Articles

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Winning the War

The last President to have taken part in actual combat left office nearly twenty years ago. It's a little-remarked milestone buried amid a great deal of posturing by leaders who want to talk the talk without having walked the walk. Since then, we have gone from a draft dodger to a man who never had to bother dodging, a commentary on a generational shift from a period when military service was not alien to the Yale and Harvard campuses. Meanwhile, the country remains in a conflict without end.

Obama will complete his pullouts on a campaign schedule, but that will not end the war. You cannot end a war that you did not begin. The sustained conflict we are in did not begin when we entered Afghanistan or Iraq, it will not end just because we leave.

The Afghanistan victory lap is as much about disguising the 'cut and run' phase; as it is about reminding the folks in Virginia and Iowa that the man on television parachuted in, cut the throats of all of Osama's guards, shot him in the face and then made a topical quip. Waving around Bin Laden's head is a good way to distract them from the fact that the United States has lost the war in Afghanistan, that Obama's own strategy there failed badly and cost numerous American and British lives, and that we are turning the country over to the Taliban.

Afghanistan and Iraq were part of a strategy for containing and draining the fever swamps of terrorism. That strategy failed for a variety of reasons, not the least of them being that we failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam. The Obama Administration alone managed to roll out a "hearts and minds" strategy and a brief push to intimidate the other side into coming to the negotiating table for a face-saving withdrawal. It's almost a pity that Obama wasn't old enough to have to dodged the draft. At least that way he might have actually known something about the Vietnam War.

Instead we have come away with thousands of casualties, living and dead, often left with poor medical care, at rates that this administration is determined to hike up. We have generals who don't know how to win wars but know how to behave in mosques and female cadets from West Point are being dressed up in hijabs and taken to Jersey City so that they might learn how to relate to Muslim culture. And most of all the war isn't over.

The enemy was never a few peasants in Afghanistan, beating their wives, growing their drug cash crops and murdering their daughters over a slight. They are bastards and they generally hate us, to the extent that they are aware of us, much as they hate their neighbors from a different ethnic group. But, left to their own devices, they would only be a threat to their own female relations. They are our enemies, but they are not the enemy.

Bin Laden didn't come out of Afghanistan. He came out of Saudi Arabia, and he found refuge in Pakistan. And those are two countries that we would never think to touch, because the former owns us, and the latter has sizable numbers and nuclear weapons. Instead we went after the low hanging fruit, the Taliban with their burkas and hatred of women, and a vicious tyrant stewing in his isolation. Both of them needed putting down, but doing so brought us no closer to winning the war.

Rather than dealing with the sources of terror, we focused our attention on stabilizing zones of instability on the theory that it was easier to bring order to those zones than to go directly to the source of the problem. And we were wrong. Policing Iraq and Afghanistan proved to be very expensive and put us to the task of trying to hold together broken societies. There is a reason that unstable places are unstable. There is also a reason why Saddam and the Taliban were in power.

The real lesson of Korea and Vietnam was that getting stuck fighting a proxy war was a losing proposition. Both wars were expensive, bloody and damaging to morale. The Soviet Union did not have to bleed much to inflict a great deal of damage on us. That was a lesson that we taught it in Afghanistan, but that just put us into another proxy war, except this time we were the ones giving away the weapons to the enemy of our enemy.

The dead and wounded of those wars were fallout from a guiding strategy that believed that war with the Soviet Union was unthinkable and saw the conflict in terms of stabilizing potential trouble spots before the Communists could take them over and making common cause with anyone on the ground to keep them out.

That first clause got us into Vietnam, the second clause got us into Afghanistan. Now the second clause has gotten us to back the "moderate" Taliban and the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood and every other monstrous nightmare that we can append the word "moderate" to. And if we go on this way, our only real hope is that Islam, like Communism, self-destructs before we can self-destruct.

For now we are self-destructing. The elementary purpose of war is to destroy the other side's ability and will to make war upon you. Destroying our ability to make war is still beyond them, but they have done a fine job of destroying our will, aided and abetted by their paid public relations firms, by the ACLU, the New York Times, the Democratic Party and yes, the Republican Party.

Past the initial devastation that we visited on the Taliban and the Republican Guard, nothing that we did in those places was going to destroy the other side's ability and will to make war on us. Not that the notion was ever on the table since we had never defined the other side, except loosely in terms of "extremists" who misunderstand their religion and think that it tells them to make war on us, when it actually tells them to give us a big hug and buy us flowers for Infidel's Day.

But if we are going to think about how to win the war, rather than just grit our teeth and submit to another round of bombings and TSA inspections, while the domestic Muslim population continues to grow and grow, then we are going to have to think in terms of destroying their ability and will to make war on us. And that's not as tall an order as it seems.

We don't need to win their hearts and minds, and unless we clone Mohammed and put him through an intensive course in loving America, we don't have a shot at doing that. Islam is a religion which believes that order and justice come about when Muslims dominate non-Muslims. That's not a misunderstanding, it's their religion. It's also not our problem so long as we keep that religion and its attempts to impose their order and justice as far away from us as possible.

Forget convincing them that they shouldn't want to kill us, that's not our job. Our job is to convince them that trying is futile. That the consequences of trying to do it will hurt them more than it hurts us. In our own clumsy fumbling way we have unintentionally made some progress in that direction. Muslims now understand that a large scale terrorist attack may result in an invasion followed by years of reconstruction in which the infidels will have power over them while militias roam the hills and streets fighting it out with the infidels and making life unlivable.

Iraq and Afghanistan may be lost, but they are still object lessons. The militias will claim victory, but few Muslims want the same mess to happen to their own country. Al-Qaeda is unpopular because together with us it made a big mess and made life unlivable. Rather than bringing Islamic justice and order, it ushered in a state of chaos and violence. The opposite of the stability that Islam is supposed to bring. Al-Qaeda has more range than ever, but its depth is an inch thick.

The message that we sent is that attacking us is going to be inconvenient for them, when the message that we should have sent was that it was futile. That was the message we could have sent if all they had seen of us were smoke plumes and sudden death. Instead of allowing them to see soldiers traipsing around, choppers evacuating our wounded and realizing that we bleed just as easily as they do.

And even that is largely beside the point. Military resources have to be employed where they will do the most good. Where they will win the war. And that means going after the heart, rather than a finger. It means fighting the enemy, rather than the enemy's pawns and indirectly funded militias.

If we are going to destroy the ability and will of the enemy, then we have to do go the source of the money and ideas, and for that matter much of the manpower, in this conflict. It would mean looking at how the money we have poured into the Gulf has allowed the tribal monarchies to buy up power here and to spread their influence and fund Islamic militancy around the world. And then we would have to do something about it.

There are plenty more Bin Ladens out there. To defeat them, we have to deal with the financial and ideological infrastructure that fuels the Jihad, which runs out of the desert across the region, and then to Asia, Africa and even America. Taking on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates; would be a genuinely gutsy call, not because they're militarily formidable, but because it would force us to break out of the box that we've been living in. The box that says there are no large scale conflicts, only police actions that keep the peace and prevent the enemy from spreading too far.

War with the Soviet Union was ruled out because it was too big and had nuclear weapons. War at the heart of the Muslim world is ruled out because there are just too many Muslims and besides those countries are our allies, our best hope of defeating... well them. And so the war remains unwinnable because it remains unthinkable.

It's much easier to drop bombs on some tribesmen in Yemen or Afghanistan than paying a call to the  Saudi King, It's much easier to send soldiers out to win hearts and minds in some hopeless part of the world, than to bring the war home to glittering cities closely interlinked with Western business interests like Riyadh, Doha and Dubai. It's easy to put down a lunatic like Gaddafi or an old fashioned Arabist tyrant like Saddam or Assad, but who would contemplate doing the same thing to the House of Saud or the Al-Thanis?

We can cut off the head of the snake or we can shake a stick at it, or learning to wear heavy boots. So far we've shaken our sticks loudly and impotently and we wear heavy boots and take them off at the airport. That's the game we're playing and it's a loser's game.

To defeat the enemy, we have to defeat the enemy. And that means destroying his wealth, his backers, his intellectual leaders and the energy source that provides the momentum for the conflict. The Muslim world is not a single indivisible whole, but there are men with great wealth and power, operating out of the historical stomping grounds of Mohammed, who are trying to make it one. They are the enemy and if we do not destroy them, they may destroy us.





28 comments:

Anonymous said...

They don't really need bombs, they will overtake us with their birth rate and unfettered immigration to the West, which includes the draining of public funds through social services. Israel has built a fence along at least, some of its' borders, and there have been demonstrations against illegal immigration in Tel Aviv.
I have read that even parts of Europe are waking up to this. Even Cameron is talking about 'limiting' immigration.
There is more than one way to win a war, immediate deportation to their home countries, would be a start.
The same could be said for our own country. The moment a Congress critter breathes the word 'amnesty', he or she must be met with a deluge of letters and calls.
sophie

Anonymous said...

Agree with most of this Daniel except one thing:

I think Islam is a symptom. The main enemy is the left, they're the ones who've enabled Islam to flourish in the West. It's the marxists and do-good liberals who are destroying our nations from within.

Proud Brit.

Anonymous said...

"The last President to have taken part in actual combat left office nearly twenty years ago."

Actually, George H.W. Bush left office more than 21 years ago (in January 1993), not "nearly twenty years ago."

Anonymous said...

Very well said. The U.S. since the Bush days has failed miserably to acknowledge the name and the identity of the enemy. "War on terror" is the euphemism used to avoid calling both islam and the Saudis the enemies, just as "the Germans" were the enemy in the 1940's and not an obscure "war against tyranny" nonsense.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Mr. Greenfield is married with any children, and if he has ever served in the military.

Anonymous said...

"And so the war remains unwinnable because it remains unthinkable." Wrongo.

The house of Islam was a backwater, sick and broke, who's heyday had passed in the 1500s. What has fueled the march of Islam isan't an attractive ideology, birth rates, invention etc. What fueled it was oil money. You want to break Islam? Break the house of Saud. You want to break the house of Saud? Stop buying their oil. No one would put up with their crap if they didn't have oil, and they literally have nothing else to make, export, or sell that anyone wants. Stop buying their oil and break them. How do you stop buying their oil? Do everything you can to curb demand. Lower demand will reduce prices. The Saudis need oil above $20 to pay the extraction price. But they really need oil above $80 to fund thier lavish goverment. Drop the price to $50 and they are finished in three years. You think they will continue to fund the Taliban when there are bread riots in Mecca? Can we drop the price of oil that much? Sure - export the technology for fraking around the world, electrify transportation, and build nuclear power plants. But the way, the same formula works for Russia as well.


James Taber said...

"[T]hey may destroy us." No, they will destroy us. And I agree with the Proud Brit: Islam simply provides the foot-soldiers for the progressive-globalists to destroy western national identity. Of course, once the P-G's let that particular Genie out of the bottle, good luck getting it back in.

The Ray Esquivel said...

Typical politicians treating the symptom but ignoring the disease because it is convenient, and profitable. The one's paying the price were our military ... America's young men and women. And for that these politicians are traitors because they want power and money and they sold America down the river for their own interests under the guise of America's best interests.

All for cheap energy. As if the economy could not find a new equilibrium without the middle east. Let them drown in their oil and their hate. We can and should develop our own energy sources. But not the "green" crap being pushed by charlatans.

That is how you kill the enemy. You drive a stake through the heart of the beast. Do not feed it. Put the country on a national war footing and declare an energy program that like the Space Program will make us energy independent in ten years. It can be done if only for the will to make it happen. But alas, they are Barry's friends (fellow Muslims) and too many in D.C. consider them friends as well.

Jimmy J. said...

Just so!

Without money and reinforcements the trigger pullers/bomb throwers cannot do much. We have interdicted their banking to some extent, but they can always use their couriers and halawa. It appears that one way to affect their finances is to lower the cost of petroleum. All out drilling and production of our resources might do that. Go all out to break up OPEC.

Another approach is to name the enemy and tell them our liberal democracy is incompatible with fundamentalist Islam. Stop allowing Muslim immigration.

Call out the radical imams who are preaching violent jihad on the Internet and in mosques. Shame them and mock them for being "false" imams (preaching false Islam) and for not participating in martyrdom operations themselves. If necessary, carry out some black ops where some radical imams mysteriously disappear. They have been openly preaching jihad in our midst. Let them understand that their are consequences for that.

Quit cooperating with the oil sheikdoms. Let them know we are on to their game. No more weapons from us. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Edward Cline said...

"To defeat the enemy, we have to defeat the enemy. And that means destroying his wealth, his backers, his intellectual leaders and the energy source that provides the momentum for the conflict." This means, ultimately, taking out Saudi Arabia, Qatar and any other tribal fiefdom on the Gulf, and Iran. Playing diplomatic footsie with these regimes will not and will not ever accomplish anything. It means a painful correction of the errors made by the post-WWI European "nation-makers"in the Mideast. It means sending in Special Forces or the like to neutralize Pakistan's nuclear capabilities, or multiple drone strikes. It means befriending the allies we've alienated. It means having the vision and the will to pursue a goal of getting these parasites off our backs, permanently. It means telling all the invading Muslims in this country that if they want an Islamic caliphate, they can go back to where one already exists.

Mohammed Suqsdiq said...

Islam in the West is a rabble. It is not a military force, lacks cohesion, lacks sane aims and lacks numbers. They'd be finished in a week if there was a real need for that to happen.

The Ray Esquivel said...

To Anonymous: Why don't you make a point and not some half-hearted innuendo about Mr. Greenfield? Coward!

Edward Cline said...

For those concerned about the fate of the Western civilization (and, believe me, its enemies are sparing no tactic to destroy it, else why the onslaught by Islam and its internal enemies, such as the traitor in the White House, in Congress, and amongst our billionaire leftists), and how to preserve it, I highly recommend the late classicist and historian John David Lewis's "Nothing Less Than Victory : Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History," which details why nations have won and lost wars, especially wars of aggression and defense, beginning with the Greco-Persian Wars and ending with America's Victory over Japan in WWII. The first chapter has a telling title: "Victory and the Moral Will to Fight." Western nations in the 20th and 21st centuries have displayed no willingness to defend themselves against the violent Islamic jihad and invasion by immigration to those nations of hordes of manqués who subscribe to a totalitarian ideology, an invasion by invitation by Western governments. indeed, these same nations have been emasculated and poisoned by the moral and cultural relativism of Progressivism and Socialism and the hatred of their own countries by leaders such as the recent prime ministers of the UK and the US's Barack Obama.

Anonymous said...

The problem is the Muslim world lives in the evolutionary world where fighting to the death for their survival and way of life will be done but Western civilization lives in the evolutionary world where survival isn't that important. In fact, it is so odd that westerner's are actually working towards ensuring their own extinction without the help of Islam, because all species generally do what is necessary to survive in all evolutionary periods, that the real question is how did we westerners evolve into a part of the human species that actually desires to become extinct?

We contracept and abort millions of future generations with abandon, kill ourselves with the blessing of the state, use what little liberty remains to damage or destroy our bodies, hearts, minds and familes while we have constructed a society with institutions that serve only greed and perversion of what is true and helpful to ensure our very survival. We have abandoned all sense of reality because we can no longer face or solve the complex problems we have created ourselves through discarding, denying, and eradicating all of the reality of human history as though we have a future if we simply forget and ignore it.

It really comes down to this. We won't survive if we aren't willing to fight for our survival which means an end to living in fantasy rather than reality and with as much commitment and passion as the Islamists have in their quest to dominate the world.

Elaine

Moishe3rd said...

The House of Saud is not going to be overthrown by the US.
They have run diplomatic rings around "the West" since Ibn Saud retook Riyadh in 1902. They have successfully bribed; cajoled; haggled; conquered; and killed all of their erstwhile opponents from England to the US to the Hashemites to the entire Arab/ Muslim world.
President Reagan, may his memory be a blessing, firmly entrenched their oil power in his successful efforts to destroy the former Soviet Union.
The House of Saud will most likely be overthrown by their own current bastard offspring of their own Wahhabist Death cult which has replaced normative Sunni Islam.

When you write "Islam is a religion which believes that order and justice come about when Muslims dominate non-Muslims," you are referring to the "old Islam" of the last 1400 years.
As Sunni Islam has been superseded by the Wahhabist Death cult heresy and Shia Islam in Iran has been taken over by the heretic Vilayat al Fiqh death cult, the call to arms is no longer against "the Far Enemy;" the "House of War;" the "West;" or even Israel. The unrighteous Jihad; the hirābah, is against Arabs and Muslims who refuse to follow the local despotic offshoot of these death cults which are attempting to establish their Final Imaginary Salafist Caliphate.
The orgy of death that is engulfing the Arab/Muslim world is simply an intensifying of the over 100 year old Great Arab/Muslim Sectarian Civil War.
Arabs and Muslims have been slaughtering Arabs and Muslims by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions for the last 100 years. The rest of the world - "the West;" Israel; etc. - is just a pimple on the butt of this great self immolation.
If a tribe or sect or faction "hurts" the "Far Enemy," they gain "street cred" and new followers to murder and destroy the "Near Enemy," their fellow Arabs and Muslims.

It should be self evident that "destroying their wealth and power" is a fool's game.
The leaders with "wealth and power" of much of the Arab world have indeed been destroyed and the resultant chaos has allowed every tinpot faction to rain destruction upon their particular dominion in their efforts to establish their own power.
From Tunis to Afghanistan, the Arab/ Muslim world is engaged in a rampage of religious and secular suicide. The death of Syria has just spread into Iraq where that particular "government" will likely disintegrate within the month.

The "winners" of this orgy of death will be those that can terrorize and kill the most Muslims and Arabs, not your "wealthy and powerful" leaders.
These crazies will, indeed, once more turn on the Far Enemy in order to bolster their demented followers with their power and we will once more be subjected to massive terror attacks by the amorphous Terrorists of Unspecified Beliefs and Goals.
If left unchecked, portions of planet Earth will be left uninhabitable and billions will die.

RobertW said...

Unfortunately, now that the outside "war on terror" has ended, the new war on terror against the American people will begin, with anyone questioning anything about the government being labelled a potential terrorist.

DenisO said...

With all respects to Daniel and others who state the obvious, that you can't win a war you won't fight, the most important factor is the WILL to fight. It is common for people to forget the last war, and wars are usually a generation or more apart, for that reason. People have no belly for limited wars, but they will honor and support a war of defense.

I was very young during WWII, but I saw the determination and sacrifice of Americans, once the U.S. was in the war. They would not have voted for the war, and most people will never vote for war, unless they can be promised a reward for it. Religion still has power over people, but in fewer and fewer parts of the World. It will not work for war in the West, and eventually, it will stop working in the Middle East, as Daniel predicts. I agree with him that we can't afford to wait for Countries with such powerful and intimidating religious customs and leaders to become rational.

I have suggested here, that intimate touching of the Mullahs who preach hate and jihad, might discourage them. It would, indeed, require a "black op" that politicians would need plausible deniability to endorse. There are some courageous enough, that could be recruited, and the American people (not the NYTimes) would only object if they were parked too close to the Mosques.
Once violence was used against the preachers of violence, a case could be made to the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who fear the Mulah's power over the people, that the U.S. is getting tired of Islam's bellicosity and will end it violently, at its source. A word to the wise, following one or two citizen "terrorist" acts against the "religion of peace" should be enough for the Saudi princes and the other tyrants of the Middle East to read their own tea leaves. They would love to kill-off their "priests" just like Henry VIII and others, in the old West of Europe.
Give them a way to do it, and they will lustily join in the carnage against their real enemies.
Regards,

Soothsayer said...

The only way to tackle Islam is to isolate it completely. To send back to Muslim countries any immigrant that will not renounce Islam and then deny any Muslim access to our territory. This is the only way that we can protect ourselves from terrorism. It is up to Muslim countries themselves to evolve and develope humanitarian values. As long as Islam exists its followers will continue to wage holy war.

kevin bjornson said...

Their oil exports can easily be stopped, but not by the US beating them in the marketplace through conservation and increased domestic production. Oil is fungible and there is no way we can create a worldwide boycott--except through military actions.

Very simply, first a few missiles could take out the oil export facilities of Iran. That will topple their government before the damage could be repaired (if necessary we could strike more than once). This would also end their subsidies to terrorism and their nuclear program.

This would lead to a spike in oil prices, but not enough to collapse the world economy if we remove regulatory obstacles to domestic production. Once we have increased domestic production sufficiently, go after Saudi Arabia and it's oil export facilities. And so on.

Edward Cline said...

Before you give up on the U.S., and before it's possibly banned or delisted by Amazon Book on a complaint from CAIR or even Obama,, read Edward Cline's detective novel, "The Black Stone," set in San Francisco in February 1930, to see how early the Muslim Brotherhood (with the connivance of the Sauds and even Standard Oil and Shell Oil) was active in this country. To see how early the Nazis and the Soviets were active in this country, read "The Chameleon" and "A Crimson Overture," by the same author in the same series.

RAM said...

If so many of our leaders in both parties were not stooges of the Saudis, we'd have become more energy independent long ago, allowing us to do something about the radical Muslims that the Saudis et al. fund (and often are).

Anonymous said...

The Ray Esquivel:

Read this disgraceful column and see if you can figure out what my point was,

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/08/draft-dodging-traitor-pat-buchanan.html

Mr. Greenfield fell a long way in my eyes when I read that childish article, he should be ashamed of himself.

Anonymous said...

This is the exact and only answer. It could be accomplished easily,bit too many politicians are owned outright by the House of Saud, including the Bushes and Obama both. You don't really think President Separate Planes cares about the environment when he blocks fracking and the Keystone pipeline, do you?

The Ray Esquivel said...

Ok Anonymous. I read the referenced article that planted a burr under your saddle. So what? Who the f**k is Pat Robertson? Does he work in the State Dept? Sounds like he could. To me he is irrelevant and you still don't explain why you take offense at the article. Why is it so personal to you? Why do you care?

As for defending John McCain, all I can say is while respecting his service in Vietnam and what he endured as a POW, he is an asshat of a politician and I call him a RINO. He is just like Lindsey Graham and Olympia Snow and John Boehner among others. I can only hope that the defeat of Eric Cantor will be the beginning of something widespread throughout the political establishment. Most of our leaders need to be thrown out on their asses if not in jail.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Buchanan was a pundit/politician/failed presidential candidate.

These days he's barely a pundit. He's right about some things, but he's also a repugnant character who began whoring himself out full time during the Bush years and made common cause with the left. Which is why it took so long for MSNBC to dump him.

My post was on the angry side, this blog was a lot more casual and lot less structured six years ago, and my defense of McCain may have been too strong. I don't like most of the things he stands for and after losing a presidential election, and realizing he can never have a shot at higher office again, he is letting more of his true colors show.

But I respect his service and what he went through. And I found Buchanan's attack despicable for the reasons already stated in that post.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

And BTW, before we start getting the Pat Buchanan is a real conservative routine, here's a little flashback of Pat gushing over Obama to Rachel Maddow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiMmNZJkEm0

"It was a genuinely outstanding speech. It was magnificent. It is the finest … I saw Cuomo’s speech. I saw Kennedy in ’80. I even saw Douglas MacArthur. I even saw Martin Luther King. This is the greatest convention speech. Probably the most important because unlike Cuomo and the others, this is an acceptance speech. This came out of the heart of American and he went right at the heart of America. This wasn’t a liberal speech at all. This is a deeply, deeply centrist speech."

...

"Let me read you the passage, though, because this man is a professional orator and he’s a writer of his own speeches. But let me read it because here’s where you get into the roll and the cadence and how a speaker can really pound a point home. He says:

“I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together and bled together and they have died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America — they have served the United States of America.”

"That is how you bring people off their feet, by pulling at their heart and spleen and guts. It was beautiful."

...anyone who still thinks Buchanan is a conservative after that is being fooled

The Ray Esquivel said...

Daniel, first let me apologize for having to dialogue with "Anonymous" via your blog. Second, I don't know why I mentioned Pat Robertson when the person in your article was Pat Buchanan. Makes no difference as I see both fringe players in any regard.

The best phrase I have read lately that sums up how people like McCain and others keep getting re-elected is "unenlightened self-interest." Others might call it "all politics is local." But in the aggregate when all the local scoundrels are sinking the country one piece at a time, so what if each little community gets "their" share. In the end, everyone loses because no one thinks of or cares for the big picture ... the future. No one is willing to invest blood, sweat and tears to build a better tomorrow. They only want to pass laws and control others. They are both lazy and stupid.

So like Obama being a clean slate upon which each can paint their own canvass, our country will eventually start over after much turmoil and bloodshed to clean the canvass of totalitarianism and repaint it with freedom only so it can be wiped out, again. Rinse, repeat. History repeats itself and no matter how smart people think they are or how advanced they think their civilization is, it is only rose colored glasses they are looking through thinking they are the better of their forefathers.

Anonymous said...

If you had complete control over the US government what policy or policies would you implement/repeal concerning the middle?

Post a Comment