He who studies history shall know the future for all things come full circle.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

In a video teleconference between the White House and Baghdad, President George W. Bush talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Saturday, Oct. 28, 2006.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

How Many Would You Like?

How many troops would it take to pacify Iraq? We have somewhere between 120-130,000 US troops in Iraq now and many a pundit are demanding more troops to "finish" the job. Were it so easy. Indeed the very question exposes many transparent responses from Democrats and even Republicans regarding how to govern Baghdad and its environs and in many cases we get a lot of doubletalk to both leave Iraq en masse and to increase the number of troops to end the "insurgency" once and for all. So, what shall it be? More or less troops?

We know from history that when America was fighting in Vietnam we had at one point a half a million troops fighting both Viet Cong and conventional troops of the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). And yet, the communist hordes kept coming. We could have had a MILLION man army in South Vietnam and that would not have ended the war that Hanoi had started in their alleged quest of "uniting" their communist nation with the South. In a sense, the Iraqi occupation today does resemble Vietnam: We have not taken the ground war over the border. In other words, to end Hanoi's evil pretensions upon Saigon, we needed to invade North Vietnam and occupy their country. Obviously, this might have expanded the war for a short time, but if we were indeed serious enough to wage war against the Chinese then we would have been victorious over Hanoi. We know this from history as it is the offense that ends wars not the defense. Will we repeat that mistake in this current War on Terror?

The Soviets in Afghanistan also became embroiled in their own kind of "Vietnam" war only because they decided not to invade Pakistan from whence the Mujahadeen had received training, troops and logistical support to wage a guerilla campaign against the Russians. I want to repeat however, that the Russions did NOT lose the Afghan War. They simply failed to expand the war to Islamabad in order to break the will of their opposing Afghan enemies. And like America before her, Russia squandered precious time and material including the lives of their brave young men for ten long years before they decided to pack up and leave the deserts and highlands of the Hindu Kush. Make no mistake my friends, the Russians were not "defeated" in any classical sense of military defeat but politically and militarily THEY refused to move forward into Pakistan to break the stalemate in Kabul. And I suspect the Russians have learned their lesson well.

So, the question arises how many troops does it take to pacify Iraq? Well, first things first. The Arab and Persian armies are paper tigers. Nothing more. Their training and materials for war were all borrowed from the Soviet Union and the Russians are no match against Western Armies including the German Wehrmacht of World War II. In the Persian Gulf War of 1991, America was overly cautious in regards to Iraq's army because we had not had a large war with an Arab army ever in our history. So, we mustered nearly 500,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and then went on a devasting aerial bombing campaign for 60 days! Then finally, we got the order to move against the pathetic Iraqi army in Kuwait and the country fell into our hands within 72 hours! Once again, we failed to expand the war into Iraq proper and take Baghdad in 1991 and the rest is history. Frankly, Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was sheer overkill. We didn't need 500,000 troops to take on an Arab army and we didn't need to bomb the crap out of them for as long as we did.

With that in mind, Operation Iraqi Freedom was conducted on a "smaller" scale than in 1991 in both the number of troops and the number of sorties conducted by our magnificent Air Force. We defeated Saddam and his pathetic army in 3 weeks. Mission Accomplished, in fact and deed. However, like Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War, we did not/have not expanded the war to other countries and as a result we have an ongoing insurgency that is killing American troops one drop at a time. Where are the insurgents coming from and who is funding them?

In order to pacify Iraq we are going to have to expand the war into Iran and Syria and finally smash this evil and degenerate intifada against our glorious armies in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan. Now if this requires more troops then I'm all for mustering additional divisions into Iraq as a jumping off point into said name countries. Otherwise, we are going to have to wait for the Iraqi army divisions to come online before we leave. And actually, we are not going to fully leave Iraq because it is an ideal location to conduct military/political operations against our enemies in the Middle East. This is a long war much like the Cold War which lasted over 40 years. We had a "cold" war in Europe and we had a "hot" war in Asia during this 40 year contest. We prevailed in some areas and failed in others. Europe is free today and most of Asia is imprisoned in a communist coccoon.

Operation WARTS (War Against Rogue & Terror States) will take a long time. It will be methodical and deliberate. At times it will be cold and others it will be hot. In the end, the West will be victorious regardless of the number of troops sent to Iraq and other places in the Umma.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

An F-15 Eagle from the 12th Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, flies next to a Russian Tu-95 Bear Bomber Sept. 28 during a Russian exercise near the west coast of Alaska. www.af.mil

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

A Bridge Too Far

Will the Democrats take the House and Senate in this mid-term election? That's the million dollar question. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Republicans are going to hold both houses of Congress. Republicans may not hold much of a majority but it will still be a majority and the Democrats are going to go ape when it does happen on November 7th.

One thing is for certain, this election cycle is either going to make or break Howard Dean, Democrat National Committee Chairman. If Democrats fail to take back even one side of the house then the Democrats will flush Dean down the toilet. Or so I think they will. I could be wrong on that prediction because Clinton was still considered a "great" president even after the debacle the Democrats suffered in the '94 mid-term election. But Howard Dean is not Bill Clinton.

The expectations are so high for a Democrat victory that even the slightist hint that Republicans may be victorious is brushed off by liberal politicos as the vestiges of an ignorant Republican elite unable to decypher the tea leaves come November. We even have Paul Begala from CNN claiming that the threats to the NFL stadiums just made today was supiciously Karl Rove-ian in nature. Uh-huh, I see. Well, Democrats do believe that GW Bush actually used his incredible mind powers to push those planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11 like some diabolical Republican "Magneto" and forever altered history. Or they think conservatives somehow used dynamite to bring down the WTC just to pass the Patriot Act and make all liberals afraid of going to the library for fear of being trailed by the G-Men. All this concocted before Al Gore accused GW of stealing the 2000 election.

Expect a Republican victory to be greeted by Democrats with hyperbole on November 8th the likes of which even Hitler or Stalin could be proud of. Cries of stolen elections and hanging chads will not be enough for the left: they will resort to the lowest forms of political intimidation to get their way. It is after all the way of the Left.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

The original American flag raised on Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, during World War II is installed in its new home at the National Museum of the Marine Corps Quantico, Va, Oct. 13, 2006. The museum is due to open on the Marine Corps birthday this year, Nov. 10. www.defenselink.mil

Monday, October 09, 2006

Listing To Port

With the NORKS (North Koreans) exploding an alleged Nuclear Device below ground what are we to make of all the years wasted in allowing this regime to exist? I mean really, the leftwing is the reason for the season, of nuclear detonations. So after all these years General MacArthur was indeed right all along. After the American Army and Marines completely obliterated the NORK army by November in 1950 and the lousy Chi-Comms raising their filthy grotesque paws against us in an audacious move to save what was left of their communist bedfellows in Pyongyang, we should have nuked their Peking-asses all the way to kingdom come like the great and emminent General Douglas MacArthur had demanded. But thanks to the Democrat President Harry S. Truman the NORKS survive even to this day.

Its seems every leftwing President that we have had since FDR has given us trouble years down the road when their policies have allowed communist dictatorships to thrive when they should have been destroyed by war or at least shriveled from starvation by Western embargo. Instead, leftwingers have a "heart" when it comes to communism. They just can't let their own childish emotions towards statist governments that brutally torture and exploit their people to cloud their reason. The left has always believed that communism is to be encouraged not rejected en masse as the evil empire that it is.

Lets run down the list of Democrat Presidents in the last 60 years that have "kicked the can" of problematic nation-states down the road for us to resolve in the 21st century:

FDR - Allowed communist forces in China to rout and ultimately defeat the Nationalist Forces of Chaing Kai Chek during and after World War II. Communist China today now threatens America by arming other third world thugs with nuclear technology and hardware.

Harry S. Truman - Allowed communist forces to breath a sigh of relief when General MacArthur was fired by President Truman at the height of victory over the NORKS and Chi-comms. Naturally, Truman didn't want to extend the war to the Chinese for fear of a total victory over Beijing and angering communist Russia to boot and allegedly giving succor to the communists in Moscow for nuclear war. So, like a good leftist, he had American Forces "re-deployed" to the 38th Parallel which marked the frontier between good and evil on the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans have been imprisoned ever since in their communist hell.

John F. Kennedy - Allowed communists in Cuba to take over and ushered in the Cuban-Missile Crisis. Even with plans in place to overthrow Castro and his leftwing goons, JFK would instead betray our Cuban allies at the Bay of Pigs.

Lyndon Banes Johnson - After taking over the Presidency upon JFK's outragious assassination, LBJ would allow the North Vietnamese to run rampant throughout Indo-China. Yes, he may have waged a bombing campaign and sent troops to South Vietnam, however these half-hearted measures ultimately spelled defeat for America because we didn't go to a GROUND offensive against the North. Thus, 10 years of guerrila/conventional warfare was fought in South Veitnam to its tragic and unnecessary end. Nixon could have changed the course of events but he didn't have the moral authority to make such a strategic change in operations. Consequently, as Democrats seized power in Congress in 1974, the Democrat majority in the House and Senate cut-off funding to our ally in Southeast Asia when they so desparately needed it most. The Vietnam domino effect made itself felt most in Cambodia under Pol Pot, another communist thug emboldened and empowered by our "retreat" from Vietnam.

Jimmy Carter - Allowed the Sandinistas to come to power in Nicaragua. Also allowed the Shah of Iran to fall to the Ayatolloh and his Islamic thugs. Iran is still a thorn in our side today and the Sandinistas apparently are ready for a comeback in Nicaragua. A pathetic President for a pathetic time. Thank God Ronald Reagan cut short his miserable rule.

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton - Did little to nothing to rally America against the greatest challenge we face in the Western World today - the Islamic Jihad. Naturally, being a leftwinger from Arkansas, he also allowed communist North Korea or the NORKS to receive nuclear reactors from the USA in exchange for their "peaceful" uses. Naturally, only a liberal could possibly be this naive. The NORKS were so brazen in their contempt for America under Clinton that they announced right before the mid-term elections in 2002 that indeed they had developed a nuclear bomb from these very same reactors that Clinton so nicely gave them and put to shame all of the democrats efforts to persuade a hostile NORK to come to our side. Now, they are deliberately pouring salt on the wound by their reckless brinkmanship in launching missles over Japan and threatening the American westcoast with nuclear fire. Thanks Bill!

With the mid-term elections around the corner, can we Americans possibly rely on the Democrats to protect us when they have such a sordid history of betrayal to all the things we love about Freedom and Independence? The Democrats love socialism and slavery more than freedom and liberty. Yes, Republicans are weak, but Democrats are contemptable. The choice is easy this fall come election time.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

CVN 77 USS GHW Bush.

CVN 77 USS GHW Bush.

The upper bow unit of the Pre Commissioning Unit (PCU) George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) is lifted into place at Northrop Grumman Newport News.

CVN77 GHW Bush.

CVN77 GHW Bush.

The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) passes under the Golden Gate Bridge while entering San Francisco Bay during the Parade of Ships, a key event during San Francisco Fleet Week 2006. Since 1981, San Francisco Fleet Week has been an annual opportunity for Northern Californians to honor the men and women serving in the United States Navy, Coast Guard and Marines. This year approximately 9,000 crew members on visiting ships will arrive in the City to participate in Fleet Week. Ship�s tours and community service projects are scheduled throughout the Bay Area. www.navy.mil

Monday, October 02, 2006

Iraqi soldiers engage targets during training conducted by U.S. Soldiers from 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment at Nifty Range in Mosul. www.army.mil

PTL Club V

The Press, the Terrorists and the Left are in collusion to sabotage America's War on Terror. Each player has their own motives that may overlap each other but in the end the PTL Club triangulates their message and actions to coincide at any given moment in the hopes that their collective will may act as a force-multiplyer in the arena of ideas. Just this week we have seen the PTL Club emerge from the shadows with their anti-American propaganda.

The Press: Once again the New York Times rides to the rescue of terrorists. They printed "all the 'top secret' news thats fit to print" in the form of an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report on the state of the War on Terror. Naturally, the Times only highlights certain segments for the audience to see that would suggest the War on Terror is actually emboldening terrorists in Iraq but more importantly acting as a catalyst for Jihad throughout the Islamic world. I'm starting to wonder if the New York Times is Al Jazeera in drag? Thankfully, President Bush checked the Times by releasing additional pages that the paper of ill-repute conveniently left out showing the opposite conclusion that the NIE had actually enumerated throughout its lengthy report. Unfortunately we have leaks coming from our intelligence agencies because they feel they can play politics with national security and until the United States starts actually jailing/executing traitors within our Intelligence communities then this sort of thing will continue. However, it would help if the NY Times would refuse to run with their leaks. How many more buildings must fall in New York City before the Times decides who is on their side?

The Terrorists: This week saw the release of another video from Al Qaida featuring everyone's favorite terrorist, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. In it he excoriates the Pope, President Bush and the War on Terror that he calls the "Crusader Wars". Naturally he calls President Bush a liar and charlatan which is directly out of the pages of Michael Moore's leftwing propaganda films. Is this video a message to terror cells embedded within Western nations to act at a certain date? Perhaps. This particular video makes the "doctor" look more "presidential" in that it shows him in an office with flag, lamp and minature canon. How quaint. Perhaps his new office is located in the recently vacated area of Waziristan that Pakistan left for the Taliban/Al Quaida fugitives? Now that Pakistan has reliquished control of this area to these thugs perhaps our American/Nato Forces can move in without Pakstani interference. Time will tell. Also, just yesterday we got a glimpse of the past with the actual video of the notorious and evil 9/11 conspirators who drove the planes into the Twin Towers. Amazing the timing of these video releases. Nothing worse than a smiling terrorist.

The Left: Hugo Chavez, need I say anymore? Last week the Left had fun at the expense of the United States by calling the most powerful man in the world "the devil" while in New York City at the United Nations. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela apparently thinks that President Bush has the ability to control the world. Now, the United States may be able to exert its influence diplomatically, politically, economically and militarily on a global scale but we certainly don't control the world. Gee, if only we could. However, the Left's conspiracy theories demand that "evil" capitalism, Christianity and the white man in general are indeed behind every evil in the universe like the plague, imperialism, wars, slavery, terrorism, etc. Hugo Chavez is a thug and nothing more. A typical leftist. I find it interesting that "the devil" President Bush vis-a-vis United States is funding his country with petro-dollars and if it weren't so then Hugo would be a no-nothing on the world stage. Does Hugo wish to don the uniform of Fidel Castro and continue communism's long march in America? Hmmm, perhaps we should ask Moscow if this indeed is their plan? Of course, we could easily crush Hugo's little empire in Venezuela if we so desired. But isn't that the problem? We don't desire to and therefore Hugo is what he is. If America is forced to remove herself as the Hessian of the ossified British Empire then perhaps we will have the fire to enforce our will in South America vis-a-vis the Monroe Doctrine. Or maybe its Hugo's way of rattling the cage of the international oil market to keep the price of oil high? He benefits after all with high oil prices since his country is a member of OPEC.

All of these events, NIE Leak, Zawahiri and Chavez at the UN, did their damage to American morale and prestige in the world. But time is running short and it may be that the American people will indeed retreat into Fortress America as both political parties appease their base supporters by retreating from the international stage. If America leaves the world to its own devices then who shall rule the earth from the heights of Olympus?