Saturday, August 22, 2009
What we can learn from Children
Friday, July 31, 2009
Perspective from the USA
Winning Is All
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Afghanistan: It was a bad week for the president. After accusing Cambridge, Mass., police of acting stupidly, he called victory unnecessary in Afghanistan. Does the commander in chief misunderstand the use of force?
Read More: Middle East & North Africa
In the dark days of May 1940, Winston Churchill famously outlined the task before the British people: "You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terrors, victory however long and hard the road may be — for without victory there is no survival."
Contrast that with what the president told ABC News last Thursday: "I'm always worried about using the word victory, because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
If the goal of the U.S. in Afghanistan isn't victory, what is the purpose of the blood, toil, tears and sweat of our forces? What is the meaning of the struggle and suffering of their families?
According to Vince Lombardi, "If you can accept losing, you can't win."
Now, in fairness to our president, he doesn't seem to be saying that losing is an option. He noted in the same interview that "when you have a nonstate actor, a shadowy operation like al-Qaida, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."
Going on, he said the U.S. "will continue to contract the ability of al-Qaida to operate," which the president called "absolutely critical." We agree.
But we are at something of a crossroads in Afghanistan. The toil, tears, sweat — and especially blood — have increased of late.
As a result, public displeasure is on the rise in Britain, Canada and Germany, which with their tens of thousands of troops are taking part in the U.S.-led coalition — the kind of coalition, by the way, that liberal Democrats consider absolutely vital before fighting wars against terror states.
Our allies could eventually pull out. So at a time like this, the job of the president is to remind them, and the American people, that we are in a world war against a network of evildoers.
Barely two months into this administration, the Pentagon was sent a memo announcing that we were no longer engaged in a global war on terror; this was not a "long war" the American people were faced with.
No, the endeavor U.S. servicemen and women were being asked to spill their blood for would from now on be called an "overseas contingency operation."
How's that to stir your patriotism?
Imagine the message that al-Qaida, the mullahcracy in Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea take from these choices of language. The U.S. doesn't consider "victory" to be its goal in Afghanistan; the U.S. no longer believes it is engaged in a "war" against the Islamists who killed thousands of Americans on American soil in 2001.
Apparently, "winning" a "war" is passe to our 21st century way of thinking. Using an "overseas contingency operation" to "contract the ability" of "nonstate actors" is the enlightened phrasing.
Was the same mind-set behind the president's decision last week to second-guess police officers without knowing the facts? The "good guys vs. bad guys" mentality just isn't nuanced enough.
The truth is that eschewing plain language in favor of this kind of muddled babble sends a message of weakness to our enemies around the world.
And it downplays what is at stake at a time when the American people and our allies are in dire need of some unvarnished, old-fashioned, Churchillian truth telling.
~~~~~~~
God's Peace, my friends
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Awaiting Mission
February 16, 1804
The most daring act of the age
During the First Barbary War, U.S. Lieutenant Stephen Decatur leads a military mission that famed British Admiral Horatio Nelson calls the "most daring act of the age."
In June 1801, President Thomas Jefferson ordered U.S. Navy vessels to the Mediterranean Sea in protest of continuing raids against U.S. ships by pirates from the Barbary states--Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, and Tripolitania. American sailors were often abducted along with the captured booty and ransomed back to the United States at an exorbitant price. After two years of minor confrontations, sustained action began in June 1803 when a small U.S. expeditionary force attacked Tripoli harbor in present-day Libya.
In October 1803, the U.S. frigate Philadelphia ran aground near Tripoli and was captured by Tripolitan gunboats. The Americans feared that the well-constructed warship would be both a formidable addition to the Tripolitan navy and an innovative model for building future Tripolitan frigates. Hoping to prevent the Barbary pirates from gaining this military advantage, Lieutenant Stephen Decatur led a daring expedition into Tripoli harbor to destroy the captured American vessel on February 16, 1804.
After disguising himself and his men as Maltese sailors, Decatur's force of 74 men, which included nine U.S. Marines, sailed into Tripoli harbor on a small two-mast ship. The Americans approached the USS Philadelphia without drawing fire from the Tripoli shore guns, boarded the ship, and attacked its Tripolitan crew, capturing or killing all but two. After setting fire to the frigate, Decatur and his men escaped without the loss of a single American. The Philadelphia subsequently exploded when its gunpowder reserve was lit by the spreading fire.
Six months later, Decatur returned to Tripoli Harbor as part of a larger American offensive and emerged as a hero again during the so-called "Battle of the Gunboats," a naval battle that saw hand-to-hand combat between the Americans and the Tripolitans.
from: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4768
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Turkmen vs Turk
This afternoon, at a dry dusty expanse of land east of the runway being transformed into a helicopter apron, an Afghan Turkmen surveyor was giving directions to a Turkish form worker to establish grade of the forms in preparation for the evening's concrete placement. There was apparent disagreement as to the direction being given at which point the form worker picked up one of the sharpened to a point, half-meter long steel form spikes and assaulted the surveyor striking him above the eye. The workers pulled the men apart. Both men were wearing all of their required safety gear (hard hat, steel-toed boots, protective eyeglasses) but this gear was inadequate to prevent a gash on the surveyor's brow requiring stitches. An investigation will ensue but it is no doubt that the Turkmen will return to his home province and the assailant will be on an early return to Turkey and will seek employment elsewhere, hopefully where there are no sharp objects laying about.
Bagram
06 July 09
