 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: "Mr. President, if I may be so bold...." |
 |
|
This is the title of a remarkable post by John Hinderaker in his PowerLine blog. What do you think?
| Quote: | MR. PRESIDENT, IF I MAY BE SO BOLD...
Most of our readers know the story of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at Gettysburg. Ordered to hold Little Round Top at all costs, Chamberlain's 20th Maine fended off one attack after another. Finally, Chamberlain's men were nearly out of ammunition and it was clear they would not be able to withstand another assault. Prudence counseled retreat, but Chamberlain's orders forbade it. The Maine regiment could neither fall back nor stay where it was, so Chamberlain took the only course open to him: he told his men to fix bayonets and prepare to charge.
It strikes me that you, President Bush, are in a similar situation in Iraq. You know (if many liberals do not) that retreat is out of the question. Yet the status quo is untenable. Support for your administration's policy is evaporating. Iraq is being pacified too slowly if at all, and minor tinkering around the edges--a few more men, some more training of Iraqis--won't make much difference. You need a decisive stroke. You need to tip the table over. You need to attack.
Here is how you can do it. In late November, U.S. military sources revealed that they had found irrefutable evidence that Iran is arming the militias who are killing American soldiers:
| Quote: | U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran. |
So here is what you, President Bush, should do: take as a model the Cuban Missile Crisis. First John Kennedy, then Adlai Stevenson, laid before the world the evidence, in the form of aerial photographs, that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear arms in Cuba. The proof was taken as conclusive, and, consequently, the Kennedy administration's actions enjoyed universal support at home, and widespread support abroad.
Do something similar here. Commandeer a half hour in prime time to tell the American people, and the world, that we have clear evidence of Iran's involvement in killing American servicemen. Show the captured munitions. Explain exactly how they have contributed to American casualties. Display aerial photos of the training camps. No doubt there is much more evidence that can be presented or described.
You should say that Iran's supplying of weapons in order to kill Americans is an act of war. In the dramatic finale of your speech, announce that thirty minutes earlier, American airplanes stationed in the Middle East took off, their destination, one of the munitions plants or training camps of which you have shown pictures. That training camp, you say, no longer exists. You say that if Iran does not immediately cease all support for, and fomenting of, violence in Iraq, we will continue to strike military targets inside Iran.
A forceful and dramatic conclusion. But that isn't quite the end; instead, in the manner of Columbo or Steve Jobs, you add just one more thing: you declare that no nation that is engaged in killing American servicemen on the field of battle will be permitted to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Iran must either open all nuclear-related facilities to inspection by an international group headed by the U.S. (not the U.N.), immediately and for the foreseeable future, or those facilities, too, will be destroyed, along with the economic infrastructure that supports them.
If you do this, will the country back you? Not all of it. The liberals are too far gone. But half the country--your half--will, and maybe more. It is, after all, a little hard to explain why we should not respond to acts of war committed against us by a hostile nation that has vowed to destroy us.
You are beset right now, Mr. President, by a sea of troubles. Any passive policy will fail; only boldness offers hope. The calculus not just in Iraq, but throughout the region, must be fundamentally changed. Many are counting you out, Mr. President, but the fact is that you still hold the highest cards: the American armed forces. It is time to give the Army, the Marines, and, this time, the Air Force, the order: fix bayonets and prepare to charge. |
Source
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DLI78
PO3
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 273
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Schadow,
I wish the President had the guts to do that. I have little faith that he will do what is right, though. He means well, but like a really bad parent he thinks it is somehow important that his kid (the country, in this case) thinks of him as the best friend.
He needs to crack the whip, kick some ass, and make us all say, "Damn, this guy has bigger balls than Reagan had."
He was that guy when he was standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center. Haven't seen that George Bush for awhile.
BTW, I was in Korea in '80 and '81 as part of the 8th Army. Great people, OK food, and crappy weather. I'd go back to visit if I could.
_________________
DLI 78
Army Linguist
1978-1986 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reagan, the most popular president in US history, wasn't liked until he started kicking butt. People will always support a decisive president who does what everyone else just thinks about.
Schadow, you have hit the nail on the head.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BuffaloJack wrote: | Reagan, the most popular president in US history, wasn't liked until he started kicking butt. People will always support a decisive president who does what everyone else just thinks about.
Schadow, you have hit the nail on the head. |
The tendency when evaluating such a move is to ask, "What will the Iranians do in response? Do they have 500,000 troops ready to sweep into Iraq and mow everybody down? Do we have enough A-10's, etc., to stop them?"
The easy part is to think of all the reasons not to take a military initiative. But, as Hinderaker points out, the President doesn't have a large menu of possible options.
I would relish the image of the President taking such an action while Kerry of Cambodia is sitting in Tehran on his 'fact-finding' mission, sipping sweet tea and telling combat stories to Mahmoud and the Mullahs.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wing Wiper
Rear Admiral
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "What will the Iranians do in response? Do they have 500,000 troops ready to sweep into Iraq and mow everybody down? Do we have enough A-10's, etc., to stop them?" |
Saddam's amateur army held the Iranians to a stalemate from 1980 -1988. Saddam's army held the U.S. Army off for 2 weeks, which basically consisted of the time it took us to drive from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.
The Iranian army on the attack would be pulverized before they could advance to contact with our ground forces.
It would solve a lot of problems, in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wing Wiper wrote: | | .... Saddam's amateur army held the Iranians to a stalemate from 1980 -1988. Saddam's army held the U.S. Army off for 2 weeks, which basically consisted of the time it took us to drive from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. .... |
An excellent point, which I had overlooked. Of course, Iran has developed some new stuff since the '80s. One might consider taking out their medium range missile launch sites and their seaside facilities for wreaking havoc in the Strait of Hormuz as added insurance and additional getting of their attention.
Interestingly, the last time I looked, the PowerLine blog thread on this subject has registered 7,172 views and 137 posts in the two days it's been up. I would guess that maybe 95% of the respondents are in favor of such a spanking strike on Iran. The few libs participating give predictable opinions, driven mainly by the fear that the President's numbers might improve.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Any fight against Iran should include Iraq. They have a long standing dispute with Iran and could be just the rallying point they need to unite the country.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
