Bill Bennett and I are in total agreement about the viral infection that has crippled our society called relativism. Doing what is right, what is effective is far more preferable than having a "cushy" agreement.
I continue to believe we have become too PC to win and Sgt. T.F. Boggs speak my sentiments when it comes to the report reached by old men - see my previous memo entitled "Tired Ideas From Tired Old Men" dated 12/6. (See 1 below taken from latest RJC Bulletin.)
Because of Sec. Gates' sui generous revelations about Israel's nuclear weapon status, Olmert decided to acknowledge same and end the nation's policy of ambivalence. Gates did so without informing Israel and Olmert without consulting with the Cabinet. Olmert chose to make his remarks while in Germany as the Iranian conference denying The Holocaust took place. Olmert further went on to equate other "civilized" nations with nuclear weapons with Iran's claim that it would use weapons to wipe Israel off the map. Olmert reminded the Iranians, Israel possessed an equal capability.
Perhaps the U.S. could meet with Iran for the purpose of enlightening them about the Holocaust and hold the meeting on neutral ground in Germany. Say at one of the concentration camp sites that never existed.
More warnings to Syria and Iran over Lebanon from Sec. Rice as three Qassam rockets fall on Israel during continued cease fire. Probably launched by a few Palestinian school kids out for a day's fun after their studies on how to kill.
Kirk Douglas, the venerable actor turns 90 and celebrates with a small party of 100 family and honored guests and friends.
I served on the Board of Visitors a small unique college with Joyce Rumsfeld and at various board meetings I got the opportunity of meeting her husband and having a few brief chats with him. I also followed his successful business career.
As Cal Thomas points out (see 3 below) Rumsfeld is far better than his detractors have painted him out to be and though he might have been abrasive and prickly he will be missed. He tried to change the Pentagon and that is beyond any mortal. Granted he also made some monumental mistakes but the far left doesn't believe in being strong and rejects the mere thought there are times when you have to prove you are willing to fight and even die for what you believe in and post 9/11 was such a time.
I suspect we will now fight harder to extricate ourselves rather than to overcome the growing radical Islamic menace through the mistaken belief terrorists are rational and will succumb to rational conversations and adhere to commitments. We are in denial and thus will blind ourselves and like Israel, it is all Rummy's fault.
Dick
1)The Iraq Study Group should go back to school
The much-ballyhooed report by the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group was predictably flawed. William Bennett described the report this way: "In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority."
Bennett wrote, "This is the triumph of the therapeutic, where bipartisanship — a hug across the aisle — has become a higher value than justice. . . the moral, the good, and the just take a backseat to collegiality. Does history really give a hoot about bipartisanship? Who cares whether they are getting along? The task is to do the right thing, especially in war. But, when relativism is the highest value, agreement becomes the highest goal, regardless of right and wrong."
T.F. Boggs is a 24-year-old sergeant in the Army Reserves, back home from his second deployment to Iraq. He complained that the "old men" of the Iraq Study Group held unrealistic expectations and his take on what's at stake in Iraq is right on:
"I thought old people were supposed to be more patient than a 24 year old but apparently I have more patience for our victory to unfold in Iraq than 99.9 percent of Americans. Iraq isn’t fast food--you can’t have what you want and have it now. To completely change a country for the first time in its entire history takes time, and when I say time I don’t mean 4 years. . . Like I told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by Islamofacists sucks more."
One problem with the ISG report is that it drags the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the subject of Iraq. Israel has nothing to do with the internal rivalries of the groups in Iraq, the long-standing conflict between Sunni and Shiite, or the continued arming of terrorists in Iraq by Syria and Iran. The Israeli- Palestinian conflict is a totally different issue, and at his press conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair last week, President Bush explained – again – what is really going on in that conflict: [emphasis added]
What's important is for people to accept the goal of two states living side-by-side for peace. And what has changed in the Middle East is that Israel and Palestine -- at least the current leadership. . . accept that goal.
. . . One of the reasons why there hasn't been instant success is because radicals and extremists are trying to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. Why? Because democracy is a defeat for them. That's what I strongly believe. I find it interesting that when Prime Minister Olmert reaches out to Palestinians to discuss a way forward on the two state solution, Hezbollah attacks Israel. Why? Because radicals and extremists can't stand the thought of a democracy. And one of the great ironies is that people in the Middle East are working hard to prevent people in the Middle East from realizing the blessings of a free society in their democracy.
And so, no question progress has been spotty. But it's important for people to understand one of the reasons why is, is because radicals are trying to prevent it, and they're willing to kill innocent people to prevent progress. . . And now the fundamental question is, can we help the moderates prevail? And make no mistake about it, radicals and extremists will kill in order to stop the progress. And that's what's difficult. But it should be a signal to those of us who have got the comfort of liberty to understand the consequences of this ideological struggle we're fighting. One of the consequences is denial of a Palestinian state. This is ironic, isn't it -- I think it is, and it's sad.
2) A few blonde jokes :
Blonde took a ruler to bed to see how long she slept.
Blonde put a stamp on a fax.
Blonde tripped over a cordless phone.
Blonde watched can of orange juice for 20 minutes because it said concentrate.
Blonde thought if she spoke her mind she would be speechless.
Blonde thought she could not dial AM on her radio in the evening.
Blonde came to sign which said Airport Left and she turned around and went home.
3) Donald Rumsfeld: The Exit Interview
By Cal Thomas
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld leaves office Friday, Dec. 15 after six turbulent years of rebuilding the military for a post-Cold War era, while simultaneously overseeing service members he calls, "the best led, the best equipped, the best trained, the most capable... in the world." As we met in his office on the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, he was reflective about the past and worried about the future.
Rumsfeld regrets using the phrase "the war on terror": "I say that because the word 'war' conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes (like) a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way."
It's not a war on terror, he adds, because "Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control."
Rumsfeld believes much of the public still does not understand the intensity of the struggle. He says he hasn't read the entire Iraq Study Group Report, just the summary and news accounts, but has this take on the conflict: "I personally believe that the consequences of allowing the situation in Iraq to be turned over to terrorists would be so severe... because Iraq would become a haven to plan attacks on the moderate countries in the region and the United States. (It would) diminish the ability of the United States to provide protection for the American people."
Many commentators have tried to compare this war with World War II, or Vietnam. Rumsfeld, however, prefers the Cold War comparison because, like the Cold War "which lasted 50 years, you couldn't say (in the middle of it) whether you were winning or losing. There aren't straight and smooth paths. There are bumpy roads. It's difficult. The enemy has a brain. They're constantly making adjustments."
About opposition, Rumsfeld recalled a time, "when Euro-communism was in vogue and people were demonstrating by the millions against the United States, not against the Soviet Union. And yet, over time, people found the will - both political parties and Western European countries - to persist in a way that ultimately led to victory."
Rumsfeld's implication is clear: the same leftists who opposed U.S. strategy in standing against communism now stand in opposition to America's position against Islamofascism. If they were wrong about communism, might they also be wrong about today's enemy?
Rumsfeld reflected upon World War II, which, as a boy, he remembers as a time when the entire country got behind the effort. To critics, who have called for more troops in Iraq, he says, "(Such people) are often thinking World War II and the (former Defense Secretary Caspar) Weinberger Doctrine, which is valid in a conflict between armies, navies and air forces. The problem with it, in the context of a struggle against extremists, is that the greater your presence, the more it plays into extremist lies that you're there to take their oil, to occupy their nation, stay and not leave; that you're against Islam, as opposed to being against violent extremists."
His greatest concern is that the public is not sufficiently prepared mentally for another domestic terror attack. He says there are "two centers of gravity. One is in Iraq and the region; the other is here." The "here" to him centers on the way the media report the story and focus mainly on opposition to administration policies and not on the objectives of the enemy, who he describes this way: "They're deadly. They're not going to surrender. They're going to have to be captured or killed. They're going to have to be dissuaded (and) people are going to have to be dissuaded from supporting them, from financing them and assisting in their recruitment, providing havens for them."
"We're in an environment where we have to fight and win a war where the enemy is in countries we are not at war with," he says. "That is a very complicated thing to do. It doesn't happen fast. It means you have to invest the time, effort and ability."
Rumsfeld seems to agree with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that Iraqis and their government must ultimately run their own country. He likens it to an adult holding a child's bicycle seat for fear the child will fall: "You know if you don't (eventually) let go, you'll end up with a 40-year-old who can't ride a bike. Now that's not a happy prospect."
He'll consider writing a book about his experiences over many years in Washington and adds this about today's volunteer military: "when the uniform personnel look back five, 10, 15 years from now, they're going to know they've given these folks an opportunity to succeed in an environment that is not a repressive political system, but a free political system."
That legacy has yet to be determined. As with the Cold War, the end won't come on the watch of those presidents and defense secretaries who fought it. Donald Rumsfeld, a cold and hot warrior, understands the enemy. His principled stand against them will be proved right.
Dick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment