Peace through Strength

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 6th, 2014

Politics 101

Bad Guys won’t open their Can of Whoop-Ass if there is a Chance they’ll get their Ass Kicked

Bullies generally pick on smaller and weaker people.  Smaller and weaker people don’t pick on tough guys.  They don’t walk up to a bully and give him a wedgie.  They’d like to.  But they don’t.  Why?  Because if a small and weak person did they’d get their ass kicked.  That’s why.  And people don’t like getting their ass kicked.  But sometimes it’s the tough guys that save the day.

In the opening scene of V for Vendetta Evey was about to get raped by some government thugs.  Then tough guy V came along and kicked their asses.  Saving Eve from a brutal rape.  In Die Hard the evil Hans Gruber was going to kill everyone in that building until tough guy John McClane happened on the scene.  And started killing the bad guys.  Saving the day.  In the movie Patton everyone wanted him thrown out of the Army after he slapped that crying soldier.  But when the Allies’ drive stalled in the Normandy hedgerow country who did they turn to?  That’s right.  Tough guy General Patton.  Who started kicking Nazi ass big time.  Breaking through their lines and advancing in every compass direction while British General Bernard Montgomery was still struggling o take his D-Day objective.  Caen.

People don’t like getting their ass kicked.  But if they are in danger of a good ass-kicking they’d want someone on their side who can kick ass as good as the next guy.  For even bad guys don’t want to get their ass kicked.  And if there is a chance of that happening they’re going to think long and hard before opening their can of whoop-ass.  Especially when someone else’s can of whoop-ass is bigger.

Only the Military Might of the United States could contain Soviet Expansion

The Roman Empire had one mighty can of whoop-ass.  Something her potential enemies understood.  And feared.  So they didn’t cause any trouble.  Because they didn’t want to get their ass kicked.  Which is why from approximately 27 BC to 180 AD there was relative peace in the world.  Pax Romana.  For the Romans had the mightiest military force in the world.  And if you went up against them you were most likely going to lose.  So they didn’t.  Instead, choosing to live in peace.

The British Empire was even larger than the Roman Empire.  And had an even larger can of whoop-ass.  Not only did they have armies throughout their empire which was so large that the sun never set on it.  The Royal Navy ruled the seas.  Which meant if you caused any trouble in the world you could expect an ass-kicking.  Either from her mighty military power.  Or her aid to a smaller and weaker country under threat from an aggressive neighbor.  The bad guys learned.  It wasn’t worth it.  If you tried to break the peace you were going to get your ass kicked.  Which is why from 1815 through 1914 when the British Empire ruled the world there was relative peace.  Pax Britannica.

The United States of America had come of age during the 20th century.  Growing even bigger and stronger than the empire that sired her.  The British Empire.  Who went into decline during the 20th century.  But just as Pax Britannica drew to a close and the world became a more dangerous place the United States stepped in.  Allowing the Allies to defeat Nazi Germany.  And Imperial Japan.  She grew to have the biggest can of whoop-ass in history.  And became the world’s policeman.  Pushing back against Soviet expansion.  In Europe.  The Balkans.  The Middle East.  And Southeast Asia.  The Soviets wanted to conquer the world.  And would have if not for America’s mighty military to counter their threat.  Leading to a period of relative peace following World War II.  Pax Americana.  As only the military might of the United States could contain Soviet expansion.

Vladimir Putin feels that he can put the old Soviet Union back together during the Obama Administration

During a sound check before a radio address President Reagan made a joke.  He said, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.”  Reagan had a sense of humor and those present laughed.  The joke leaked.  The Soviets heard it.  And they put their Soviet Far East Army on alert.  You see, they had great respect for the awesome military power of the United States.  And they respected Reagan.  They did not like him.  But they respected him.  And if he said he was going to open a can of whoop-ass on them they got nervous.  For President Reagan may have spoken softly.  But he was not afraid to kick ass.

The Soviets had no such respect for Reagan’s predecessor.  Jimmy Carter.  In fact, they had so little respect for him that they developed a nuclear first-strike plan.  For Carter was gutting the military.  And wasn’t a tough guy when it came to foreign policy.  He was a president who wanted to focus on domestic policy.  A sign of weakness the Soviets could smell.   Anyone who gutted the military to pay for more domestic spending would never pull the nuclear trigger.  At least that’s what the Soviets thought.  Which is why they prepared a nuclear first-strike plan during the Carter administration.  Sure they could win a nuclear war against him.  The Soviets thought no such thing during the Reagan administration.  So instead of a nuclear war (which may have happened in a Carter second term) we had peace.  Because of our strength.

Peace through strength.  If you’re a bad-ass people will leave you alone.  Because no one wants to get their ass kicked.  If you’re hell-bent on beating the crap out of your neighbor so you can take her resources and there is a bad-ass in the world that can bring a world of hurt down on you it will make you think.  And pause.  This is why there was a Pax Romana.  A Pax Britannica.  And a Pax Americana.  Because people respect a bad-ass.  And will not incite it.  They may hate the bad-ass.  But they will respect it.  And not piss it off.

President Obama has a strong domestic agenda.  Like Jimmy Carter.  He doesn’t want to deal with foreign policy.  Like Jimmy Carter.  And he is not respected or feared by the world’s bad guys.  Like Jimmy Carter.  Who is far more inclined to make a speech and threaten action.  But is far less likely to open a can of whoop-ass.  Like Ronald Reagan.  Which is why Vladimir Putin feels that he can put the old Soviet Union back together during the Obama administration.  Because he doesn’t fear the wrath of President Obama.  As no one does.  For he is all bark and no bite.  At least, so far.  Apart from killing a bunch of people that can’t fight back.  Drone strikes.  Bombing Libya (that was no threat to American interests).  And killing Osama bin Laden with a SEAL team.  More of an imperial use of force than acting as the world’s policeman to safeguard liberty and democracy.  So Vladimir Putin has little to worry about during an Obama presidency.  Unlike conservatives in America.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Libyan War is the First Battleground in the New War to End Human Suffering

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 3rd, 2011

Men and Women join the Military to Guard this county and our Way of Life

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.  He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.  In case you don’t recognize these lines they’re from Patton.  In that opening speech George C. Scott gives in front of that giant American flag.  This is the sad reality of war.  People die.  And it’s not only the bad guys.  Often they’re our teenagers.  Our young men and women.  Who answer the call of duty.  Knowing they may die.  For it’s in the job description.  And in the Code of the U.S. Fighting Force:

I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

That’s why people join the military.  To risk their life guarding this county.  And our way of life.  This is the contract they signed on to.  Not humanitarian missions guarding other people and their way of life.  It’s one thing making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.  But it’s a whole other thing making the ultimate sacrifice just so another people can have a better life.  While your family is left with only memories. And a flag that draped a coffin. 

The Many Roads to War

Vietnam was yet another chapter in the Cold War to block Soviet Expansion.  Before Vietnam we were pretty successful.  We checked them in Berlin.  Greece.  Turkey.  Iran.  Failed in China.  Held the line on the Korean peninsula.  In Cuba (where we prevented the Soviets from placing their nuclear weapons there).  And tried again in South Vietnam.  And failed.  JFK was a Cold War warrior.  That’s why he went into Vietnam.  To check Soviet Expansion.  Our enemy in the Cold War.  Who was always trying to undermine our country and way of life.  People may not remember this, but Vietnam was a popular war before it was unpopular.  Because we lived in fear of the Soviet Union.  And their mushroom cloud.

Much of the world’s oil flows from the Persian Gulf region.  You stop that oil exportation and the world stops.  Remember the oil crisis of 1973?  We would dream of times as good as those should a Middle East dictator shut down that oil flow.  That’s why we threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.  To stop him from controlling all of that oil.  We went into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban who was giving sanctuary to al Qaeda.  For we had traced the 9/11 attacks back to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The Iraq War is a little more complicated.  Hussein had repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire ending the Gulf War.  He was a threat to the region.  And the Saudis were very reluctant to shut down the terrorist financing in Saudi Arabia lest the Wahhabi rise up and overthrow their kingdom.  Long story short, our Iraqi invasion forced their hand.  Because they feared Iranian hegemony in the Middle East more than the Wahhabi.  Say what you want about the Saudis, but they walk a fine line between helping us and maintaining Arab peace.  All the while not playing politics with their oil.  You can’t really ask for more in a friend and ally.

Now Libya?  Whatever happened in Libya would not have changed life in America.  It was not a national security interest.  It was to the Europeans who bought Libyan oil.  And those nations that may face an influx of refugees hitting their shores.  But there was no U.S. interest for Americans to die for.  It’s a purely humanitarian mission.  Sure, the slaughter of innocents is bad.  And we have a big and powerful military.  But the men and women who sign up to serve pledge to give their life to guard this county.  And our way of life.  Not theirs.  It’s a heavy burden to send men and women into harm’s way.  Especially when some may make that ultimate sacrifice.  But when families understand why their loved ones died, they can find some solace that at least their loss served a higher purpose.  But that ‘why’ in Libya is not going to assuage much of their grief.  Should there be grief.

So why Libya?  It doesn’t make any sense from a national security standpoint.  From a military standpoint.  A diplomatic standpoint.  It’s very confusing.  Why, we don’t even know who the people are that we’re helping.  It would appear that emotion, not logic, got us into Libya.

Women bring Distinctive Life Experiences to Politics

There’s a big push to get more women into government.  For they bring something to the office a man doesn’t (see For a woman to reach the White House, the 2012 elections will be key by Debbie Walsh and Kathy Kleeman posted 4/1/2011 on The Washington Post).

This isn’t just about numbers, though. Women bring distinctive life experiences to politics, and research shows that female officeholders change both the policy agenda and the governing process. Whether the issue is equal access to credit (Bella Abzug) or education (Patsy Mink), family and medical leave (Marge Roukema), or inclusion of women in medical research (Pat Schroeder and Olympia Snowe), female lawmakers have long been recognized as powerful voices on behalf of women, children and families…

Eager for more female candidates, including some who don’t fit the traditional patterns, we’re working on the 2012 Project — a national, nonpartisan CAWP campaign in collaboration with California political strategist Mary Hughes to increase the number of women in federal and state legislative offices. Our goal is to identify and engage accomplished women 45 and older to run for office, women who already have established careers and reduced family responsibilities. We are especially seeking women from fields and industries underrepresented in elective offices, including finance, science, technology, energy and health care.

So they’re trying to find women who also happen to have these qualities to serve in government.  It would seem better to find people with these qualities who happen to be women.  Because it sounds like we’re trying to find the best qualified women.  Instead of the best qualified.  I wonder what Margaret Thatcher thinks of this.  I mean, she was a great leader.  Not just the best woman they could find to be prime minister.

A Woman with “Distinctive Life Experiences” advises Obama to go to War in Libya

There are some women already in politics.  One in particular has quite a powerful position in the Obama administration.  A confidant and adviser to the president.  Well learned and scholarly.  Wrote a book.  Which won her a Pulitzer Prize.  So she’s quite accomplished.  And people should fear her abroad.  Because she likes to send the military on lethal humanitarian missions.  And she’s going places (see Samantha Power to be the next Secretary of State? by Cathy Hayes posted 4/2/2011 on IrishCentral). 

A flattering New York Times profile has increased speculation that Samantha Power, the Dublin-born aide to President Obama, could be his next Secretary of State or National Security Adviser.

She has been the main architect, along with Hillary Clinton, of the Libya policy and has an increasing influence in the White House inner circle.

Of course that new job may all depend on what happens in Libya.  Will the mission creep?  Will there be boots on the ground?  And coffins returning to Dover Air Force Base?  Or will Qaddafi leave and peacefully transfer power to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?  Or al Qaeda?  The Muslim Brotherhood?  Or whoever the rebels are?

…she defended the administration’s decision in establishing a no-fly zone, adding failure to do so would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.”

Since she began her career working as a war correspondant in Bosnia at the tender age of 22, Power has believed that nations have a moral obligation to prevent genocide. She can bring life to these ideals from her position of the National Security Council…

Some of her critics say that she could be pushing the U.S. into another Iraq. The conservative blog American Thinker says that Obama has “outsourced foreign policy” to the Dublin woman. She has also drawn the ire of the Israeli lobby for her pro-Palestinian positions.

Another Iraq?  I think another Vietnam may be more appropriate.  Because of the mission creep (from advisors to airpower to boots on the ground).  And the affect on the Johnson‘s presidency.  Made him a one-term president.  Unpopular wars can do that.  Will the Libyan War stay popular?  If so perhaps it can be another Iraq.  If not?  Hello Vietnam.

This is the problem of getting women into politics because they are women.  They bring those “distinctive life experiences to politics.”  Emotions then cloud prudent deliberation.  For it would have been better if someone else had the president’s ear regarding Libya.  Someone who said, yes, the situation in Libya is bad.  But we can’t send young Americans on lethal humanitarian missions where ever there is horrible suffering and crimes against humanity.  Because there is horrible suffering and crimes against humanity everywhere.  We can’t pick and choose.  Play God.  Say these people are worthy of living.  While these people should die.  And we can’t encourage others to rise up because they think we will intervene in their country, too.  We just don’t have the resources.  And we can’t ask our brave men and women to do things they didn’t contract for when they joined the military.  Dying for someone else’s country and way of life.

Instead, it was the softer side of the Obama administration that cringed at the thought of people suffering.  And these women did not hesitate to put our men and women at risk to soothe their anguished souls.  And why not?  These leftist intellectuals hate the military (the Ivy League only recently -and reluctantly- let ROTC back on their campuses with the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, no doubt conflicting them.  They enjoyed all the turmoil this is causing in the military.  But now they can’t use that excuse anymore to keep these people off of their campuses).  They don’t care if these people die.  You want to play war?  Okay.  Go play war in Libya.  Kill for us.  Be useful for the first time in your miserable lives.

The War to end Human Suffering

Now women in power is not necessarily bad.  Margaret Thatcher was a great leader.  I wish there were more of her to go around.  It’s getting women in power just because they’re women that is bad.  Especially when they bring those “distinctive life experiences.”  We can’t afford ‘nurturing mother’ types running our foreign policy.  Nurturers want to help.  Because they can’t bear to see suffering.  We need people who can see beyond the suffering.  Who can get past their emotions. 

The military is not a cold impersonal thing.  It’s our sons and daughters.  Our brothers and sisters.  Our fathers and mothers.  Our husbands and wives.  These are people.  Real people.  And we need to treat them as the precious resources they are.  Yes, some may die completing a mission.  So it is our duty to them to make sure they do not die in vain.  That we never ask them to make the supreme sacrifice just to make someone feel better.  Yes, suffering is bad.  But suffering is not a national security interest.  Oil is.  Stability in the Middle East is.  Sealing our southern border is.  Fighting al Qaeda is.  But suffering in Libya, the Ivory Coast, North Korea, (insert a country where there is suffering here), etc., is not. 

Suffering is bad.  But no reason to send Americans to die in war.  We cannot declare war on human suffering.  Because that’s a war that we can never win.  Like our war on drugs.  It requires changing human nature.  And until we can do that there will always be suffering.  And people using drugs.  We have a much better chance stopping terrorism. 

A war on terror?  Now there’s a war worth fighting.  Because winning that war is in our national security interest.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,