immediately and directly threatened would be correct, but not in circumstances when one's existence is instantly at stake. When you face someone who is ready to kill you, you would hardly save yourself by finding, and "suppressing and containing, the primary force (s) that draws Muslims" to their martyrdom. You would only save yourself by killing him. .

I am not advocating that at all. What I am advocating is, that in addition to removing the immediate threat, you have to also reduce the reasons and the pool of recruits that keep on adding to this target rich environment. I would "hardly" been here had I followed that route and having looked the elephant in the eye on occassion you do not have to tell me anything about dealing with immediate threats to me or anyone for whom I am responsible. Your looking at the here and now, I am looking at the here, now, and beyond. You do not protect a hill merely by sitting on it waiting for the hordes to sweep into your line of fire, you protect it by defending it, defending forward of it, and going forward to seek out the hordes and destroy them, their off spring, and their goats. Then you salt the earth to keep them from springing up again in those areas where you cannot remove source of their strength. This is not limited to Iraq, it is a world wide movement both for Islam and within Islam. Would that it be nice that this entire conflict could be resolved in Iraq but it cannot and will not. This conflict is one that goes beyond military resolve and while you can kill the fanatic you cannot kill the idea that made him a fanatic unless you resolve, or suppress, the divergent views within Islam and the other socio-economic, psychological, and other aspects that give rise and support the movement. In that regard I support exercising a little intelligent initiative by shaping various locations globally to eliminate, mollify, co-opt, or redirect the threat in support of our own national security objectives before they become the problems of tomorrow.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Nous...

No don't kill the extremists, so Western civilization and the U.S., the zenith of this civilization, can burn in "Allah's hell".
Separate the wheat from the chaff

[The Reaper]

The Colonel and NDD touch on good points.

This is a war that will require multiple responses in different areas.

I see it as similar to trying to treat a disease, like cancer.

While you can relieve the pain and remove the tumor, you also need to treat the underlying cause without killing the patient. The patient is the global community, including the Muslims who do not threaten us.

Fighting and killing the insurgents and terrorists is only one step, albeit a vital one. You must also look for the root cause of the unrest and try to remedy it without alienating the rest of the world's Muslim population. Otherwise, we are just playing a gigantic game of whack a mole, and with 1.5 billion moles who only have to get lucky once to threaten our society, the odds are long.

We need to figure out why people are willing to blow themselves up in order to further their cause, and change the factors. Then we will have stopped the progress of the disease, and can move on to eliminating the remaining tumors.

In keeping with the topic of the thread, weakness by the US and our allies will only serve to further embolden our enemies, and cause them to make further demands.

While our great moats have largely prevented the lands of the US from being directly threatened or invaded until now, the combination of suicidal terrorists, air travel, and WMD make us just as vulnerable to their attacks as those who live next door. I think that the next attack is already in motion, and is just a matter of time. My hope is that the next one motivates us, as a nation to do what is required without destroying our country, and does not find our leaders lacking in character or resolve.

The potential cost of failure is the end of Western society and a regression to the Middle Ages.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[kotzabasis]

COL Moroney

Your second post has defined more clearly your position and I'm pleased to say to you that my thoughts are running parallel to yours.

When I used the second person I was not applying it to you, but I was using it as a general illustration. It would be far for a novice like me in military affairs to belittle the experience of a veteran or to attempt to give lessons. On the contrary, I am the pupil among professionals.

As for the term "intellectual", I was trying to say that the latter have a tendency to probe all the aspects of an issue which would be correct in normal circumstances but not in circumstances of emergency. I thought that the context of my argument made that clear. I've too great a respect for military personnel to insult them.

If you care and can spare the time you can visit either of my blogs-http://www.con.observationdeck.org--http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

As for the term "intellectual",

My entry in your post was meant not as an indication that I felt insulted; I really do not take myself that seriously. I think, while this medium is great, it does lack the ability(or at least with my limited ability to put pen to paper so to speak) to convey the complete sense of the message. There are many subtleties here that are missed by those who are casual observers. Those of us that have served together are part of a unique brotherhood and sometimes we(or at least I) fail to adjust for others. I think what is most misunderstood about folks like us is that those on the outside looking in think that we stand in service to our country, and while that is true, we often more accurately stand in service for each other. Consequently we have a connection through shared experience that allows a distinct message to be conveyed with aspects not gleaned by others. If you are ever around a bunch of SF troops that are just sitting around passing the time of day it is not uncommon to listen to them drift into what might pass as a relaxed "southern drawl". Such is the tone of our key strokes.

[nmap]

We need to figure out why people are willing to blow themselves up in order to further their cause, and change the factors. Then we will have stopped the progress of the disease, and can move on to eliminating the remaining tumors.


One theory seems to be that the various suicide bombers combine religious fanaticism with economic hopelessness. A further development of the theory is that the economic factor drives young, hopeless males in those societies toward fanaticism.

So the problem seems to be that we must either transform a religion with 1.5 billion adherents, or uplift them economically. Since the first option seems like a hard problem, we address the second - thus, at least according to the media, we build roads and schools, send medics into villages, and so forth.

What few wish to consider is the possibility of a decline in global economic activity, with the consequence that more people in developing nations will fall into dire poverty. If that's true, the present challenges may expand in every sense.

Side-note to Colonel Moroney: Sir, I've seen more in-depth thinking and general knowledge among the quiet professionals of this board than is displayed by many who claim the title of intellectual. No doubt I miss many nuances; but what I do understand is a genuine pleasure to read.

[Ret10Echo]

I am on the side of better there than here...

The moths fly into the light. Currently that brightest light is in Iraq and A-stan. Take that away and that changes the focus of attention to Western Europe and North America. We currently live in a society that has an intersection of threat and political correctness that creates a huge liability.
Appeasement didn't work with the Barbary pirates it did not work with Hitler and it won't work here....

My .02

[kotzabasis]

COL Moroney

One can only honor a brotherhood that has so strong sinews of camaraderie. I only wish, that I too, as an outsider, could sit "around a bunch of SF troops", and listen to their "key strokes" delivered in that admirable "southern drawl".