by fortbuckley on Oct.10, 2009, under Uncategorized
Does the President’s Peace Prize Send A Message of Weakness To America’s Enemies? Probably Not
Why? This is October 2009, not 2001. Also, most of the dumb or careless jihadists are dead, and the smart ones want to stay alive.
From time to time, America has found itself at war with opponents who underestimated our will to fight. Many of Japan’s leaders assumed that America would quit soon after Pearl Harbor. In 1990, Saddam Hussein misread American diplomats and concluded that Bush 41 wouldn’t fight to free Kuwait. More recently, Osama Bin Laden saw US troops withdraw from Mogadishu after “Black Hawk Down,” and concluded that America was a paper tiger. We proved all of those foolish fellows wrong…at a terrible cost.
So, I reacted initally to the word of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Price with an “Oh no, here we go again” feeling. Would America’s enemies take this, ahem, puzzling decision by the Nobel committee as evidence that the West—which the US leads, at least in security efforts—was softening its spine? That it was quitting? Flinching from the security challenges of a 21-st century world?
On second thought, though, I don’t think it’s all that bad.
Eight years ago this month, al Qaeda and the Taliban were starting to realize just how badly they’d misread Bush 43, the American people and its military. On September 12th 2001, they’d never heard of “daisy cutters.” By Thanksgiving, they’d never be able to forget them. (The ones that were still living, that is).
Eighteen months later, America and its coalition allies ejected Saddam Hussein from power in a campaign lasting less than a month. What followed was a years-long, often error-filled US presence in Iraq. But, the American military adapted, changed its strategy, redoubled its efforts and turned things around in Iraq. In WWII, Rommel complemented his American foes by remarking that he’d never seen soldiers so poorly prepared initially, but who adapted and learned so quickly. Thankfully, things haven’t changed.
That American military, which remade itself on-the-fly from a force ill-prepared for counterinsurgency into one that excels at it, is still around. Weary and overextended, yes, but still around—and much better prepared for this kind of fight the next time. Moreover, the world has now been reminded of the risks you run when despots and terrorists think you’re a pushover.
This doesn’t mean the jihadhists won’t keep trying. But I suspect that, the next time they see a few Western elites—like, say, the Nobel nominating committee— act like idiots, they’ll think twice before concluding that all Westerners are that craven or that dumb.
I’ll bet that, once you hear the sound of a daisy cutter doing its thing, you really don’t want to hear it again.
31 Comments for this entry
Leave a Reply
Looking for something?
Use the form below to search this blog:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!
Archives
All entries, chronologically...
October 11th, 2009 on 10:27 am
That’s an interesting planet you live on – the one where, evidently, Al Queda and the Taliban wouldn’t fight if they think that we will fight back – and presumably Bin Laden wouldn’t have attacked us if we had sent more troops to Somaila.
This doesn’t mean the jihadhists won’t keep trying.
The only reality-based sentence in your post.
Although it is somewhat disconcerting to wonder why your support for the Taliban’s position on the Nobel Prize isn’t giving aid and comfort to the enemy I’m sure we can be reassured by your obvious arousal at the thought of daisy cutters.
October 11th, 2009 on 12:35 pm
I’m sorry, tip, I’ve totally missed your point…what was it?
And, if you don’t like the way I present my arguments…
That’s an interesting planet you live on
The only reality-based sentence in your post
…to be honest, I really don’t care.
As for al Qaeda and the Taliban not fighting us if they think we’ll fight back…well, we HAVE fought back in Iraq, effectively, and the jihadhists have been beaten back.
October 12th, 2009 on 9:45 pm
“well, we HAVE fought back in Iraq, effectively, and the jihadhists have been beaten back.”
Umm, so you and Cheney are still claiming that there were “jihadists” in Iraq in the first place ?
Congratulations on your victory in Imaginaistan
October 14th, 2009 on 6:28 pm
Umm, so you and Cheney are still claiming that there were “jihadists” in Iraq in the first place ?
Yes, we are…but not nearly as many as there were in 2006.
Congratulations on your victory in Imaginaistan
Thanks! Would you like to join us in Grownupistan? Oh, I forgot…these are national security issues, and you’re a Democrat. Never mind. The adults will pull your load and keep you safe.
October 14th, 2009 on 7:41 pm
Excellent reply fortbuckley. There are those who wish to be safe, and those who enable us to be safe.
October 14th, 2009 on 7:51 pm
PS- Anybody who thinks Sadam didn’t chortle with glee at events of 9-11, or harbor terrorists when it suited him, lives on another plane than the real world.
October 11th, 2009 on 12:03 pm
Hi Don – Welcome back!
Now, down to business. I have to start by reiterating Tip’s concern about your “enthusiasm” for highly efficient killing devices.
As to the President’s Nobel Prize, I feel a mixture of surprise and disappointment. Surprise for the same reasons as everyone else; disappointment because I haven’t heard all the expected wailing and gnashing of teeth from the right. Talk to your friends and see if you can’t convince them to work themselves into a snit with righteous indignation, if only for my amusement.
October 11th, 2009 on 10:24 pm
“disappointment because I haven’t heard all the expected wailing and gnashing of teeth from the right”
that’s because we are all too busy laughing. ever a right winger recognizes and appreciates a good joke when they see and hear one.
October 12th, 2009 on 6:23 am
I can only give you a 7 for wailing, and, I’m afraid, only a 2 for gnashing of teeth. If there were to be points awarded for pitiful whining, I could give you a better score. Keep trying, soldier.
October 11th, 2009 on 12:38 pm
Left, glad to be back, and thanks for the kind words while I was gone.
As for my “enthusiasm” for highly efficient killing devices—yes, I must admit I’m partial to devices that kill lots of Taliban—the same fellows who harbored al Qaeda, banned kite flying and executed Afghan women in soccer stadiums—while putting our servicemen/women at much less personal risk.
As for the Nobel Prize—Left, there’s been plenty of teeth gnashing on the right. Check out the “Redstate” website. Perhaps my fellow Right Side Warriors are saving their REAL sound and fury for the actual prize ceremony?
October 11th, 2009 on 3:06 pm
I hope the you’re right about the coming “sound and fury”. I have always been curious to know if the ruling class penchant for Lawn Order would extend to clubbing and gassing old white folks being unruly as readily as it does students and other-than-white protestors.
I’m no fan of the Taliban; nor am I a fan of a never-ending game of Wack-a-Mole at the expense of human lives. How many dead religious extremists of the non-christian variety does it take to justify one “regrettable civilian death”? And how does the “unintentional” civilian loss of an arm or a leg (or two) figure into the score?
October 11th, 2009 on 4:11 pm
Re. regrettable civilian deaths—all civilian, noncombatant deaths are regrettable, even tragic. American troops do everything they can to avoid them.
I have always been curious to know if the ruling class penchant for Lawn Order would extend to clubbing and gassing old white folks being unruly as readily as it does students and other-than-white protestors.
Let me go on record as saying that, if Caucasian senior citizens turn as violent during the Nobel awards ceremonies as the left did during the recent G20 summit in Pittsburgh, the security forces at The Villages and Sun Cities nationwide have every right to use force—appropriately, of course. Glad I could clear that up.
October 11th, 2009 on 5:44 pm
It would be like a dream come true for me to see CSS’ers (Caucasian Senior Citizens, of which I am one, technically) running rampant in the streets of Saddlebrook behaving as young anarchists; tearing up the course greens in their golf carts and smashing the country club windows.
Anarchists are often lumped in with radical leftists such as myself, but I think it is more of a marraige of convenience, born of temporary necessity. I’m sure you are aware that Anarchists believe any form of hierarchical structure is oppressive, whereas a good commie is conservative enough to insist on some structure.
October 12th, 2009 on 5:23 pm
I stand corrected on your point about structure, and its different values to anarchists versus conservatives.
October 11th, 2009 on 5:02 pm
More on the issue of civilian casualties:
The goal, of course, is to inflict none. Unfortunately, that’s unrealistic. Especially when fighting an enemy that mixes with the locals, so that innocent civilans are turned into de facto shields.
From what I’ve read, GEN McChrystal has ordered Coalition troops in Afghanistan to NOT call in artillery/air support, but instead disengage, in some situations where noncombatants are caught in the crossfire. (That’s a broad description of the policy, which I admit I haven’t read in detail.) IIRC, the larger goal of this policy is to win more trust among the Afghans.
October 11th, 2009 on 9:47 pm
Osama bin Laden got just what he wanted. He gave Bush the excuse to attack Iraq and destroy the evil but secular Saddam Hussein. Then the US got bogged down in Iraq and spent one trillion dollars and thousands of American lives in Iraq – and we took our eye off Afghanistan. Pakistan is on the edge of falling into chaos and violence. Afghanistan is falling to a resurgent Taliban. Young muslim men around the world dream of fighting and dying for the cause promoted by bin Laden. All the while, bin Laden is sitting comfortably inPakistan and planning his next big attack on the US. He seems to be prepared to wait us out and hit each new president to see how he can disrupt America’s internal and international politics.
I’d say bin Laden accomplished his initial goals and more.
October 12th, 2009 on 6:21 pm
If you keep this up, I’ll tell Halliburton…
October 11th, 2009 on 10:16 pm
Don Smith is a sick, sick man. Anyone who would admire the work of a daisy cutter is non-human and utterly immoral.
Are you having a mental breakdown or something? I hope your medical insurance covers psychiatry because you need help. The VA is also there to help you – take advantage of their excellent care.
My condolences to your family.
October 12th, 2009 on 6:22 pm
Decaf, winnieo. Decaf.
October 27th, 2009 on 6:25 am
It’s good to see you are giving up the blog, Don. I think it’s bad for your mental health.
You think there are no Girl Scouts in other countries being killed and/or maimed by your friend the daisy cutter. Come back to reality – find your way somehow. You’ll make the world a better place.
October 27th, 2009 on 7:44 am
Say it isn’t so, Don. I can’t live on a steady diet of cotton candy.
November 1st, 2009 on 8:12 pm
Nice try
October 12th, 2009 on 6:38 pm
What is stunning about these pieces is the ignorance, the solipsism, the seemingly willfull nature of the obtuse.
Why, not even the latest neo-neo-con (yes, it’s come to that) piece seems to have been considered:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=688
October 12th, 2009 on 9:01 pm
the ignorance, the solipsism, the seemingly willfull nature of the obtuse.
Wow…I’ll have to go back and reread them! They spoke to you in a way that I missed. Thanks, Red!
October 14th, 2009 on 12:30 am
“flinching from the security challenges of a 21st century world”
Mr. Smith, how many nation members of the United Nations? And how many of them are flinching?
This is a multiple choice test; 1. Some 2. All 3. Sometimes All 4. Sometimes none 5. None of the Above 6. Only those who make money on the Arms race 7. only those who do not want to be attacked.
Are we suppose to just go this alone for ever? Where will the troops come from? The Boy Scouts?
I think it is the mothers of America who are “flinching” at the thought of their son and daughters 4th and 5th Tour.
And, as for being in disagreement with the Generals on the ground, surely those who are steeped in war profiteering by way of Defense Contracting, know how much affection we had for General Westmoreland. And one should never leave out the love affair Truman had for MacArthur.
If the General asks for more troops and elected officials turn them down then the Pentagon and D.O.D. are off the hook. This game has been played before. One big PR premeditated tactic to keep the American public feeling like they are engaged in “something,” while the CIA and State Department fight the real war… the one that can be won… the trust of Afghan people, which has never happened in 2300 years.
Last time I looked the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Jones, now our National Security Advisor, chosen by Obama, has a firm grasp on the needs of the Generals on the ground. Never in history have we had a former Commandant as the NSA. But then all the Joe six pack, non-book reading, radio talk show idolaters, will probably call him a Czar, because someone told them to. But one thing is for sure…. General Jones will not flinch! Decaf Don. Decaf.
October 14th, 2009 on 6:25 pm
This is a multiple choice test.
I pick option 8.
Mr. Smith, how many nation members of the United Nations? And how many of them are flinching?
Actually, I was thinking more of the NATO and EU nations who volunteered to take the lead in Afghanistan…and then chose not to fight it.
Are we suppose to just go this alone for ever? Where will the troops come from?
From those unflinching UN nations! Oh wait…
But one thing is for sure…. General Jones will not flinch! Decaf Don. Decaf.
I’m not concerned about him—I’m concerned about his boss, who I think might easily flinch.
Decaf Don. Decaf.
Valium, micmarine. Valium
October 15th, 2009 on 12:50 am
Sir Smith, your flippancy is akin to flinching in the face of intellectual honesty. So where will the troops come from? What is option 8? What was the reason we pulled out of Mogadishu? What role did the Pentagon serve in that decision? Where do you get your information and who are your sources?
When I read these Citizen posts I see you enjoy tossling with Leftfield and it is quite a treat to read both of your ripostes, yet I do noticed that when pinned for some hard core solutions or remedies your comments turn to flippancy and attack. Is this the way you want our children to govern our fine nation?
Presidents do not operate in a solitary closet, if General Jones suggests we hold the line, the chances are pretty high that Obama will follow suit. Please delineate here your concrete concerns about this President, and your equally concrete solutions to the worries that so worry you. In my Marine Corps career we learned to salute the rank, not the man. How were you taught? We also were not allowed to rant, if we did not have wisdom to add to the good of the order. What do you have to add to the good of the order, outside oppositional thinking?
October 15th, 2009 on 7:08 pm
Sir Smith, your flippancy is akin to flinching in the face of intellectual honesty.
It’s hard for me to take you seriously when you criticize my “flippancy,” but start off your sentence with “Sir Smith.” We all know the proper title is “Sir Donald”—didn’t they teach you that in the Marines?
So where will the troops come from? What is option 8? What was the reason we pulled out of Mogadishu? What role did the Pentagon serve in that decision? Where do you get your information and who are your sources?
Pick one, and I might answer it. Well, to be honest, probably not—but who knows? I could use a chuckle.
I do noticed that when pinned for some hard core solutions or remedies your comments turn to flippancy and attack.
I hereby place myself on record as advocating liberal applications of high explosive on Taliban and al Qaeda. Especially the ones running rape rooms, shooting women in soccer stadia and throwing acid on girls trying to go to school.
Please delineate here your concrete concerns about this President, and your equally concrete solutions to the worries that so worry you.
No, I have better things to do with my time. Next?
In my Marine Corps career we learned to salute the rank, not the man. How were you taught?
The Army taught me not to use it as a shield to hide behind when I stated my personal opinions in public.
We also were not allowed to rant, if we did not have wisdom to add to the good of the order.
Well, micmarine, you’ve certainly put your wisdom on display here.
What do you have to add to the good of the order, outside oppositional thinking?
I’m the one advocating the options we can actually execute. It’s President Obama that’s making it sound as if all is well with the world, now that he’s president. Yes, European nations may like us more, but they’re still military inept and inadequate. If you were a Taliban warlord, would you be intimidated by them? By President Obama?
October 16th, 2009 on 12:44 am
Man alive can you dance. For starters, Marines do not display wisdom we embody it.
I won a bet Sir Donald. We out here in Yuma figured you would not answer any concrete questions. So, you want us to pick one?.. Okee dokee then, I suppose it is less taxing that way.
Where are the troops needed going to found? Try to answer without so much toxic editorial.
October 16th, 2009 on 7:39 pm
“I’m the one advocating the options we can actually execute.”
And those are…?
November 2nd, 2009 on 5:50 am
And those are…?
I agree that TucsonCitizen.com could use a good, rousing discussion on what the way forward in Afghanistan should be. This particular blog article, however, is not the place for that. Given work committments, I don’t have the time necessary (right now) to write a proper blog entry on this subject.
However, that wasn’t the point of this blog article. THIS was the thesis statement of this article: Because America demonstrated its willingness to strike back after 9/11, anyone who threatens us now has been put on warning that we can and will strike back if provoked.