Tuesday, January 23, 2007

When Comes The End?

January 23, 2007

Those words, spoken this evening by James Webb (D. Va.) in the Democrat response to the State of the Union Speech given by President Bush, are an obvious attempt at encouraging the country to once again, “cut and run” from the battle in Iraq in the overall War on Terror.

Taken from the October 25, 1952 campaign speech, given by retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who went on to win the election as a Republican, titled ‘I Shall Go to Korea’ and used to give the impression that ending the battle in Iraq as did Eisenhower in Korea, is the best option for Iraq. Webb said, “As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

It is a fallacy to say the Korean War was “brought to an end” as we still have troops there enforcing a shaky cease fire that was signed some 53 years ago between North Korea and China on one side and the UN backed forces led by the Americans on the other. South Korea was not a signatory to this armistice. The armistice was signed under the conditions of "until a final peaceful settlement is achieved".

That was in 1953 and today, 2007, there still is no “peaceful settlement” between the two Koreas.

A DMZ (demilitarized zone) has existed between the two ever since with armed troops on either side warily watching the other side.

Since this shaky ceasefire was initiated, the North Koreans have failed in several assassination attempts on South Korean leaders, most notably in 1968, 1974 and 1983; tunnels were frequently found under the DMZ and war nearly broke out over the Axe Murder Incident at Panmunjeom in 1976. From late 1966 through 1969 there were several incidents of guerrilla warfare, sabotage and terrorism directed against the people of South Korea and the Americans serving there, nearly sparking a return to full hostilities in what has become known as ‘the DMZ War.’ Today, under Kim Jung Il, North Korea is threatening World Peace, as well as their neighbors, with the use and testing of nuclear weapons.

Clearly, Webb is sadly mistaken when he says “he brought the Korean War to an end.”

Conveniently forgotten or merely overlooked by Webb in the Eisenhower speech, were some other strategically placed words;

The biggest fact about the Korean war is this: It was never inevitable, it was never inescapable, no fantastic fiat of history decreed that little South Korea-in the summer of 1950-would fatally tempt Communist aggressors as their easiest victim. No demonic destiny decreed that America had to be bled this way in order to keep South Korea free and to keep freedom itself-self-respecting.

Obviously, Eisenhower didn’t feel Korea was a “mistake” or a “distraction,” as do today’s Democrats in their efforts to politicize and to paint the battle in Iraq as such. Eisenhower affirmed this view when he went on to say, “There is a Korean war-and we are fighting it-for the simplest of reasons: Because free leadership failed to check and to turn back Communist ambition before it savagely attacked us. The Korean war-more perhaps than any other war in history-simply and swiftly followed the collapse of our political defenses. There is no other reason than this: We failed to read and to outwit the totalitarian mind.

Iraq could easily be substituted wherever Korea is mentioned. For whatever reason, Eisenhower chose an easy way out and as history shows, it achieved neither the early nor the honorable end sought and promised.

Most importantly missed, or ignored, by Mr. Webb were the following words in that speech, “World War II should have taught us all one lesson. The lesson is this: To vacillate, to hesitate-to appease even by merely betraying unsteady purpose-is to feed a dictator's appetite for conquest and to invite war itself.

The Democrat effort to appease, to vacillate, even to hesitate to face the enemy that has been attacking us continually since 1979, twice now on our own soil, can and will led to an even broader war in the Middle East.

Unlike all the times before, we are not fighting a nation with a uniformed service. We are facing an ideological enemy spread throughout the globe that wears no uniform and blends in easily with the surroundings. Who would the Democrat party have us ‘negotiate’ a ceasefire with?

This newest enemy, emboldened by decades of unresponsiveness from the West, will follow wherever we go and carry the fight back to us, expecting more and more surrender from the West they see as ‘soft’ and ‘weak.’ We must fight and defeat them, now or later.

Webb ended his “response” with the usual threat he has become noted for. He said, “ Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

No, Mr. Webb. If the country chooses to follow the Democrat model of ‘cut and run,’ again, it will be the terrorists showing US the way. The way our own streets will run with blood as our children and grandchildren are forced to face these animals within our very streets.

Our Military has volunteered to face and fight this menace where they are today. I support their efforts and stand behind them fully as they fight to preserve our freedoms. I can only hope and pray you do too and ignore the ramblings of ones like James Webb (D. Va.)

Lew

UPDATE 1: If there is any doubt that Eisenhower opposed the Soviet Union and their nation grabbing, another speech he made, in which a single sentence is often lifted out of context, should clear up any doubt. From Dwight D Eisenhower, The Chance for Peace, April 16th, 1953.

"The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor."

"It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war."

"It inspired them-and let none doubt this-to attain a unity of purpose and will beyond the power of propaganda or pressure to break, now or ever."

The Chance for Peace

UPDATE 2: Unraveling Webb’s Response

UPDATE 3: Hugh Hewitt has posted an essasy from a fellow Naval Academy Graduate addressing Webb's "response." From A Naval Academy Graduate To Senator Webb

17 comments:

Cinnamon said...

Very good point, Lew. I was thinking the same thing about Webb's reference to the "end" of the Korean War and his proposal, not for victory in Iraq, but for bringing it to a "proper conclusion." All in all, a stilted and uninspired response from the Dems.

And when most of them remained seated during President Bush's comments on "victory in Iraq" and "defeating our enemies" in his speech, that said it all. They are the Neville Chamberlain party of appeasement.

Cottshop said...

“World War II should have taught us all one lesson. The lesson is this: To vacillate, to hesitate-to appease even by merely betraying unsteady purpose-is to feed a dictator's appetite for conquest and to invite war itself.”

wow great quote- I simply can not understand why the left doesn't get this- it's absolutely maddening watching them call for our destruction and defeat- thankfully our military hasn't shown a hesitation, and has stood strong- but one wonders how much damage the far left democrats are doing by calling for defeat and retreat

coboble said...

Somehow I am just not seeing the "cut and run" interpretation of the speech.

What is wrong with using the minimum force to maintain control while doing everything possible to get the sides in Iraq to negotiate?
What is it about this:
“Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq¹s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.”

Wasn’t this the goal when we went in?
Get rid of the evil leader, crush their ability to proceed with programs to create WMDs, stabilize the country and leave?
OR,
Do you think it was to conquer and force our will on them?
Because if the goal of the “other” side (the side that is not for diplomacy to stabilize), is to occupy and force our will, than lets just state that.

I am even open to the idea that this may be necessary to secure our own security. But I am so turned off by the mis representation of the Democrat’s view by the far right (and equally disgusted with the mis representation of the Republican’s view by the far left); that I am in definite turn off mode.

From my point of view, one of the biggest turn off points (as far as making me want to just turn off the speaker and no longer listen to him), in the Democratic response, was this:
"We now know that the American people were given inaccurate information about reasons for invading Iraq."
I am sick of this one. It is always used to make it look like people were intentionally lied to as opposed to there being flaws in intelligence.

However this statement angered me (I am angry if this is the truth):
"And we now know the Administration wants to further reduce military and veterans’ benefits."
Is this the truth? If anyone wants to make me anti-Bush-Administration today, this could do it.

(The truth is, I tend to agree with Bush more than with the views of the right leaning bloggers I read).

Lew Waters said...

Coboble, the basic problem with the "sides" negotiating in Iraq (I assume that is the speech you are talking about) is that one "side," the insurgents, are not interested in anything other than establishing a Taliban style government totally repressing the Iraqis, worse than Saddam did and what was seen in Afghanistan.

Iraq isn't a conflict of nations, but of a radical religious view desiring world domination.

Don't forget, this "negotiated" appeasement was tried once before. It does no good when the other side has no intention of co-existing, but is biding time to attack and conquer, as did Germany prior to World War Two.

Since we seen free elections by the Iraqis and the leader we supported voted out in favor of who the Iraqi people favored, it is hardly a case of us ever trying to impose our will on them.

Rather, we are trying to give them the freedom to determine their own will.

WMD’s was but one reason given for attacking Iraq. Too many said they were there for me to believe they never were.

As for 'cut and run,' we've seen this sort of "peace with honor" before. It neither attained peace nor was it honorable. I have seen no reason to believe differently that under Democrat leadership, a repeat would occur and any and all support for Iraq would cease and they too would fall into chaos as Al Qaeda or another radical Islamist group set up shop, by force, and instituted terrorist training camps all over again.

They can call it "responsible redeployment" or whatever they desire, it amounts to the same thing, retreat and abandonment. Don't forget, The Paris Peace Accords, which the largely Democrat controlled Congress clamored for, also said we would not let Viet Nam fall and would keep supporting them. History shows how we turned our backs on the Vietnamese and those of us who served there. I will do everything in my power to prevent a repeat of that.

As for Bush "cutting Veterans benefits," pure Bovine Scatology! Only in Washington D.C. is a reduction in amount asked for considered a "cut," even though the budget increases massively.

Don't forget, either, Congress passes spending bills, not the President. Even if he did ask for a reduction, they have the power to override and set spending where they desire. The President, regardless of who is there, only makes spending recommendations.

Gates recently asked for the size of our Military to be increased by some 90,000 over the next 5 years. That is hardly a cut.

As I heard today, winning this war in Iraq would hurt the Democrat party since their stance all along has been to oppose it, calling in unwinnable, and a mistake, what have you. If Bush succeeds in winning, it proves the Democrats chose the wrong side and have been wrong about it all along.

Pretty sad, isn't it?

Lew Waters said...

Coboble, and anyone else, if there is any doubt in your mind as to the intentions of the Demcorat party, read the email I received this evening and posted here; Kerry Email – “Still Fighting”

coboble said...

So you are saying that the truth is not a proposed cut in veteran spending, but an increase lower than proposed?
Calling this a cut is a lie then.

What is so frustrating to me, is so often the truth is mis-represented, meaning I have to verify everything.
Way too often (recently) I have found myself angering over something, and then realizing it was a mis-representation of the truth (either by leaving key facts out or just completely mis-stating facts)

So are you for conquering Iraq because you don't believe the tribes can be diplomatically persuaded to negotiate any lasting peace among themselves?
I can respect this view? Personally I would like to see negotiations given another chance.

Gabe (Landgazer) had some links to some good articles posted on his page which indicated that we MUST figure out how to get the tribes to negotiate. We MUST somehow get them to see that the stakes are very high (for them) if they don't figure out how to get along.

The jihadists, which want to take over the world, are a small piece of the violence over there (at least according to what I have read).

Lew Waters said...

Coboble, while the “tribes” have a history of not getting along in Iraq, the Jihadists are a bigger threat than some admit to. Of course, we also have agitation and resupply coming in from Iran. It’s actually 3 sects more so than tribes, Kurds, Shiites and Sunni.

This “surge,” actually more of a reinforcement, is there to bring the area to security so that the sects can negotiate. As in WW2, the final end was political, but it too the allied forces to secure the defeated countries so the solution could be implemented.

We are not about conquering Iraq, but the goal was to depose Saddam, for various reasons, and allow the Iraqis the free chance to be a free people.

This isn’t your classic war in that we are fighting a government, conquering a nation. We are fighting a religious, albeit misguided, ideology that has spread itself throughout the world and yes, they desire world domination.

What amazes me is the opposition coming from Women and Women’s groups as this ideology were trying to destroy is the most oppressive against women there has ever been. Shouldn’t Iraqi women be as free as women elsewhere and not killed for putting on lipstick, or being raped?

As for the VA Budget, here is a link to an article about it. Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Leo Pusateri said...

Great post, Lew...

Too bad that the dems continue to be blinded in their quest to euphamize their utter hatred of Bush, to the detriment of their own nation.

Lew Waters said...

Thanks, Leo. Seeing how the Democrats are fighting hard to lose this war really disturbs me, as we know the result will be bloodshed in our own streets.

Odd too that they want a withdrawal within the first four months that newly installed General Petraeus feels we should be seeing positive results there. Add Kerry's email I linked to above and I see nothing but a formula for the defeat of America.

Anonymous said...

You said this over at B4B and I just had to thank you for the laugh.

"CORRECTION: 66% of Americans [SURVEYED] do not want more troops sent to Iraq." Lew Waters


OMG LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!

That could not have been any more funny if Steven Colbert said had it himself!!!
Thanks man that was priceless. LOL

Anonymous said...

Sorry for inverting the" had said" but i was just laugh so hard . Again thanks , that made my morning LOL

coboble said...

I am trying to sort out the "real" stuff from the "noise" or "junk" stuff.

Some stuff that I consider Junk (not really relevant to my formation or modification of my stance) are
1) Kerry Bashing (I can't stand the guy and the Democrats I know can't stand the guy either.) He has no more power than his one senate vote.
Judging the Democratic party by his actions is no more valid than judging the Republican party by G.Smith's actions.

2) Claiming that the Democrats want a bad outcome for political gain.
While a few may (there is always some scum in the group), I am not convinced the majority could do this without it so distressing their own conscience that it would detract from their own quality of life. Wanting something this serious to turn out bad, for the sole sake of political gain, is just to horrific.
It is just as likely that some Republicans (for their own political gain) want it to look like the Democrats are doing this.

3) Bringing up past issues with how the Democrats ended past wars. You claim not to be anti-Democrat, but sometimes you come across that way. It is not that I don't think history is relevant, knowing history is critical. However, assuming similarities with past wars, where there are more differences than similarities, is one of the major criticisms of the handling of this conflict. Pointing out historical mistakes with more emphasis on the specific political party you see as making an error, than on the decision, seems to be done more to influence bias against that party, than it does to serve as a tool for measuring current political decisions.

Now on to the "real" issues (at least as they are seen through my own bias).

1) Difference in how people view the actual Jihadist threat.

2) View on how much of a role Iraq plays (or will play if we leave them alone) in this threat.
I quote you:
"Iraq isn't a conflict of nations, but of a radical religious view desiring world domination."

Not all believe this, but it is one of the "real" issues which is (and should be) effecting people’s stance.
When I read the articles which are not from the far right or far left, they are describing this war as being much more about violence between the tribes (religious sects) than between us and the insurgents.

3) How afraid people are of Islamic countries wanting to dominate the world.
You see this as a greater threat than many. You may be correct. I think this is driven by fear. But if we are going to base our policy on being afraid of this, then we need to just state this, and go in and dominate the area, and prevent the Islamic countries from getting more powerful.
Fear is not always unreasonable.

4) How afraid people are that are very presence in the area is creating even more future Jihadists.
I know people who are really far more afraid of this, than of (3) above.

5) Isolationist versus feeling a duty to help Iraq stabilize.
Most of my friends, who are in the “cut and run” crowd, fall into this category. Along with this they do not agree with you on (1)(2) or (3) above.

I am not an isolationist.
Especially since it is an all volunteer force. But I am not convinced that the Islamic world (with the exception of a small sect of them) want to attempt world domination at this point.

Have you read the articles that Gabe has posted links to on his site?

Iraq-down to brass tactics

There are other alternatives being offered.

Lew, I believed you on the veterans thing. In fact I rarely question your facts as you have built up credibility there with me. We often disagree in areas of relevance and interpretation.

Lew Waters said...

1) John Kerry is, in my opinion, a traitor deserving of imprisonment in Leavenworth instead of sitting in the Senate. Whatever small part I may have played in helping bring about his defeat in my working with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on their forum is a source of pride for me.

Don’t underestimate the worth of one Senator, past party nominee for President, in swaying others with the methods the Senators (both parties) use to push their own agendas.

2) If Democrats are for a victorious finish to this war, please direct me to where they are calling for victory or posting an alternative plan to win.

3) It was James Webb who injected the finish of the Korean War as the right way to do it. I pointed out that it still isn’t over. The two Koreas are still officially at war with each other, separated only by a shaky cease fire with several violations.

It isn’t out of character to point out flaws in comments by opponents especially when this important. His use of a snippet of a speech made by Dwight Eisenhower, while ignoring the majority of the same speech, is designed to give a false impression of what the original speech was about.

A little known fact is when Eisenhower took office in 1953, he moved to end the war in Korea, where peace talks had been going on since 1951. Eisenhower issued a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons which broke the stalemate in the ongoing negotiations.

Do you think Webb would approve of Bush using a similar tactic today? I don’t. Yet, he is lauded for injecting that Eisenhower “ended the Korean War in the right way!”

History in warfare is very pertinent and does relate to today’s war, especially when we have a repeat of the leftist media mis-reporting it.

4) Our sides may view the Jihadists “differently,” but how do the Jihadists view themselves? That is what is more important. Too often appeasers have underestimated a threat until it was nearly too late. One day, it will be. Their attacks against the west, even American interests abroad and twice within the U.S. are well known and documented. Since 1979 they have been speaking through those actions while the west pulls the cover over their heads and pretends it isn’t happening.

The desiring world domination isn’t just something some of us dreamed up or made up to whip up fearmongering and support for the war, it comes from the Jihadists themselves. Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design

I do not advocate the destruction of Islam nor do I oppose their right to believe as they desire, as long as they aren’t forcing it upon others, as are the Jihadists. My views on this carry forth to far right Christian groups that threaten burning in hell if you believe differently than they also. As I see it, both radical groups misuse their Holy Books to exercise power over others. I too don’t believe all of Islam is a threat, but the small sect you mention numbers well into the millions and sadly, like many within Christianity, others do not stand against those that would hijack their respective religions.

I also see the threat to America by the leftists that try to speak softly and eloquently as they undermine the very fabric that our great nation was built on, trying to rebuild the failed Soviet Union in its place.

I’ll look into Gabe’s place, but will also forewarn you that I have moved past middle of the road attitudes (if that is what he offers). After going through Viet Nam and that aftermath, being in Germany for the 1972 Olympics and the aftermath as the Baader/Meinhoff gang started up again, nearly being deployed to Israel for the Yom Kippur War in ’73 and sitting on a duffle bag awaiting orders to return to Viet Nam in ’75 from Ft. Bragg, as we abandoned a worthy ally, and watching as radical Islamofascist terrorism has steadily grown worldwide, it is long past time to stand up against that sect that is working diligently to achieve world domination.

The threat is there and it is real. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.

When you have time, drop in and read this article, The Making Of A 9/11 Republican.

More views here at Cinnamon Stillwell.com

coboble said...

Lew,

You admit to only reading the right wing media (or at least to not reading the centrist) so of course you haven't seen their plan.

If you read the centrist stuff on Gabe's page (which has a plan) I will read the right wing stuff you are pointing me to (I almost always read the stuff you point me to anyway).
Can we each read, an opposing view, with an open enough mind, to even consider it as being reasonable?

I can also point you to a speech by Hilary, since I know you have so much respect for her, Not.
It is not that they are not offering a plan, it is that their plan is not a crush and conquer plan, it is a maintain minimum force while forcing the Iraq sides to negotiate.
Some believe this will work (but know it must be forced, and believe the way to force it is to reduce how much security we provide).
Others believe WE need to crush and conquer.
Some even believe we need to set up a permanent military base in Iraq (do you?).

I don't know which is best, but the way each side portrays the other, is where I have a problem.

I have equal frustration with the far left; especially the "impeach Bush" and the "Bush Lied" crowd.

Lew Waters said...

Coboble, did it ever occur to you that, as a former Democrat myself, I have read their stuff and still do? Our lamestream media is filled with the views of the left and their "plans."

As for a plan ending the Iraq War, so far the only plan I hear coming from party leaders, and joined in by too many Republicans, is to "redeploy."

As was done to Viet Nam, promises will be made and not kept, it is the pattern we have come to adopt when the left is in power.

I will look at gabes works, but just know that although a Viet Nam Veteran and conservative today, once, I too bought into the "peace and love" message.

Unfortunately, our enemies don't!

coboble said...

Lew,
I might have misunderstood you, I thought you said you didn't read centrist stuff.

It is obvious, by your latest post, that you are reading the view of the far ridiculous left. (My dad is in this group, he is so far out in left field I seem very conservative to him).
The far left does differ from the center. If you want to find the ridiculous arguments, for the sake of poking fun at them, look far left. But if you want to read some ideas, which differ from your own, and do not qualify as ridiculous (at least from my point of view); look to the center.
And even if you don't agree with the conclusions of the particular authors of the centrist articles, the points they make before drawing those conclusions are worth reading.

I have been advised, by some people who know me well enough to know that I am getting way to wrapped up into this political blogging stuff, to stay away from the far right and the far left, and stick center, or just get out of it all together.
I tend to over-expose myself to politics in phases, and then compensate by tuning completely out for long periods of time.
I am headed into a tune-out phase.

Lew Waters said...

Coboble, I feel like bowing out often too, just ignore what is happening and keep to myself.

However, I recall coming home from Viet Nam, feeling what I did as Saigon fell and seeing so many misrepresentations about Viet Nam and those of us who served there that I can't.

I also see the importance of defeating this enemy, a lot more important than the enemy I fought.

I see what should be our "fair and balanced" main media manipulating news reports to further an agenda of returning to power the very people that would pull the plug and ignore the mounting threat.

That means this fight, which has been being put off nearly 30 years, gets passed on to my grandsons.

I can't stand the thought of those little boys having to fight these monsters within our own borders.