Will Our Beltway Leaders Ever Step-up?
By Thomas D. Segel
October 19. 2009
For more than two decades the most admired, most respected and most trusted organization in America has been our military establishment. During the same period, the least admired, least respected and least trusted organization in the country has been the United States Congress. Only 15 points above Congress is the office of the President, which for the same period of time has only had a trust factor of 25%.
Paradoxically, Congress, the organization that is ranked as having the trust of only 10% of the entire population is the same body of elected officials we rely upon to keep our nation's promises to the veterans, retired military and active duty service personnel. The organization with the least honor must assure the well-being of our country's most revered and respected band of brothers and sisters.
At this important time in our history, we have both the President and his Congress, along with a wide collection of appointed/unelected officials in lengthy debates about our nation's will to win wars. Weeks and weeks have passed since General Stanley McChrystal made a plea for 40,000 more combat troops to be sent to Afghanistan, or risk losing that conflict.
At this hour, President Obama has not even admitted receiving such a request. However, he has held at least five lengthy meetings trying to decide his "strategy" for Afghanistan, having already announced such a strategy just six months back. Since "strategy" is defined as the science of planning a campaign or war to assure viability, it is hard to visualize this crew of politicos coming up with anything that is an improvement over the strategy of military commanders in the field. Since the Obama Administration has surrounded itself with many who voice their strong anti-war sentiments, it seems more likely that victory is a topic on the table.
There was a time in our history when going to war meant a country was engaging in combat with the objective of destroying the enemy. Then we had some great thinker come up with the concept of "limited warfare". This so-called limited war idea was defined as a war in which it is not the aim of the participants to defeat or destroy the enemy totally.
We practiced such a limited war in Korea. The result was lost lives and a return to the status quo. Today we can see the results of our failure to eradicate the enemy in the establishment of a nuclear pariah state called North Korea.
Limited warfare was practiced in Vietnam. Instead of a swift and sure victory we had prolonged conflict, the emerging of a strong anti-war movement, battles won by our military and a war lost by our politicians. We departed with heads bowed and a loss of national respect.
The Bush Administration surge in Iraq proved once again the value of overwhelming force. It resulted in stabilization of Iraq, the emerging of civilian control and most of all...reduction in lives lost.
It should be clear to everyone that if we are interested in winning this war, a total commitment is required. It will do far more than help stabilize the country, it will bring to an end the deadly restrictive rules of engagement and poorly funded secondary support that today is resulting in American lives being the price for poor political leadership. Isn't it time for the least respected organization in the United States to step forward for once and give our military commanders the tools they need for victory?
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
++ Discuss this topic in The Forum
Current rating:  4.9 out of 5.0 (13 total votes)
| 
