news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Nation must adopt wartime mindset

Wednesday, November 4, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

The following is a Counterpoint column.

By Charles A. Jones

Why are we losing the current wars and will lose them? Is it cowardly or incompetent troops or inadequate equipment?
Guess again. A deeper and more disturbing problem. We are losing because we lack a wartime president, Congress and Supreme Court.

The executive branch: Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in the face of atomic weapons in Iran, Syria and North Korea? A female Neville Chamberlain.

The military: The average American fighter is a killer, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior leadership are bureaucrats, not warriors. Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton are rolling in their graves.

Eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan with what results other than non-stop television commentary and criticism? Flag-draped coffins transit Dover Air Force Base holding hundreds of heroes killed for their country, now “processed” like some type of product and new graves in Arlington National Cemetery.

Unlike Israel, we lack a national “will to kill.” Go to the U.N.? Forget it. Israel unilaterally defends itself by killing enemies or destroying nuclear facilities in Iraq. Good for it. That’s why it has survived as a nation since 1948.

We had a national will to kill in World War II. It weakened in Korea and died in Vietnam. We desperately need national political and military leaders consumed with one thought: killing the enemy.

I marvel at today’s leadership conduct of warfare with much debate at a leisurely pace. It would be funny if results weren’t so costly.

Between 1939 and 1945, the Allies defeated two of the best armies ever organized. In 2009, the U.S. military and its technology cannot defeat an enemy. Al-Qaida is international, organized crime operating militarily and winning. Its members don’t comprise an army and don’t represent another country. They’re murderous bandits.

Three pirates holding a ship captain hostage paralyze our military until SEALs get authority to kill them. We could end piracy if one of our bureaucratic military leaders had not said that stopping piracy is outside “NATO’s mandate.”

To hell with mandates. The only mandate needed is more SEALs and Navy tactical air power. The only pirates left would be the baseball team.

Either adopt and implement a “will to kill” at the highest levels of government or leave Iraq and Afghanistan immediately.

The writer, who lives in Norfolk, Va., is a retired U.S. Marine Corps Reserve colonel, a Greensboro native and a graduate of Oak Ridge Military Academy.
 

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Slaan

November 4, 2009 - 3:16 am EST

"The executive branch: Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in the face of atomic weapons in Iran, Syria and North Korea? A female Neville Chamberlain."

A Neville Chamberlain who has overseen the near overthrow of Iran (which came just after a 'reaching out' speech by Obama), the disarmament of North Korean Nukes and... Syria doing absolutely nothing.

"Flag-draped coffins transit Dover Air Force Base holding hundreds of heroes killed for their country, now “processed” like some type of product and new graves in Arlington National Cemetery"

As opposed to being completely ignored and turned away from by our people and even our President? I, too, hate how corrupt Arlington has been shown to be (check out Salon.com's coverage), but the more we show the world how much these women and men sacrificed, the sooner we will have changes made.

"...Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton are rolling in their graves."

You mean the Isolationist President, and the generals caught when their pants down? Right. I notice you didn't mention President, and Commander of European Forces in WWII, Eisenhower. Maybe that is because he completely deplored "wartime presidency" and was the original person to warn us of the Military-Industrial Complex? The Single-Most-Important-Person in Europe for the duration of the war?

"In 2009, the U.S. military and its technology cannot defeat an enemy. Al-Qaida is international, organized crime operating militarily and winning. Its members don’t comprise an army and don’t represent another country."

Uhhh.... Al-Qaeda is beaten. It has BEEN beaten for a long time now. We have not been fighting them since the original invasion of Iraq in 2003. We annihilated them in Afghanistan. Who we are fighting now are (In Afghanistan:)

A: Warlords
B: Druglords
C: Taliban

In Iraq:

A: Warlords
B: Defensive Militias
C: Religious Sects

Get your enemy straight. Thank you for your service, but I, for one, am glad that you are no longer in command.

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 5:35 am EST

There's a story the Brit's suggested encouraging the Afghan' Opium industry - buying the product direct and using what was needed for medical purposes then destroying the rest ... encourage the established economy - guns for butter so to speak. Sounded then & sounds now like a great idea to me .. but also, died with just-say-no. Afghans lose their livelyhood and the Warlords & Taliban pick up the unemployed.

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 5:33 am EST

" ... one thought: killing the enemy"

... except for the most part we do not know who they are ... no uniforms, no forts. Al-Qaida is a concept; international yes but not all-that organized. Murderous bandits .. but who and where are they and how would you know?

TheSeeker

November 4, 2009 - 11:17 am EST

And our troops can't engage the enemy they can identify if there are civilians near. We need to employ total war, no mercy and no quarter for anyone in the war zone - civilians included. Northern Pakistan needs to be turned into a no-mans-land rather than a safe haven for the Taliban. They want to be Martyrs? Help 'em out!

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 1:56 pm EST

Deep thought, Seeker.

While we're at it, let's use the same strategy and cruise-missle the entirety of Guilford County to rid ourselves once-and-for-all of the gangstas.

Slaan

November 4, 2009 - 3:21 pm EST

You DO know what an 'insurgency' is, right Seeker? This is a type of guerrilla that is supported by a local populace for the purposes of political takeover. The key words here are "supported by a local populace."

Now, you see, an insurgency is generally MUCH smaller than the controlling forces, often fewer than 1/5 in total forces, and with a large divide in arms conditions. The only advantage that the insurgency has is that they can blend into the local populace who support them, from fear or love.

Now then, how do you fight an enemy that is, to all practical purposes, invisible? You take away their invisibility. And how do you do that? You gain the populace's support. If the populace likes YOU and hates THEM, they will know who to point out for you to kill. They are no longer invisible, and thus can no longer hide in the cities and towns of the area. Carpet bombing the people does nothing more than make the people hate US, and thus like the Taliban more. They want vengeance for their fallen family members, and so their sons join the fighters and their women and families support the insurgency effort.

Now, there are MANY examples in recent history that proves this. Starting with the French occupation of Algiers. The French treated the native Algierians as near-slaves. When they began uprising, they did successfully crush the insurgency by using torture, summary execution, murder, and rape. But 5 years later? It came again, bigger and stronger. It was also put down. 5 years later the ENTIRE nation was against the French, and the mass exodus of the French began.

The same thing with the US in Vietnam. We began with the love of the people for saving them from the butchers of the north. But then we began bombing everything. We sprayed Agent Orange everywhere. We raped their women and did nothing to the perpatrators of the crimes. The Vietcong EXPLODED in size. We LOST because we lost the people's will.

In Iraq, the same thing happened. The populace liked that Saddam was gone. We proceeded to ruin their economy, refuse to build up their infrastructure, bombed nearly random seeming targets, etc. We lost their support.

BUT, in 2005-2006 we regained it. We decided to stop the bombings and started to PAY the people for their efforts. We helped them rebuild their lives, provided weapons for their protection, and were nice guys in general. What happened? We are now WINNING. The insurgency is gone for the most part, only the religious radicals are left, and they are holed up in the ghettos of the cities, able to be crushed at any time. The people hate them for killing innocent civilians now.

No Seeker, "colonel". You two are wrong. Dead wrong. And the way you refuse to see this proves that you are unfit for command.

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 3:55 pm EST

"The populace liked that Saddam was gone. We proceeded to ruin their economy, refuse to build up their infrastructure, bombed nearly random seeming targets, etc. We lost their support."

I don't see Iraq exactly the same way. Most simply did not understand there are two major "wings" of Islamism - kind alike the Catholics and Protestents who fought for centuries in Ireland.

We also did not "ruin their economy" so much as not understand it - they were a 100% cash economy. To get the infrastructure build up we had to supply all those Billions in actual greenbacks .. there were Military Helicopters flying around filled with shrink-wrapped pallets of fresh $100 bills. Add local corruption and graft, add the technical incompetance and limited trade skills of the locals. Finally add the limitated quantity of US personnel who could never stay in one place long enough to gain local trust needed to get things done - and that's why the infrastructure never was built up, and why we lost their support.

Bottom line - total lack of planning .. Mission Accomplished aside, of course.

... and I'm not yet convinced "paying the people for their efforts" ... their efforts being to stop fighting us .. will ultimately prove the best policy for stabilization .. we'll see. It has cut down on the day to day violence.

Slaan

November 4, 2009 - 6:21 pm EST

True enough, true enough.

But both points reinforce mine. Bush went in with absolutely no regard for the people of Iraq and Afganistan. He didn't realize the sectarian differences, the Iraqi economy, the lack of professional Administrators. He could have easily planned around those and nipped them in the bud:

1. Implementing reconciliation talks and promoting moderate clerics would have dealt with the sectarians easily

2. He should not have mass laid-off EVERY police, government and military man in Iraq as part of De-Baathinization (or w/e he called it). Suddenly, there was a 5-10% spike in unemployment and hungry families, and a dearth of competent officials. The economy would not have crashed nearly as quickly if they remained in their jobs with a slower weeding out process.

3. Not sure what could have been done about the cash economy. But surely experts on the Middle East and other cash economies (like Western Europe) could have figured something out.

Of course, these would require planning, forethought and long-term thinking. We all know conservatives are rear-thinking reactionaries, so you can't really be surprised.

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 8:52 pm EST

"2. He should not have mass laid-off EVERY police, government and military man in Iraq ..."

Well that really wasn't Bushie - at least not directly. I forget the names now, but the first administrator - hand picked and well vetted and all that - went in and started doing what he was sure was the right thing but it was not what Cheney wanted .. so he was fired in relatively short order (a few months). A replacement was then sent in on short notice but he had not been "trained" as well. The second guy (Brennen?) made the unilateral fire 'em all decision - I think Bush & Cheney work up one morning to hear the news on The Official WH News Channel, FOX ..

I think I heard that directly from Brennen (in a documentary). Regardless it was a stupid thing to do and I totally agree with your assessment.

TheSeeker

November 5, 2009 - 4:40 pm EST

Yes, i am very aware of what an insurgency is so don't talk down to me. you need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that we will never, ever win the hearts and minds of these people. why do we then want to send more of our troops off to die when we only want to go at it half cocked? we either need to get serious and pound them into submission or get out! And tell Pakistan to sit down and shut the hell up while we're doing it. so sit there in your deep thought and dream your pipe dreams about winning their hearts. I say take 'em out!

TheSeeker

November 5, 2009 - 4:47 pm EST

No we lost in Viet Nam because of mamby pamby politicians who were afraid of filthy hippies and anti war activists and the possibility of not getting re-elected. This shows your theory to be incorrect. We had them beat after the Tet offensive but we didn't push the thing because of politics! So it dragged on for 6 more years because we lost the will to do what was needed militarily.

neocon

November 4, 2009 - 6:00 am EST

I nominate this for 'LTE of the Year'.

Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Lakeshia

November 4, 2009 - 7:22 am EST

I proudly second Neo's nomination - and high praise to Mr. Jones.

Left Wing Troll

November 4, 2009 - 8:26 am EST

If ever I questioned your position Neo, there is no need now. You truly are without substance. I don't care what your political position is, this LTTE should be recognized for it's ridiculousness from the start. Maybe you should change your moniker to NeandraCon.

neocon

November 4, 2009 - 9:55 am EST

No need to get personal just because I agree with Mr. Jones.

I'll add this: Leftwing weenies who bow to the mullahs and hold murderous dictators like Mao up as an inspiration are not to be trusted with the national security. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been over 30 days after they were initiated, but by trying to placate liberal weenies like yourself and their reps in congress, our 'leaders' have drug them on and on, costing American lives in the process.

I really have no problem with you San Francisco types hating the military. What I have a problem with is when one of your pussy icons wins the WH and starts to stumble and stutter when it endangers the troops who are in harm's way.

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 11:53 am EST

Hang on, Neo .. the previous WH personalities were in your oft' stated opinion also pussy icons who stumbled and stuttered and endangered the troops whom they placed in harm's way.

... can't have it both ways, bro ..

... and for the record: The war in Iraq WAS over 30 days after it was initiated ,,, but Your Weiners [the lesser of two evils] forgot to consider what would happen after Saddam was disposed.

... and also for the record: The war in Afghanistan was really never waged as Your Weiners [the lesser of two evils] forgot to engage the enemy

In both cases and also still for the record: Your Weiners [the lesser of two evils] drug these "wars" on and on, costing American lives in the process.

neocon

November 4, 2009 - 12:30 pm EST

Hang on yourself, JDR. I'm on record from way back as saying the war was mishandled from the get go. My problem is with your pussy little messiah kissing the arse of two bit dictators and San Francisco weenies like lwt kissing HIS arse for doing it while the troops are in harms way fighting those your little messiah wants to "extend His hand to". What needs to be 'extended' to them is the barrel of a .50 caliber machine gun and the firepower of a cruise missile.

BTW, if the war in Iraq was over in 30 days, why do you liberals ridicule Bush 43 for standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier and proclaiming "mission accomplished"?

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 1:53 pm EST

OK .. lemme see if I have this:

YOUR pussy mishandling the war from the get go - "Staying the Course" of troops in harms way for 7 plus years - making no progress ... is worse than MY pussy kissing the arse of two bit dictators (who are you talking about anyway?) in an effort to get the troops out of harms way.

Got it!

As for the other point: Bush 43 is ridiculed for standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier and proclaiming "mission accomplished" when ALL he did was extend the barrel of a .50 caliber machine gun and the firepower of a cruise missile ... and at that time there were perhaps a few dozen Soldiers dead .. and by the time Bush 43 left office the count of dead soldiers was what ... do you know?. Tell also about the "missions accomplished" during this time - prior to Rummy leaving.

neocon

November 4, 2009 - 2:51 pm EST

"Got it!"

Good.

The war wasn't over...there were still ragheads breathing in Iraq. That's my point. YOU said the war was over in 30 days, not me, bud. I said it SHOULD have been. So I wondered (aloud) why you nonpartisan liberals would ridicule him when he said "mission accomplished".

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 4:23 pm EST

I guess there's WAR then there's war. Regime Change was easy .. I know of no little-w-war that involved a new system of govorning being completed in 30 days ... the stupid logic was that our friend Chalabi would be welcomed ... but somone forgot to tell the Iraqi People.

I once read there are only two things that motivate people: Fear and Desire. We can forever hold control with the muzzle .. but Fear expensive and tiring. Desire is neither, being both free and self-rejuvenating.

neocon

November 4, 2009 - 4:34 pm EST

"there's WAR then there's war"

There's is then there's is...

"Regime Change was easy"...I imagine so, sitting in W/S and watching it on CNN.

xeno10

November 4, 2009 - 6:19 am EST

Colonel Jones, with your "mindset," I am pleased to know that you have not advanced in grade beyond the rank of colonel.

newkid

November 4, 2009 - 5:46 pm EST

There's a reason our form of democracy separates foreign policy decision makers and military policy implementers.

mawmaw

November 4, 2009 - 8:12 am EST

What a disgusting letter. I don't want to live in a country that has the will to kill. I am really disappointed in Obama's failure to bring the non winnable wars to an end. Guess he is really just another player in the war games. How sad.

Left Wing Troll

November 4, 2009 - 8:21 am EST

Mr Jones I respectfully request that you slink back into the hole from which you crawled where you and your buddies can continue to play army and gladiator undisturbed. Please leave civilization in the hands of those who would make attempts to remain civilized.

Conundrum

November 4, 2009 - 11:31 am EST

“Will to kill.” It is precisely this type of mindset that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians assumed that they could just go into Afghanistan and beat a bunch of “ragheads.” But, they found out differently. Colonel Jones should take a minute or two and watch The Newshour with Jim Lehrer’s end of show tribute to the servicemen and women who have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It’s usually a roll call of fresh face 20 year olds who probably had never been out of the US until they were deployed.

It’s easy to want blood spilled when it is not your own. President G.W. Bush and Vice President Cheney never served in active combat, yet, they sent others to fight these bloody wars. Nothing good will come of the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, there will just be a lot of US families who will continually grieve for loved ones that died on battlefields and streets in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Will to kill.” How about a “will to be rational?”

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 1:57 pm EST

Wait a second, Conundrum .. President Bush has dental records to prove his valor.

Badgolfer1

November 4, 2009 - 3:03 pm EST

Cheney said he had other priorities in the sixties than military service speaking about his five deferments and Bush 43 went AWOL during Viet Nam war time. I suppose Bush 43 was anxious to get on with his college studies. Clinton was the first President not to have ever served in military. I believe Reagan did not really get involved as fellow movie actor Jimmy Stewart did in military action during World War 2.To Reagan's credit he may have been older and not of age to serve as he had already done so, or have the qualifications Stewart did. Going further back to the start of the US nation Washington of course was in the Revolutionary War commanding all Colonial troops. Jackson fought the British at New Orleans in the War of 1812. Grant was on the Northern side in the Civil War or War between the States definitely going through Atlanta. Teddy Rooservelt took San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War of 1898. Eisenhour led D-Day invasion in World War 2. Kennedy was on PT 109 during World War 2 also. These were some Presidents and I mention Cheney as well, who stand out as serving with distinction and otherwise in war time that I can remember. I plan to check out the military service records of other Presidents, such as Nixon as he does not come to my memory now.

Badgolfer1

November 4, 2009 - 3:28 pm EST

Correction to above as it was Sherman, who went through Atlanta, Grant definitely was on North's side in that war and commanded their troops at war's end.

J D R

November 4, 2009 - 3:38 pm EST

I would argue Shermans March did more damage to healing during Reconstruction than any other single act ... and Grant was a wreckless military commander who took more chances with the lives of his men than any sane leader would ever consider ..

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: LIGHT RAIN
  • Current Temperature: 45°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 0° L: 35°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search