Irresolute

Over the course of the past five years, the Democrats who run the New Jersey Assembly found scant time to address true property tax reform, ethics reform, etc., otherwise known as the issues the people elect us to address. But, today, they found the time to allow themselves to pontificate on a resolution dealing with a matter truly within the scope of the body’s expertise: foreign policy and, especially, military policy.

Neither the sponsor of this proposal – Reed Gusciora – nor any other Democrat in the Assembly gives any particular indication of expertise in military tactics or history. None of them professed to have been privy to the rationale for the proposed uptick in troop numbers, nor did they suggest any particular expertise in either the tactical or strategic goals this counterinsurgency strategy is designed to effect. And not one of them offered an alternative strategy which would secure victory.

The Republicans considered engaging the Dems, but decided against it, treating the resolution as the joke it was. Put another way, it simply wasn’t worth wasting time debating military tactics with folks who possess not the vaguest clue respecting same. Not that I didn’t want to. Although no expert myself, it would have been entertaining to question the sponsor on his take on military tactics and strategy generally. I thought about asking him to explain his disagreement with the asserted rationale for the present tactics and his proposed alternatives for securing victory– no doubt based upon his years of study. I’m certain his answers would have been educational.

In the movie, Patton, the opening scene contains a montage of actual quotes from the General. Among them is the following line:

"... the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war."

Of course, old George didn’t live long enough to confront the children of the men he commanded -- the so-called Peace Movement, and the rampant anti-Americanism often displayed therein. Some of these folks actively rooted for our enemies. Remember the chants, "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh is gonna win"?

Americans paid a huge price for victory in Germany, in France, in Japan, in Italy, in Korea, and the fruits of that victory can be seen on the streets of Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Rome, and Seoul, crowded with prosperous, free people. Just as clearly, the consequences of the failure can be seen in the Gulag of P’yongyang: a nuclear-armed lunatic presiding over a nation of miserable slaves.

And the consequences of the perfidy of the American Left in Viet Nam are also clear. When our former allies needed us most, the Democrats cut and ran, cutting off all funds to help. Millions of Cambodians paid with their lives for that betrayal, as did tens of thousands of Vietnamese. Hundreds of thousands took to the sea in small boats, sometimes mere rafts, risking shark infested waters, preferring some slim hope of freedom to the inevitability of death and slavery; uncounted tens of thousands died.

Those are the wages of defeat. We must never, NEVER permit that to happen again.

The lesson the Left took away from Vietnam is that it’s wrong to fight. The lesson they should have learned is that its disastrous to lose. Once this nation commits itself to battle, as we have in Iraq, whether one agrees with the motivations or not, the time for debate ENDS, just as it ended in Kosovo and Bosnia, under a Democratic President. When American troops are in harm’s way, the duplicity of condemning their actions while praising them personally cannot withstand even cursory examination.

Some folks – almost all of them without a day’s worth of military training and never having spent a minute studying military tactics – say that we cannot win in Iraq. Hogwash. John Kennedy said it best:

"I hear it said that West Berlin is militarily untenable - and so was Bastogne, and so, in fact, was Stalingrad. Any danger spot is tenable if men - brave men - will make it so."

Indeed, where is the Democrat today who can, with a straight face and true passion, quote John Kennedy’s most famous lines?

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

America has not fought a war for its own freedom since 1865; every war America fought in this century has been in defense of others’ freedoms. During World War II, we fought for the freedom of England, France, China – and, not incidentally, for that of Germany, Japan, and Italy. We fought in Korea, in Vietnam, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Panama, in Grenada, and elsewhere around the globe for the freedom of others. We did it not because American national security was at stake, but because human freedom was at stake. And real Americans have always believed that freedom, here and abroad, is worth fighting for.

If the "peace" Party – then, the Democrats – had had its way in 1864, we’d be two nations today. If the "isolationists" – Republicans – had their way in 1940, every European would, by now, be speaking German. Or Russian. The "peace" party got its way in 1974; millions of innocents paid with their lives, and tens of millions with their freedom. Because the opposite of war is not alwasy peace. Often, it’s slavery. Or worse.

America – supported by those notable conservative Republicans Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, among others – went to war in Iraq to free an oppressed people from the oppression of a murderous tyrant and his demon spawn sons. That decision, right or wrong, was made. Americans soldiers were committed to battle. That commitment having been made, there is but one acceptable outcome: victory. Total, complete, absolute unequivocal victory.

This resolution not only insinuates the Assembly into military policy – about which, self evidently, it possesses not the slightest expertise – but it says not one word about how the sponsors believe we should act to secure victory. It can only be seen, by our nervous friends and jubilant foes, as advocacy for defeat. If we fail in Iraq, the consequences will resound around the world for decades to come. The enemy we face, having tested our resolve and proven us unstalwart, will be emboldened, here and around the world. We cannot appease this foe; as one wag noted, if appeasement were possible, the French would have found a way. It must be resoundingly defeated.

Disagreement over tactics is always acceptable, provided that the advocate of change presents a viable alternative designed to achieve victory. Surrender is simply not an option. Whether one supported going to war in the first instance or not, our involvement is a fait accompli, and, now, the only legitimate question presented is: how do we win?

If the sponsors of this proposal have any suggestions about how to achieve victory, they’ve kept those suggestions closely guarded secrets. And they’ve presented a resolution to a forum without the slightest ability to affect policy. They won’t let us debate true ethics reform or true property tax reform, but they have us discussing an issue about which we can do precisely nothing.

To quote John Kennedy once again – at least there is one true Kennedy Democrat in New Jersey:

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."

Kennedy understood the issues presented in war. He said:

"The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

Alas, such is the only path the sponsors will consider: that which sends us scurrying home, our tail between our legs, brought low by murderous cut throats who cannot hope to defeat us militarily, but understand our politics all too well. They're counting on the Democrats lack of resolve, an anticipation the Dems can hardly wait to fulfill.

Surrender and defeat are not options. Whether one supported the initial effort or not, we ARE engaged, and the only acceptable outcome is the utter defeat of those who consider bombing cafes and slaughtering civilians an acceptable tactic.

If we don’t defeat it in the streets of Baghdad, we shall have to confront it, yet again, in the streets of New York.

Finally, one last thought from General Patton respecting the sacrifices made by our troops in defending freedom:

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."

So, the Dems got their moment to fulminate, further politicizing something which should not be political. They offer no plan, save surrender and retreat. Kennedy would be ashamed of the party he once called home. And Patton’s comments would be unprintable.