SwiftVets.com

[TEWSPilot]

This was written in the Daily Record, Ellensburg, Washington on
Wed. Oct. 6, 2004. It was written by Mathew Manweller who is a Central
Washington University political science professor (a double rarity)

The title of the article was "Election determines fate of nation."

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election
there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too
serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the
only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America
is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs
in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of
ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and
accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose
poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history.
If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the
White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be twofold.
First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a
nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the
moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the
Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will
signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle
difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the
mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations.

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future
presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions.
America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history
regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we
turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the
lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists
that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can
defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America
can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and
daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal
blow.

Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will
serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of
American power is the timidity of American voters.

Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN
is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own
self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can
topple any American administration without setting foot on the
homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest
generation.'

But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last
generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and
hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation
that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult
to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow
detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens
today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America
has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you
do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and
responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long,
must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade
into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now
historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the
decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will
describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary
nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and
daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as
caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Mathew Manweller

A bit apocalyptic, perhaps? Maybe . . . but let's review some history for
a moment. It's been many years since any Western leader cited "the
lessons of Munich" to justify waging a preventive war against a growing
threat. At the time of "Munich" -- 1938 -- British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain returned from a conference with German Chancellor
Adolph Hitler waving a piece of paper that he claimed signified "Peace
in our time, peace with honor!" On it, Hitler had renounced any further
territorial ambitions, so Czechoslovakia was now "safe" from
Nazi-German expansion.

The welcoming crowds roared their approval. As Alastair Cooke said
in a retrospective article written a few months before the U.S.-led
Coalition's three-week takedown of Sadaam Hussein's Baathist
régime in Iraq (and a few months before his own death): The peoples
of Europe were willing to do anything to stop Hitler . . . except make
war on him.

Of course, Hitler went on to dismember Czechoslovakia, and in
September 1939 invaded Poland. (Mr. Chamberlain was most
chagrined: "Mr. Hitler has broken his word!") World War II ensued, with
tens of millions of deaths before it ended. In retrospect, it became
clear that if Hitler had been firmly opposed by neighboring European
forces during any of his early aggressions against his neighbors --
before his forces had grown to their WW-II might -- the history of
modern-day Europe might have been far different . . . and less costly.
Hence, the "lessons of Munich."

Well, history rarely repeats itself and analogies are inexact.
Nevertheless, President Dubya Bush has, in effect, applied those
lessons -- twice. First in taking down the Taliban régime, which was
tyrannizing Afghanistan and sponsoring global terrorism, and then in
defeating Sadaam Hussein, whose designs upon the Middle East and
Israel, and corruption of the UN and other national governments, have
been revalidated in the recent CIA's Iraq Survey Group's report (aka
"Duelfer Report"); the rest is tactical, the imperfect results of timely
decisions made under conditions of uncertainty.

Mr. Bush has also identified Iran and North Korea in his Reaganesque
"axis of evil": the former has abjured nuclear weapons (though without
much credibility) and the latter has achieved a nuclear weapon
capability (after promises to the contrary to two of the U.S.'s own
"Neville Chamberlains.") Both entities are being vigorously engaged via
"diplomacy," but the future remains in doubt

So, what if diplomacy continues to fail, or to prove indecisive? Will Mr.
Bush remain able to pursue against the forces and supporters of
global terrorism the "stitch in time" policy advocated during the 1930s
by Winston Churchill -- then a political outcast, but whose vision proved
so valid in the retrospective of victory?

-- Not if he isn't reelected, he won't! Nor will his temporizing and
insincere political rival, who has forged his position and promises on
the basis of wishful policies that have already failed.

From a post to the FACNET Yahoo Group by
Jonathan Myer
("Too soon old and too late smart": Will that be the U.S.'s future?)

[Tacan70UDN]

"He who fails to study history is condemned to repeat it."

[Nathanyl]

I agree with what he state would be the message sent to the terrorists if Kerry were to be elected. What I'm not certain of is what the end result would be. I'm certain that the attacks in Iraq would increase. but I'm not sure that Kerry would be able to cut and run like he would prefer. With the promises he's made about staying tough and finishing the mission to cut and run would not only be a disaster short term for the country, it would gaurantee that he would be a 1 term president. What I think would happen is he would end out doing exactly what he keeps hinting that Bush is going to do. Bring back the draft, send more troops to what will be a very unstable Iraq and possibly get the country stuck in a real quagmire and not the evolving success Iraq is now. Iran would feel comfortable with going ahead fullsteam with their nuclear weapons program knowing that all they'll need to worry about is a slap on the wrist. They would also increase their sponsering of terrorists and probably get directly involved in Iraq once they had a bomb and we had been softened up for a couple of years. I think I'll stop there, I'm getting depressed. The only thing I'll add is if by some quirk of fate Kerry does get elected your all invited to my island somewhere in the middle of the pacific where I hopefully won't have to worry about learning to french or convert to Islam.
_________________
Bill Hershey
www.worldwar4.net