Patterico's Pontifications

11/17/2014

Hot Air: We Need to Put on Our Big Boy Pants Like Woodrow Wilson Did and Fight ISIS

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:29 pm



There is another ISIS beheading, and it is of an Army Ranger. Honestly? A man has to know his limits, and I am not a foreign policy expert and don’t pretend to be. As outrageous as these beheadings are, though, I share the concerns expressed by Justin Amash about the way we are going about fighting ISIS.

So I am just going to sound a lonely note of caution. When I read something like this, from Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, I just feel I have to register my disagreement:

Woodrow Wilson desperately wanted to avoid going to war and the nation was largely behind him in that reluctance. But when the time came, in April of 1917, he pulled up his big boy pants, went before Congress and requested a declaration of war. In that address he said, The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. We have seen how other nations will respond and you do not have the luxury of an assembly of world leaders ready to fight at your side. You may have to lead the way onto the battlefield alone. This is the terrible, lonely responsibility of the job you sought. With luck, others will follow, but leading from behind is not an option here.

I don’t think Woodrow Wilson was reluctant to engage in war at all. I think he desperately wanted to get involved (to push his silly League of Nations idea on the world), and offered absurd justifications for U.S. involvement (Germans, hear this: Americans get to ride on boats carrying arms to your enemy, and if you sink those boats, it’s an act of war on us!). I think Wilson stomped on the liberties of anyone who dared speak against the war, and “pulling up his big boy pants” is an analogy that completely falls flat for me as a matter of historical accuracy.

And talk about unintended consequences! (as I often do when I discuss such matters). One could argue that our involvement facilitated the oppressive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which led to the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust. All things to bear in mind on this 100th anniversary of the beginning of that horrible war.

Again, I’m probably a lonely voice here. So be it. But as Rep. Amash said on September 17:

If Congress chooses to arm groups in Syria, it must explain to the American people not only why that mission is necessary but also the sacrifices that that mission entails.

The Obama administration has tried to rally support for U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war by implying that our help would be at arm’s length. The amendment Congress will vote on broadly authorizes “assistance” to groups in Syria. It does not specify what types of weapons our government will give the groups. It does not prohibit boots on the ground. (The amendment is silent on the president’s power to order our troops to fight in the civil war; it states only that Congress doesn’t provide “specific statutory authorization” for such escalation.) It does not state the financial cost of the war.

As we should have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must plan for multiple satisfactory ends to military conflicts before we commence them.

We get into these conflicts too easily, and the results never seem to be quite what we intend.

65 Responses to “Hot Air: We Need to Put on Our Big Boy Pants Like Woodrow Wilson Did and Fight ISIS”

  1. I don’t think Woodrow Wilson was reluctant to engage in war at all. I think he desperately wanted to get involved (to push his silly League of Nations idea on the world), and offered absurd justifications for U.S. involvement. . . .”

    Precisely. Amity Shales in her biography of Calvin Coolidge makes the point that war is also a great excuse to explode the federal budget and build up all sorts of new programs, virtually all of which miraculously seem to survive the end of the war. Harding first, then Coolidge especially, spent a great deal of his time in the White House trying to roll back Wilson’s wartime spending increases. It’s partly why Coolidge, though otherwise quite sensible, was unfortunately overly optimistic about the ability of world government and signed treaties to bring about peace. He hated war as only a small-government penny-pincher can hate war.

    I think we ought to pound all of the subsets of the Islamic State at every opportunity, but it shouldn’t be about giant appropriations and brand-new spending initiatives. This goes to show that even our ideological allies sometimes have some really counterproductive ideas.

    JVW (60ca93)

  2. I would put my loathing of Woodrow Wilson up with anyone’s. If one wonders how President Barak
    will be presented to future pre-college students look no further than Wilson.
    BUT
    considering he and/or his wife had no problems sending troops to Mexico, Russia and other places
    I do think he did not want to declare war against Germany etc. , and have to agree with the
    majority on that point.
    As to whether it was good or bad that war was declared – I find it hard to blame Versailles on teh Americans. And without the Americans the war and all that it entailed would have gone on for years more. I don’t want to think about the various poison gases that would have been used.

    The larger point of the OP is valid, no? We can’t approach these battles within the Arab Muslims as playground tussles.

    seeRpea (9ff48f)

  3. seeRpea, does it not seem odd to you, that Obama is a BEEEEG MAN when it comes to FAST and FURIOUS and the IRS SCANDAL. Seems he has boots on the ground there.

    Gus (7cc192)

  4. I agree with you, Patterico. We should stay out of that mess. Maybe a little cooperation with the Russians to hunt down and assassinate ISIS’s financiers and recruiters? No maybe — a lot of fracking over here so that we don’t need to care about that place at all?

    BTW, who are our ideological allies who want Syria destabilized? No, wait, wait, please tell me what ideology we are allied on first.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. “One could argue that our involvement facilitated the oppressive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which led to the rise of Hitler”

    How does this lie get so much traction? It was the lack of enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles that caused the rise of Hitler.

    Capitalist Infidel (20d716)

  6. re #4, nk it doesn’t matter if the USA needs anything from the Middle East or not.
    The radical Muslims are out to attack our culture and our lives. They would despise
    Western Civilization & Culture regardless and they will continue to come after the WCC.
    Give them control of a State and shudder. Do you really think it would be a good idea
    for Egypt to be under the Muslem Brotherhood?
    I think your first line was correct, we should approach the situation as the Russians did and do . As a flat out no holds barred war.

    I have no idea who should be backed in Syria. How about we get rid of the Wilsonian State all together and let the various ‘tribes’ have their own States?

    seeRpea (9ff48f)

  7. First the Cold War, then dependence on Arab oil, has made us make friends with people who are, from every American prospective, our natural enemies. Let’s get rid of that albatross and we’ll have a more detached view of that cesspool. Support Israel as a sentimental favorite, let the Arabs eat each other. Who needs them?

    nk (dbc370)

  8. There is nothing useful that can be done with Obama in office.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  9. minor nit pick: we’re not “fighting ISIS” or much of anything else in the Mideast, except, of course, for 5hitting on Israel.

    this is mostly because Obola not only has no idea what he’s doing, but because he has every reason to take actions inimical to the short & longterm interests of the country he hates so much. that’s why the only ideas he floats and actions he takes make things worse.

    and if he gets some Jews killed too, that’s just gravy to him.

    redc1c4 (2b3c9e)

  10. Don’t be a short man. Fight ISIS.

    Boons (b64495)

  11. The gutless republicans need to shut the govt. down. Make the world aware the new leaders will take action.
    You were elected in a landslide now govern accordingly.
    Obviously we need a third party as the republicans are feminized servants to the dems.

    mg (31009b)

  12. All you need to know about Wilson is in the book Paris 1914.
    He sucked as a human being.

    mg (31009b)

  13. All republicans are in on the scam to bring death to liberty, just like the muzzies are all in to kill jews and christians.
    When will America put down the sleeping pills?

    mg (31009b)

  14. 60 years of hard work
    to be for naught
    thanks be to you
    christie republicans

    mg (31009b)

  15. I don’t think Woodrow Wilson was reluctant to engage in war at all. I think he desperately wanted to get involved (to push his silly League of Nations idea on the world), and offered absurd justifications for U.S. involvement (Germans, hear this: Americans get to ride on boats carrying arms to your enemy, and if you sink those boats, it’s an act of war on us!).

    The evidence is rather ambiguous on the first point (among other things, Wilson keep the U.S. Army on a minimal peacetime footing), and the second point is debateable. German overtures to Mexican irredentists (i.e. people at war with the U.S.) predated their unrestricted submarine warfare by some years.

    I guess the Mexican government never got the second part of the Zimmerman telegram (MEXICO – HAHA JUST F*CKING WITH YOU STOP ZIMMERMAN STOP)

    J (88fd55)

  16. It seems that the reality for much of the world is that local ethnic/tribal differences and rivalries are far stronger than national identities that came about through European exploration/colonization and the aftermath of 2 world wars. The situation in Syria seems to have no group worthy of support at this point, except perhaps for the Kurds to defend their own area. Fighting Isis seems to be worthy of consideration as they’ve proven to be the worst of the worst, have clearly committed atrocities against people only interested in living their lives in their own little corner of the world, and will use any safe haven to plan and launch attacks against infidels the world over.

    That said, I don’t have any confidence in following this CIC anywhere for any supposed reason.
    I read in regards to one hero of the Iraq conflict that one of his men said to the (now deceased) man’s father, “I would follow him into hell with only a spoon as a weapon”. Unfortunately, there are too few people of that caliber in the upper echelons, it seems. (I certainly would not be of such caliber, but I would hope that at least I would listen to the counsel of such and not make decisions based on political calculations.)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  17. Interesting that the left thinks in terms of ever increasing “global unity”, when the reality is that on the ground level, things are much more fragmented than it would first appear.
    As far as being “on the correct side of history” (as in what does happen, not what some wish/think should happen), the Biblical scenario of “nation rising against nation” (nation=people group) looks more fitting.
    That does not mean one ignores injustice in the world, it does mean you don’t labor under false assumptions and expectations.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  18. so what would provoke a vigorous response, Ala Big Stick, from this President, an attack on one of the regional bases, Al Udeid, Al Minbad, or a European capital?

    narciso (ee1f88)

  19. ==Interesting that the left thinks in terms of ever increasing “global unity”,==

    I think it’s from all those nice Co-exist bumper stickers on old Volvos and Nissan Leafs giving inspiration and false hope, MD.

    elissa (63644d)

  20. Patterico and I discussed this going to war nonsense with ISIS. I was supportive of it, provided we actually were going to try to win, by any reasonable definition of that word. What I suspected, and what has come to pass, was that we would put forth a half-arsed effort, at best. Obama did exactly what I expected he would do, just enough to claim he was doing something, to get the press and public off his back. There was never any intention to do what it took to win this fight, so there was really never any point to starting it.

    JD (285732)

  21. america’s risible bumblings in the middle east are sad and pathetic and super-expensive

    until we can do this sort of thing competently we should just

    not

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  22. The only way to “win” a war is to kill at least one-third of the men of fighting age and to destroy the civilian population’s ability to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves (when they cannot do that then they cannot feed, clothe and arm their surviving soldiers either). Otherwise, you’re not winning any war. You are fighting a prairie fire with a garden hose.

    Now, when you have an enemy like ISIS, you do not fight them like we fought the Germans and the Japanese. You fight them like we fought the Sioux and the Comanches. Build forts in their territory; destroy, or cut them off from, their food and armament; hunt them down systematically; and engage them with overwhelming force whenever they present a big enough target to be worth the effort.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. 21. …There was never any intention to do what it took to win this fight, so there was really never any point to starting it.

    JD (285732) — 11/18/2014 @ 6:59 am

    There’s one problem; we didn’t start it. And we don’t get to say when a war is “on” and when it’s “off” (or “over” or “ended” as Obama variously likes to claim).

    We have people at war with us, and those people aren’t limited to ISIS. The fact that Obama is stupidly executing this war doesn’t change the reality of the situation. Of course, we as a nation aren’t in the dealing with reality business anymore.

    After the last beheading Barack Obama actually said that ISIS’ “actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith.” Got that? Of all the world’s religions, beheadings represent the Muslim faith least of all. So, Professor of Religious Studies Barack Tiger Beat Hussein Obama has done extensive comparative studies and is pleased to report that Islam is actually better when it comes to its official position on beheadings than Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, etc. Islam isn’t just a religion of peace. No, apparently it’s the religion of peace.

    I don’t think it’s necessary to peel back the layers of stupidity contained in that statement. It reminds me of a post I believe was written by Richard Fernandez over at Belmont club. I couldn’t find the right one, and it was actually about Obamacare, but it’s something he could easily have written and it discusses something universally applicable to Obama and the nation that elected him.

    It was about the nature of bulls***. Apparently a philosophy professor wrote a short book about it, in which he noted that key advantage isn’t that bulls*** is untrue but that it’s phony. Essentially, bulls*** says something about the bulls****er, who is a phony and knows he’s a phony, but it’s something that the bulls****er wants his audience to believe about him even though he knows it’s not true.

    Barack Obama brags about the fact that he believes his own bulls***.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/12/opinion/oe-la-goldberg-obama-ego-20101012

    …He recently begged a crowd of black supporters not to “make me look bad” by staying home from the polls. In an interview with Rolling Stone, he scolded young voters that if they don’t vote, it will be proof they “weren’t serious in the first place.”

    It never dawns on him that were it not for the unseriousness of those voters, he might still be a one-term junior senator from Illinois.

    “You know, I actually believe my own [bull],” Obama told the author of “Renegade,” Richard Wolffe.

    Exactly. And that why he’s gotten into this mess.

    Jonah Goldberg wrote that back in 2010, so I don’t know which mess “this mess” is anymore. But like I said it’s universally applicable to every mess Prom Queen gets us into. He makes these messes because he believes his own bulls*** even knowing that it’s bulls***. Because believing his own bulls*** makes him morally superior. In this case, he’s willing to say insanely ridiculous things about Islam to say to the world “I am not an Islamophobe.” Which is a chunk of bulls*** right there. But the important thing is that Obama is willing to buy into a bulls*** non-existent disorder just so he can say really stupid bulls*** to prove he is too much of a superior moral being to fall prey to it.

    And, this is why Obama can be justifiably proud of his bulls***, the game of one-upmanship begins. It becomes a contest to see who can say the stooopidest thing about Islam to prove they’re not an Islamophobe.

    So of course we’re fighting a half-assed war against ISIS. We’re not fighting them to beat them. We’re fighting them to prove we’re not Islamophobes. Because, and this I don’t get, somehow if Americans buy into Obama’s BS that makes them superior moral beings, too. So how else would a country that elected this embarrassing lightweight just to prove it isn’t racist fight a war against ISIS?

    Kevin M commented earlier that nothing serious can be done as long as Obama is Preezy. I think the problem runs deeper than that. We have a serious problem with ISIS. We could refuse to take them seriously and just think of them as the JV team. That seems to be what we’re doing. Which fits. We’re dealing with a serious problem in the least serious way possible because it suits a country so unserious it would have Obama as its Preezy in the first place.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  24. I have my own perspective on nations and nation-states, based on my experiences in a multi-racial, multi-religious artificially-created country (i.e. not one defined by natural borders and homogenous ethnicity/culture). Unless there is mutual tolerance and legal equality, it is impossible to maintain such a construct.

    What does mutual tolerance mean? Well, it means that you can put up with each other without wanting to kill each other off every day. That does not necessarily apply to Sunnis and Shiites, for instance – or to *any* form of Muslim and Druze.

    And what does legal equality mean? Well, it means that the laws (and the political institutions that legislate, execute and uphold them) do not favour any individual group but apply to every group equally. This is not the case when you have dual-legal systems, or when the single legal system you have treats different groups differently.

    Consider the two neighbouring nations of Malaysia and Singapore. Racially, they are pretty much the same (primarily Chinese, Indian, Malay – although in different proportions). Historically and legislatively, they are pretty much the same too (British colonial past, bicameral Westminster Parliamentary systems, separate heads of state and government). But Singapore is much more equal from a legal perspective, and everyone is mutually tolerant of each other because they’re all out to make as much money as possible. Malaysia has a dual-legal system (and one that much more heavily favours the Malay Muslim majority)… and as a result, not much in the way of mutual tolerance, although most are polite enough to voluntarily segregate. I leave it as an exercise to determine which nation is far more successful.

    Gregory Kong (dfcef0)

  25. I mostly agree with Amash. The amendment will do next to nothing to defeat ISIL, so the amendment misleadingly labeled. However, this does not mean that those rebels who are not militant Islamists should not be supported. We just shouldn’t have high expectations that they’ll accomplish much.
    As far as bombing ISIL in Syria, I would oppose an AUMF because bombing ISIL from afar has freed Assad to go after non-ISIL rebels, the very rebels we’re purportedly trying to help. We should either bomb ISIL and Assad military targets or neither. I vote neither and let Allah sort it out.
    The reality is that Iraq and Syria as we know it are no more. There will be a smaller Syria along the Mediterranean, a smaller Iraq from Baghdad to Basra, a new Kurdish state (hopefully) in the northeast of what was once Iraq, and there will be a Sunni entity in between. The Obama policy right now is for a unified Iraq, which is fantasy.

    Bird Dog (632801)

  26. Steve – I am well aware that we did not start it. i was just pointing out that whatever it is we are doing now, it is nothing other than political theatre for Teh Won. We aren’t engaged in any way that suggests we are doing whatever it takes to win. We are doing enough to get through the next news cycle.

    JD (285732)

  27. 22. america’s risible bumblings in the middle east are sad and pathetic and super-expensive

    until we can do this sort of thing competently we should just

    not
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/18/2014 @ 7:19 am

    This sort of thing? We can’t deal with any sort of thing competently. And to be honest, Mr. feets, you demonstrate why when certain domestic social issues come up. To hell with history and objective fact and reason; we need to take a position that proves we’re not tacky or inconsiderate or rude or just not nice.

    All the kool kidz are buying into the bulls***, and it’s just downright mean not to buy into it. Also, we have a consensus. How can you be so stupid as to resist the consensus?

    Really, it’s unrealistic to insist we apply this “thought process” to SSM or global warming or the contraceptive mandate (the poll results prove the Catholic church is out of step with the consensus) and then complain when we apply the same “thought process” to the middle east.

    We’d rather commit social and cultural suicide then risk being thought of a tacky, not nice people. And don’t think the Muslims haven’t noticed. They deliberately modeled their Islamophobia scam on the very successful homophobia scam. If we’d buy into that bulls*** we’d buy into anything. And so far we’ve proven them right.

    The Muslims through the Organization for Islamic Cooperation and the UN are pushing to have intelligence analysis classified as a form of Islamophobia. Not to get too Sun Tzu on you but the people who see us as their enemy are trying to make it a crime to independently understand their nature. Instead, we’re supposed to uncritically accept what they say about themselves as the truth.

    Naturally, they plan to lie since it will be a human rights violation to try and verify their story. And since we’re already lying to ourselves about our true nature, because the bulls*** is more flattering, of course everything we undertake is doomed to fail.

    But that means everything. Not just whatever half-hearted goat ropes we embark on in the ME.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  28. and then what?

    Sixty years of the misapplication of US combat power has left us with the same regional, religious, and tribal rivalries but with decreasing ability to affect the outcome due our own reluctance to engage the enemy with equal determination to prevail. We should stop engaging in military operations without the political will to win and the determination to maintain the victory.

    crazy (cde091)

  29. 27. …We aren’t engaged in any way that suggests we are doing whatever it takes to win. We are doing enough to get through the next news cycle.

    JD (285732) — 11/18/2014 @ 8:52 am

    Of course we don’t want to even suggest we’d do what it takes to win. That would suggest Islamophobia on our part.

    Which is why it’s interesting that this stupidity can get Obama through the next news cycle. We all know it’s bulls*** but a lot of people are satisfied with obvious bulls***. It’s as if the public only demands that Obama do just enough to trick them into believing he’s serious. The deal being that Obama does as little as possible while the public in turn promises to be easily fooled.

    Or at least the LHMFM promises to be easily fooled. I noticed that back during the Clinton administration, when during his various bimbo eruptions and other assorted scandals when one lie failed the LHMFM would practically beg him to give them another lie to run with. And they all knew it was a lie, but they’d report it as the truth just as long as it worked. Then they’d come back to the WH press room to be resupplied with new lies so they could defend him.

    We see that today as former CNBC reporters come clean and admit that not agreeing to be easily fooled by obvious lies is “disrespecting the office of the President.”

    https://patterico.com/2014/11/15/news-journalist-told-pointing-out-the-faulty-math-of-obamacare-was-disrespectful-to-the-office-of-the-president/

    Being easily fooled by the bulls*** that everyone knows is bulls*** doesn’t just make you a nice person like the smart, kool kidz. It’s also patriotic to buy into the bulls***.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  30. crazy (cde091) — 11/18/2014 @ 8:52 am

    I agree with you to the extent that there is a sizable number of people, politicians, and MSM who would rather win domestic political points than support the interests of the country, any military (or even sanctions, for that matter) are not necessarily sustainable for a prolonged period of time.
    That said, our enemies and enemies of freedom around the world are not going to accept a time-out from their aggression, but will rather take advantage of it.
    Which means from time to time things will get so bad somewhere that it will be hard to stand by and do nothing,
    the something may at times try to be real (Afghanistan, Saddam’s Iraq) for as long as momentum can be sustained,
    or mere political theatre, as we all agree Obama’s efforts with ISIS are.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  31. Obama needs to apply the Gruber microsimulation model to Syria.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  32. The problem is that there are many people with influence who are happy to distribute the bulls***, and not enough people paying attention and able to grasp the reality that it is bulls*** that they are supposed to ingest.

    As they say, just because one is paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out to get you,
    knowing that most conspiracy theories of some massive in your face deception are not true doesn’t mean none are.
    But it can be hard to come to that conclusion.

    I recently read about a Jewish man who was sent to the US to tell of the horrors of the Holocaust during WWII. After describing the situation to a prominent America, I think maybe a Supreme Court Justice, the man said, “I don’t believe you”. When challenged, “Do you think I’m lying”, he replied, “No, I didn’t say you were lying, but what I know of people, I can’t believe you”. (Not exact quote, but close).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  33. Doc, he wasn’t Jewish. He was Jan Karski, a Roman Catholic Pole and a very brave man.

    http://www.news-herald.com/opinion/20140425/commentary-the-polish-courier-who-tried-to-tell-the-world-about-the-holocaust

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  34. freedom is a top-notch and really kinda fun unifying principle Mr. 57

    policies what are built around a resolve to bring freedom to the poor oppressed middle eastern peoples I can support

    but there is precious little of this sort on offer

    freedom for gay people and lesbian people to get married is also a good thing I think

    cause of more freedom is better than less

    global warming is a bunch of crap and we shouldn’t dignify that discussion by taking it seriously

    what we need to be taking seriously is there’s a cocoa bar at NoMI on Friday

    i love christmas so damn much I can’t even tell you

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  35. narciso, it’s the foreign policy equivalent of looking for your lost car keys out on the well lit, nice and safe sidewalk instead of the dark, dangerous looking alley where you really dropped them.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  36. the Levick Group that has put a halo on every Gitmo detainee, are as much grubers as the Skydragon chasers like MichaeL Mann, as the abetters of gun confiscations, that bloomberg swears by,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  37. 35. …cause of more freedom is better than less…

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/18/2014 @ 10:28 am

    This is what I meant. These aren’t freedom issues but we have to convince ourselves they are.

    And if convincing yourself more freedom is better than less is the sign of a nice guy, I’ll be the bad guy who wants to know what people would do if they were free to do it. Some people already have too much freedom.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  38. MD in Philly (f9371b)

    Totally agree. The question remains and then what? We are already in a worldwide withdrawal and demobilization which leaves us with neither the will nor the forces to be decisive. That’s what has to change. Until then we are wasting lives and national credibility.

    crazy (cde091)

  39. I just read the otehr day that, in 1916, Wooidrow Wilson told teh federal reserve (at taht time controlled by the president) to ordeer J P Morgan to stop making loans to Britianm in hopes of forcing an end to the war.

    But Germany persisted in acting like it had to abide by no rules, and brought the United States into the war with unrestricted submarine warfare, and eventually, the beginning of an attempt to draw Mexico (and hopefully Japan as well) into a war with the United States – not to mention terrorist acts of sabotage committed in the United States to try tostop the shipment of war material to the Allies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion

    http://www.historynet.com/world-war-i-intrigue-german-spies-in-new-york.htm

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  40. Capitalist Infidel (20d716) — 11/17/2014 @ 10:40 pm

    It was the lack of enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles that caused the rise of Hitler.

    Winston Churchill would put it that it was abolishment of the monarchy in Germany (and Austria Hungary) that led to the rise of Hitler.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  41. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/18/2014 @ 9:53 am

    I recently read about a Jewish man who was sent to the US to tell of the horrors of the Holocaust during WWII. After describing the situation to a prominent America, I think maybe a Supreme Court Justice, the man said, “I don’t believe you”. When challenged, “Do you think I’m lying”, he replied, “No, I didn’t say you were lying, but what I know of people, I can’t believe you”. (Not exact quote, but close).

    Jan Karski wasn’t Jewish.

    http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/Karski/sz.html

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  42. In the meantime there is a serious attempt to start a religious war in the Middle East.

    Obama may have to get involved in that religious war in spite of himself.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  43. 23. Not even gen Sherman did that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  44. more than likely Smoot Hawley, cut the cash flow, that had been going on since the Dawes bill, which really turned it into the Great Depression, that led to the fall of Bruning,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  45. Steve57 and Sammy- thank you for the clarification and links. I think I saw info on him at PowerLine, including clips of his own recollections.

    crazy (cde091) — 11/18/2014 @ 11:38 am
    Yes, we will have no credibility until we earn it the hard way. We had it early on after Afghanistan and Iraq, deposing Saddam, as seen by Khadafy (or however you spell his name) going to the bargaining table with WMD. It might be a very different world for the better had the Dems not sabotaged the war effort.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  46. CAIR got the attention, but they were not the only players of note,

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/11/17/the-split-level-world/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  47. “Build forts in their territory; destroy, or cut them off from, their food and armament; hunt them down systematically; and engage them with overwhelming force whenever they present a big enough target to be worth the effort.”

    – nk

    The nice thing about fighting the Sioux and the Comanche, in terms of “hunting them down systematically,” was that you simply killed any (adult/male/person) that looked like a Sioux or Comanche. Unless we want to embrace that strategy in the Arab world, I don’t know that the analogy holds.

    A Viet Cong analogy? Maybe.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  48. Way I understand it, Obama has been providing ISIS or ISIL or ISholes or what have you, with bullets beans and bandaides, as a sort of half baked honoring of the redline crossing by Assad.

    Let’s continue doing that. ISIS is Assad’s headache. I like that Assad has headaches, because no matter how “evil” it might be for Jihadi Johnny to remove bodyparts from a handful of Obama supporting social workers bringing goodness and light to the barbarians, they are still not a patch to the evil of a hereditary absolute monarchy, christened and launched by the Wilson administration.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  49. nothing good happens in this town after ten o’clock anyway

    that’s what mom used to say anyways

    and it never really mattered what town in particular

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  50. well no, we have been supplying the Free Syrian Army, some of whom have sold journalists to the Islamic State, many have been funded by ‘our friends’ in Riyadh and Doha, they aren’t explicitly
    Salafi, like Effendi Ayyoush of the Islamic Front, but they aren’t the people you would invite to dinner,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  51. Well, no war is like any other to begin with, Leviticus. The rules of engagement are best left to commanders in the field. Small unit commanders. From my armchair in Chicago, I wouldn’t even know where to start.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. Not even gen Sherman did that.

    In combination with Grant he did. Grant was the butcher; Sherman was the mop-up man. Grant slaughtered them by the tens of thousands on the battlefields and refused to exchange prisoners (also hors de combat). Sherman destroyed the infrastructure to make the South unable to rise again for generations.

    nk (dbc370)

  53. With all due respect, nk, your personal arm chair interpretations of military history sometimes leave much to be desired.

    elissa (846912)

  54. Don’t all of ours?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  55. the Russian had a general along the Sherman lines, in the Caucasus, the Chechens still remember his name, Yermolov, he started out having a fling with Catherine the Great, was a staff officer by 1812,
    founded the city of Grozny,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  56. nk. But “kill at least one-third of the men of fighting age” ??

    Just those in the army.

    There was massive destruction of supplies by Sherman.

    Sammy Finkelman (a248bd)

  57. 55. Not even gen Sherman did that.

    In combination with Grant he did. Grant was the butcher; Sherman was the mop-up man. Grant slaughtered them by the tens of thousands on the battlefields and refused to exchange prisoners (also hors de combat). Sherman destroyed the infrastructure to make the South unable to rise again for generations.

    nk (dbc370) — 11/18/2014 @ 1:27 pm

    Not that I consider myself an expert on the U.S. Civil War but Sherman’s major accomplishment wasn’t so much the physical destruction but psychological. He marched through the heart of Dixie and no one could stop him. It was an insult to Southern manhood from which they could never recover. They had certain illusions about themselves, imagining their way of life to produce superior officers and soldiers than the North. Sherman shattered that illusion. The wound Sherman inflicted on their pride also set Southerner against Southerner as people pointed the finger of blame at each other, since Sherman had gotten away with something he wasn’t supposed to do. It turned out that some people whose property had been destroyed weren’t such big supporters of the war effort after all, for instance, and they blamed other wealthy plantation owners for pushing the South into a destructive war where others bore the burden while getting off lightly themselves.

    The Southerners later insisted that no forces were available to stop Sherman. That’s not true. The South did try to stop Sherman on a number of occasions but Sherman outfought his opponents. So they later made up excuses about the lack of available forces to paper over that fact.

    In many ways Sherman’s March To The Sea and his Atlanta operation remind me of the Gauls sacking Rome in 390BC, or later Spartacus’ slave revolt. The Gauls, in particular, actually didn’t do much damage to Rome since they were probably headed to southern Italy or Sicily looking for employment with the Greeks as mercenaries. They only stuck around for a few days, and what physical damage they did was easily repaired. The psychological damage lasted for centuries.

    Spartacus’ revolt caused more damage because it lasted longer. Still, it was a slave army and the Romans had contempt for slaves. Yet these slaves beat one Roman army after another. That just wasn’t supposed to happen. That traumatized the Romans, too.

    It seems to me that inflicting these kinds of defeats on ISIS would be the way to go. Muslim society, particularly Arab Muslim society, is a shame society. Hence the profusion of honor killings. One of our mistakes has been to show these adversaries of ours too much respect. It’s mind boggling to even our Muslim allies, for instance, how much respect we show our prisoners and the Quran. The Quran is the book that tells them the infidel is filthy and corrupt, and to kill us without mercy. And we treat this book with so much reverence we have our guards handle them with latex gloves? Because we agree with everything it says about us being filthy kaffirs? It must be so, otherwise we wouldn’t acknowledge our unworthiness by providing such a physical demonstration that we understand our inferiority.

    But then we have a Preezy who insists that the Muslim faith, least of all of the world’s religions approves of the Islamic State’s unislamic beheadings. And we blame our own troops when the Afghan soldiers they’re training kill them. So actually getting inside these people’s heads and learning what makes them tick is no where on our list of priorities. First, last, and always we have have to fight to lose so no one can accuse us of being Islamophobes.

    They will still accuse us of being Islamophobes. But that just means we’ll have to try harder to lose while showing our enemies all kinds of respect.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  58. We are living inside a very interesting novel. Well, no.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  59. Multiple plot threads.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  60. THIS CAME FROM CHINA: (weapons to attack and maybe kill Jews in Jerusalem)

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/187692

    I do not believe they did it for the money. I do not believe anyone in China would try this, or anybopody outside of China could arrange this, withiout government approval.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0904 secs.