Posts Tagged ‘war’

Denial Of War

November 16, 2015

After the terrorist attacks in Paris, France’s Le Parisien daily decared: “This Time It’s War”. What, then, do we call all the other times terrorists attacked if not war? We have “progressed” so far that we no longer recognize war when it is right in our face.

War means killing your enemy before they kill you and doing it as quickly and efficiently as possible until they surrender. War is horrifically bloody, vicious, and often indiscriminate. War causes mass destruction and casualties that bring out the worst in human nature and offend all human sensibilities. Reluctance to wage war is wise and prudent. Refusal to do so when necessary is suicide.

There is no such thing as a humane war. That is an oxymoron impossible to achieve. The “war on women”, the “war on drugs”, and the “war on Christmas” are foolish hyperboles that have desensitized society to the true meaning of war. The bullshit of political correctness blinds us to reality and we have become paralyzed by it.

ISIS understands war, has declared war, and is waging war successfully. We have been told in no uncertain terms by ISIS that they are coming here to kill us. They are currently infiltrating Europe through its open borders, some masquerading as refugees. ISIS has not been “contained” and they are not on the run. They are on the attack and Paris is just the beginning.

Our “leaders” have been in denial for years, refusing to even acknowledge radical Islam as a threat. This denial has given Iran time and permission to develop nuclear weapons, allowed ISIS to grow into an active invading force, and kept our border open for invasion. Europe’s denial resulted in bringing the Middle East rampage of ISIS to Paris. That carnage was brought about by only a handful of extremists rehearsing tactics that they are going to bring here on a larger scale.

Climate change (aka global warming) is not the biggest threat we currently face. That, too, is denial. We are at war whether we like it or not and our first step is to kill denial before it kills us. We’ve been losing that battle, too.

David J. Hentosh

Containment Folly

November 15, 2015

From NRO:

On the very day that President Obama declared ISIS to be “contained,” it reached hundreds of miles outside the borders of its so-called caliphate and struck the heart of Paris…This is what happens when terrorists are given safe havens, when they have time and space to recruit and train new fighters, and when they have time and funds to organize attacks…The idea that ISIS could be “contained” was folly from the beginning…A serious war requires a serious strategy, one not hamstrung by absurd rules of engagement that grant enemy fighters known safe haven, nor can it be bound by silly notions that President Obama has “ended” a war that is still burning hot…jihadists are still eager to fight, and wars do not end when one side grows tired of battle…French president François Hollande has vowed to wage “pitiless” war against ISIS. We must demonstrate the same resolve…

Read it all here: A Serious War

DJH

No Dignity In Jihad

March 17, 2015

ISIS fighters are dressing as women in attempts to escape the battlefield and the Iraqi army. The humiliation for these terrorists who regard women to be beneath them must be, one can surely hope, intense. It is the least they deserve.

Some of these terrorists tried to maintain Muslim tradition by foolishly keeping their facial hair while dressing as a woman. Apparently, shaving a beard is a step over the line for those using women and children as human shields, beheading innocent people, and viciously slaughtering non-believers.

Being dragged away by Iraqi troops while dressed in drag must be very embarrassing for ISIS terrorists who have been projecting themselves as fierce, unbeatable warriors. How mortifying it must be to find there is no dignity in jihad. There is only ignorance, arrogance, and savagery – and eventual defeat.

David J. Hentosh

Can We Survive This?

February 20, 2015

ISIS continues to grow in number and power, committing even more horrendous atrocities as it takes over more territory in the Middle East. In response, the Obama administration is ramping up its politically correct agenda of denial.

A White House spokesman said there is no particular “vulnerable community” prone to producing radical violence so they are looking to see how they can find those who are susceptible to recruitment to violence, adding that Muslims aren’t being targeted in this search. This fear of offending Muslims has become a driver for Obama and it hampers all administration efforts to fight terrorism.

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said “we cannot win this war by killing them” and we need to go after the root cause such as “a lack of opportunity for jobs”. When challenged, Harf put on elitist airs and insulted the intelligence of critics saying her comments were too nuanced for them to understand.

This academic drivel is useless against the evil and violence of ISIS and it is a pitiful excuse for inaction. Obama’s distaste for U.S. military might was nurtured during his early association with radicals and it fueled his anti-America apology tour when elected. His only concern is social engineering and he tries to ignore threats rather than deal with them.

In the past, Obama told us that victory was not a goal in Afghanistan and that he didn’t even like the word “victory”. His inaction concerning ISIS, therefore, should not be a surprise, but the depth of his denial is astounding and his total immersion in political correctness has gone far beyond foolishness. Shunning victory can only result in defeat, and we are being defeated.

This all makes the latest Gallup poll finding Obama’s job approval at 50% mystifying and frightening, especially since a CNN poll found that 57% disapprove of his handling of ISIS. Is it really possible that more than half the people believe ISIS terrorism is a real threat but find Obama’s personal “transformation of America” more important – and acceptable?

If so, survival of this country is questionable.

David J. Hentosh

Fool Me Once…

December 10, 2014

President Obama is seeking more discretionary power to wage war as he sees fit. After campaigning to end the war in Iraq, prematurely pulling all our troops out against military advice, and promising not to put “boots on the ground”, he now wants to increase his personal use of military power.

This president has a history of lying (e.g.“if you like your doctor…); a history of acting alone (e.g. executive order for illegals, cancelling Obamacare rules); a history of ignoring the law (e.g. directing ICE not to deport illegals); a history of ignoring the Pentagon (pulling all troops out of Iraq); and a history of reneging on promises (e.g. Immigration reform in first term, transparency, shovel-ready projects, closing GITMO, etc.). It would behoove Congress to remember the age-old idiom: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Obama has fooled the American public and Congress over and over and he has arrogantly assumed more power than any president was ever meant to have. He has displayed a leftist distaste for the military by shunning military advice, apologizing to the world for past military involvement, and taking military decisions away from the Pentagon. He has assumed personal control over drone use and drone targeting and is now adding “boots on the ground” to the 3500 already there as if never having vowed not to.

Obama has been an egotistical, runaway train doing whatever he wants whenever he wants while refusing to take responsibility for anything. We will spend years trying to recover from the policies and precedents he set in place. It would be shameful beyond belief to grant him more power, especially military power.

Almost everything from Obama and his administration has been s**t masquerading as chocolate.  What could possibly go wrong by giving him more power?

David J. Hentosh

Kerry is Scary

September 4, 2013

We have witnessed chemical weapon use in Syria because Obama elicits little respect and no fear from the international community or, more poignantly, from depots and terrorists. It is hard to imagine a Reagan or Bush “red line” (a line which Obama is now claiming he didn’t set) being so blatantly ignored or challenged. Obama was poked and prodded right from the start of his administration and found to be weak. Syria’s chemical weapon use is a direct result.

Obama selected John Kerry to run the State Department. This is a man who, after serving in Vietnam, came home and joined the anti-war movement, making wild, blanket accusations against our military personnel, voted as Senator against the Iraq War, and voted to pull all our troops out of Afghanistan – In other words, a man with Obama values. This could only be more surreal if Jane Fonda was at his side, egging him on.

The left’s unconditional backing of Obama requires hypocrisy, back-pedaling, and rationalization to remain intact and John Kerry is up to the task. He is arguing that attacking Syria is not war “in the classic sense”, a rhetorical distinction allowing him to keep his anti-war and anti-military persona while advocating the very war-like bombing of Syria. Lesser men would have laughed while speaking such gibberish, but Kerry maintained his composure and his acquiescence to Obama’s wishes without so much as a titter.

Right or wrong about attacking Syria, and there certainly is much controversy, Kerry is a poor choice for making the case. His distaste for the military was proudly displayed years ago and it is frightening to find him advocating an action with possible serious consequences; one that doesn’t jive with his personal beliefs. How can there be any credibility in what he says? There is none.

Kerry is scary, and this entire debacle is more frightening because of his involvement. He is as mis-cast in this role as John Cusack is in “The Butler” playing President Nixon (talk about a surreal experience). Then, again, Obama as Commander-in-Chief doesn’t bring a warm and fuzzy feeling, either.

This does not bode well for our nation.

David J. Hentosh

40 Years After Vietnam

March 30, 2013

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