40 Years After Vietnam

The last US combat troops left Vietnam forty years ago on March 29, 1973. This was a result of a so-called “peace agreement” signed in Paris, but no peace occurred in South Vietnam. In fact, the ensuing year after the agreement was more deadly in South Vietnam than any year of the war.  That’s because the US wanted out of Vietnam, cared little about consequences, and declared “peace with honor” by signing an agreement everyone knew would not be honored by North Vietnam.

The US abandoned South Vietnam; much like it is abandoning Iraq and, eventually, will abandon Afghanistan (the “good” war). That is the lesson we learned from the Vietnam War. Declaring a politically incorrect war to be over is as good as a victory if it can be “sold” to the public as a win. That has now been expanded to simply declaring the economy to be fine, declaring the deficit to be no problem, declaring contraception to be a right, or declaring that the rich pay no taxes. Ideology trumps all.

One’s opinion of the Vietnam War is irrelevant to the issue of abandonment. A commitment was made to South Vietnam as part of the “peace agreement” to provide assistance if North Vietnam continued aggression, but a Democrat-controlled Congress refused that assistance when it quickly became needed. The US blatantly reneged on its commitment, abandoning South Vietnam to a total collapse and slaughter – because of ideology.

With war comes a responsibility, regardless of the reasons for the war. One should enter into war with clear goals and to win, or don’t enter into it at all. Allowing changing social mores, public opinion, or ideology to override responsibility or dictate rules of engagement is wrong. A “humane” war is an oxymoron and a losing strategy. War is hell, and hell should be entered only with good reason and traversed through as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Forty years after Vietnam, we have still not learned. Our enemies, on the other hand, learned well: Stick it out long enough and the US will tire and retreat. Where is the honor in that?

David J. Hentosh

Women in War – Or War on Women?

Pentagon Chief Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women in combat units. This move resembles a “war on women” (almost literally) more than anything the left has erroneously accused the GOP of doing. This is not surprising since the left always accuses others of sins they commit themselves.

This move will surely be considered a “win” by feminists claiming to want equality, but exactly who wins here? If the goal was to have equal gender representation in the body bags coming home from a war zone, it is highly doubtful that women burning their bras in the 60’s were aware of it. It is further doubtful that most young women today are eager to learn the art of combat or feel much empowered by having the equal opportunity to fight and die for their country in faraway lands.

As another domino falls in Obama’s “transformation” of America, we continue on the path to emulating other countries around the world rather than leading. The necessity for some countries to have women in combat units does not exist for us, but Obama’s personal ideology demands all be the same, just as feminists demand the sexes be the same.

Perhaps Obama will further emulate other countries by re-instituting the draft. Will he and feminists then rejoice in seeing young women plucked out of society and forced into military service? Will it be as liberating as the guilt feminists have caused in many women for wanting to be stay-at-home moms?

Feminists are increasing pressure on young women by demanding behaviors acceptable only to them. Obama is increasing pressure on society with policies chasing unrealistic personal goals. The excess of liberalism is “transforming” America into a nightmare rather than a dream. Is this really the direction America wishes to go?

David J. Hentosh

Ignoring D-Day

The anniversary of one of the most significant events in modern history was ignored by the far-left again and that is nothing less than an affirmation of distaste for the military and the country. There is nothing about the military, its function, or its history that the far-left is proud of unless, of course, it is somehow favorable for Obama. Thanks to Drudge for making this evident.

Google, a bastion of far-left ideology, chose to adorn its logo in remembrance of the anniversary of the first drive-in movie theater rather than pay homage to those who fought and died on D-Day saving the world from evil. It is so utterly disgraceful and insulting, but very consistent with Google’s past logo designs that often exhibit its ideology. Do not for a second think it is meant to be fun and light-hearted. It is a deliberate political statement.

Both Michelle and President Obama concentrated their efforts on fundraising, the only thing they are comfortable doing, rather than make any special statements or plans to commemorate D-Day. President Obama chose to ignore it the past two years, too, so his distaste for the military and the country’s past achievements should already be known to all. The liberal media, however, makes it their job to keep this under the radar.

We are living in a very strange era where displaying the flag of the United States or honoring the military’s past or present achievements is considered to be a conservative political statement and, therefore, is shunned by liberals. The partisan split has reached ignorant proportions that cannot have any positive impact for the future of this country. Obama’s administration didn’t start this trend, but it sure hasn’t done anything to stop it. In fact, the partisan split has become wider with Obama’s election and his deliberate class warfare tactic has been a huge wedge.

What can we do about this? We have until November to figure it out. After that, we will only have ourselves to blame.

David J. Hentosh

The Jewish Lobby Puppet

Able to leap buildings with a single bound, Obama impressed all, again, with his superior intelligence. During a meeting with Jewish community leaders, he assured them that all his friends in Chicago were Jewish and that in the beginning of his career, he was accused of being a puppet of the Israel lobby. As if that weren’t enough, he also told them that he knew more about Judaism than any other president because…he read about it. Obama’s attempt to out-Biden vice president Biden would be laughable if he were not serious – but he is.

Rest assured that his band of notable Jewish friends, such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Eric Whitaker, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and even Rod Blagojevich will back him up on his claims, but searching for his Bar Mitzvah certificate will not be as successful as was the search for his birth certificate.

It is embarrassing to watch an egomaniac ring his own bell, but when it is the president of the US it is frightening. Obama believes his own hype and many of his actions have been based on his belief that he knows best about everything. He has ignored professional military advice concerning Afghanistan and, having no military background, he personally selects targets for drones. Incredibly, his justification is that he is a student of Catholic just-war theory or, in other words, he read about it.

Obama is mishandling economic recovery, the budget, health care reform, diplomatic relations, financial reform, immigration reform, and now, even his own image because of his lack of experience. His well-read ego blinds him to it all and the sycophants surrounding him, and in the media, feed the farce. How do we know this? We read about it.

David J. Hentosh

Will Photos Be Obama’s Abu Ghraib? – Not Likely

The liberal mainstream media had a gleeful obsession with the Abu Ghraib incident, exemplified by the NY Times printing front-page stories about it for 32 days in a row. It was an international embarrassment for the United States, a stain on the military, a sinister depiction of our efforts in Iraq, and another way to blame Bush (and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) for…everything. What was there not to like for the far-left media?

Perhaps with nostalgia for those good old days, the LA Times recently published two-year-old pictures of soldiers posing with Afghan body parts. They did this against the expressed wishes of the Pentagon. Any reluctance to taint Obama’s ‘good’ war with negativity was overcome by a deep hatred of the military and the chance to snub the evil Pentagon. How could they resist?

Obama, sympathetic to leftist ideology, did not admonish the media over their Abu Ghraib excesses. Instead, he took advantage of the media frenzy with campaign promises to stop torture, close down Gitmo, and get our troops out of Iraq. Now, however, reality may have penetrated his idealistic bubble because the tune he’s singing is in a slightly different key.

Obama’s White House, related by spokesman Baghdad Bob Jay Carney, rebuked the media, saying it is “disappointed…[with] the decision to publish two years after the incident”. The White House (Obama) feared that the photos could put soldiers at risk, a consideration sneered at during the Abu Ghraib feeding frenzy.

Carney further related that “[The] conduct depicted in those photographs is reprehensible and does not in any way represent the high standards of the US military”. This, too, was not in keeping with the Abu Ghraib meme of an out-of-control, evil, military.

With liberal Obama in the White House, it is a safe bet that the NY Times will not break its front-page reporting record. The media can’t resist smearing the military and will force the story, but when the mud begins splattering Obama, they will back off. Elections are coming.

This is just so sadly predictable.

David J. Hentosh

Update:   Networks Dowplaying Photos

Is Diversity in the Military a Priority?

According to an independent report for Congress, the military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies. Or what? Will the military no longer be able to defend us? Will the military cease to exist? What, exactly, is the consequence if the military does not become more “diverse”?

One has to ask why this report was necessary. It was certainly not because our military can no longer fight or do its job – or because it is being defeated on the battlefield. The driving force behind this report is political correctness with its blind acceptance of diversity as an overriding priority in everything.

The military does not exist to mirror society. It exists to defend the country, with force when necessary. In order to do that, the military needs people willing to use extreme force and willing to die for their country. Does it matter what the race, creed, sex, or religion is of those willing to do so?

The report bemoans the fact that 77% of senior officers are white while only 8% are black and 5% are Hispanic. The 2009 census showed the population to be 65.1% non-Hispanic White, 12.9% Black, and 15.8% Hispanic or Latino. Since the military has leaned heavily on education requirements, high school dropout rates help explain some of the differences in those percentages.

In 2008, the high school dropout rates were: 4.8% among Whites, 9.9% among Blacks, and 18.3% among Hispanics. This is certainly a huge factor in the current composition of the military where recruits come mainly from the youth. The only “crisis” indicated by the report seems to be with education and it should have been delivered to the Department of Education rather than the military.

Racial discrimination within the military is a serious concern. Discriminating between those who do and don’t meet requirements is a serious necessity. Politically correct diversity brings quotas and an increase in unqualified personnel. The military needs to be exempt from the PC game. That is best left to politicians to waste their time on.

David J. Hentosh

Yes, the Far Left Hates the Military

At Columbia University, a wounded Iraq war veteran, Anthony Maschek, was booed and jeered for speaking out against that university’s 42-year ban of the ROTC on its campus. He was even called a “racist”, the left’s standard label for anyone not accepting their idealistic agenda. Mr. Maschek was subjected to the far left’s distortion of free speech by being shouted down.

In recent years, Columbia University used the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy as a reason to disallow the ROTC back on campus, but that is now revealed to have been a ruse. The military’s DADT policy has been overturned but the university will still not consider ending its ban of the ROTC.

Many other schools have been indoctrinating students with military hatred by vilifying the ROTC. Emory University, another school disallowing ROTC on campus, still refuses to give P.E. credits to students in ROTC programs off campus even though it gives P.E. credits for many other extracurricular activities. Stanford will give students one credit for an extracurricular yoga class, but will give nothing for ROTC classes taken at campuses that allow the ROTC.

For years, the far left tried to hide its hatred of the military. After despicable behavior towards soldiers during the Vietnam War turned the majority of America against them, the far left pretended they had seen the light. Their façade of respect for the military was most evident when John Kerry ran for president posing as a proud veteran, though his actions after returning from Vietnam clearly belied that claim. The country’s emotional reaction after the 9/11 attacks made it imperative for the far left to further hide their military hatred, but it is once again surfacing.

The freedoms we enjoy in the US are protected by our military and would not exist today if not for that protection. It is not surprising that military haters are also against many other values and traditions of this country. The military is at the very core of those values and traditions, so it is inevitable that far left hatred of the military would flow outward from that core.

In today’s world, being academically chic by hating the military is just dangerously ignorant. Unfortunately, the far left prides itself on that ignorance.

David J. Hentosh

Troop Frustration in Afghanistan

While the debate in the US rages over the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy of the military and the press continues to make (urge?) repealing that policy a major story, morale of troops in Afghanistan is waning. It is not because of DADT. It is because of other policies brought on by politics.

Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai’s corrupt government has forced the release or transfer of 500 captured Taliban fighters that were being held in a detention center in Parwan. These detainees were being held because they participated in the war as enemy combatants and were determined to be a continuing threat if released.

It is well known that many of those released will end up returning to the battlefield to continue fighting and killing. There are even more being released in smaller outposts before they even officially become detainees. American and NATO troops have witnessed this on many occasions and this latest mass release is very frustrating.

This is Obama’s war and it is being undermined by the very government we allowed to be installed in Afghanistan. That corrupt government is making our troops’ efforts worthless and putting them in more danger than necessary while we do nothing to stop it. Instead, the military issue that the Obama administration is concentrating on is the politically correct one of repealing DADT.

Perhaps it is because Obama understands very little about the military and, in fact, has been weaned on political ideology that holds the military in contempt. Perhaps it is because of his obsession with social issues and the “fundamental transformation” he promised. Whatever the reason, our troops deserve much more attention than they are getting and deserve to be higher on this administration’s priority list.

The press, too, should be much more concerned with this issue. It is a major story and it certainly should replace DADT as a headliner. Unfortunately, it won’t because it would also shed light on this administration’s mishandling of the war they told us was the “right” one.

David J. Hentosh

Love It or Leave It

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate Arms Committee that if a new policy is instituted that allows gays to serve openly, soldiers who don’t like that policy should leave the military. This is a politically correct “love it or leave it” attitude thrown in the face of military troops and it is for the benefit of a very small percentage of our population or our military.

According to surveys, 67% of Marines and 58% of Army soldiers in combat units are against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) and a study indicated that as many as 32% of Marines said they would leave the service earlier than planned if the policy was changed. That’s a lot of Marines lost due to a policy favoring such a small group and it indicates that many new recruits will also be lost because of repeal of DADT.

Defense is the most important function of our government and anything that hampers our military must be treated seriously and rationally. There are good arguments backed by empirical data that show repealing DADT would not have an appreciable negative impact on our military’s ability to do its job. However, a change such as this would undoubtedly have repercussions and if the surveys and studies mentioned are even half right, those repercussions could have disastrous effects.

The argument that this is an issue of human rights does not give it weight enough to interfere with our military’s ability or our country’s ability to staff a military. Those issues are more important and cannot be overrun with a hasty decision forced by politically correct pressure. Change, even an inevitable change such as this may seem, must come slowly and only after we have a full understanding and plan for the consequences. There are indications that we are not yet at that point.

Perhaps it is Admiral Mike Mullen who should “love it or leave it” and let those military leaders not yet sullied by politics make decisions such as these. Our troops face enough danger. They do not need the additional danger of a politically correct agenda threatening them.

David J. Hentosh

Judge: Military’s Gay Ban is Unconstitutional

Federal judge legislating from the bench; using the military as a social experiment.  Another reason federal judges should be elected with term limits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39089475/ns/us_news-life