No Substitute For Victory. My Essay. Historic Retorts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hoover Weekly Highlights:

No Substitute for Victory: America’s Competition with China Must Be Won, Not Managed

By Matt Pottinger and Mike Gallagher via Foreign Affairs

The United States shouldn’t manage its competition with China—it should win it, argue Matt Pottinger and outgoing Wisconsin representative Mike Gallagher in this article. They cite China’s ongoing expansion of nuclear and conventional forces and its support for authoritarian regimes around the world. To win this competition, the authors declare, the US should turbocharge innovation in its defense industry, deepen trade relationships with friendly nations, employ more export controls in key technology areas, reverse its crisis in military recruitment, and encourage everyday Americans to contribute to the fight.

++ 

My Own Thoughts Essay

There is no alternative to Victory, Complete and Total Victory. Fifty Four Forty and Fight.

By Dick Berkowitz  

In my opinion there are two ways to approach a war - Diplomatically and/or Militarily.

Also, in my opinion, wars are the result of failed diplomacy. There is no alternative to victory.

We all know Henry Kissinger was a brilliant Secretary of State/Diplomat. My problem is he also was under the powerful sway/influence  of The Rockefeller Family. They were his main sponsor.

Therefore, my problem with Kissinger is that he was German and Germans are familiar with losing wars.  Henry, in my opinion, did not understand Americans are not used to losing. We were always a "wining" society until Kissinger came upon the scene.

Tragically, Kissinger and lawyers were allowed to slowly seep into the diplomatic management of wars. Consequently, America no longer seeks ending wars. We have become willing to walk off the battlefield as "losers."  I submit, The Viet Nam debacle as my evidence. We succumbed to the commentary of an influential news broadcaster the war was unwinnable when, in fact, we were near victory.  This was subsequently verified by the leader of the Viet Cong Military.

I find the management of the Viet Nam War completely unacceptable. 

Diplomats do not have a flicker of knowledge that is militarily oriented.  They are trained in debating, in verbal solutions and there is a place for rational debate.  Yes, talk first, then if the results are undesirable  resort to might/military power.

To make matters even worse, when you have a president, like Obama and/or Biden, who are incompetent in both areas, you have where we are today.

Telegraph weakness and you, you most likely will inspire/receive what you wish to avoid.  

Biden's broadcast of weakness has allowed Iran to operate through surrogates. Why? Because  he allowed Iran to be in a position to finance them..  His weakness has also allowed Iran to become more bellicose, to develop their nuclear program and  place the world on the brink of what he professes he wanted to avoid, a nuclear confrontation and the existential threat to Israel.

Now Biden has allowed himself into a single word retort. "DON"T"  Apparently, based on reports, Iran may not be listening  and other reports suggest Iran may be within 3 days of completing the making of a bomb in their underground  Fordor facility which UN investigators have been banned entry.

Meanwhile, Biden has allowed Hamas to play Israel and Bibi as a Yo Yo while Biden plays the violin.

Israel's/Bibi's response to the Gaza War has evolved into 2 narrowed approaches.

On the one hand , Ehud Olmert, Israel's previous PM believes the hostage rescue takes precedence and any continuance of Bibi's desire to take out remaining Hamas Divisions and their leader, Sinwar, will result in needless Palestinian and IDF deaths, will turn the world, even more, against Israel and cause a widening rift between America and Israel.

Bibi's position, is a willingness to make a hostage swap along disproportionate lines and cease the war, for a reasonable period, but wants to finish the elimination of Hamas' ability, as a terrorist functioning military establishment.

My view is that that Hamas cannot deliver the 40 Israeli hostages supposedly being swapped and the cessation of the war has already caused  tremendous repercussions and a restart is emotionally, mentally and physically  very difficult to re-initiate.  

Furthermore, Olmert disregards the impact of allowing Hamas to claim a military victory over/defeat of Israel and how that claim might impact  The Abraham Accord Signatories who, so far, have remained loyal and hung tough, along with the Saudi's desire to ultimately enlist.  Why? Because dependence upon Israel's status, as the Region's Military Goliath, is what unites them along with potential commercial, scientific advances and self-interests which  initiated their willingness to sign the agreement.

In the final analysis it boils down, to me, two approaches.  The first is talk, avoid and eventually wind up in war because of  a diplomatic failure.  Second, go to war because of attacks on you by others because they demand you respond because there is no other resolvable solution but go to war because you are always entitled to defend yourself, your family, your country

Being cynical, I prefer choosing war over diplomacy, in most cases. When you feed bullies, when you display weakness you simply encourage what you seek to avoid - . "fifty four forty or fight" is my fall back position.

Stay tuned as Iran's threat remain a disruptive "black swan" potential and today's (4/13) capture of a ship by Iranians has just occurred.

Apparently the war our pitiful president sought to avoid, through weakness, has begun.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Delightful 20 HISTORICAL RETORTS

 

Not many new ones. Just a reminder that politics hasn’t really changed over the years and what great wit sounds like..

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++