Speak Softly And Carry A Really Big Stick!
Please enjoy this essay by Mr. Brian Kelly.
An Essay By Brian Kelly
I support a Constitutional approach to foreign policy that ensures a strong national defense. Who can argue that at this moment in time, we have the most powerful, most advanced military in the history of the world, despite the work our current president has done to reduce its apparent strength. One can conclude that if we were to fight a war and if we chose to fight to win, boldly, quickly and conclusively, there would be minimal US casualties, and the notch of victory could be hailed. If we ever received the OK to do so in these times, the most surprised at our victory would be our president, Barack Hussein Obama.
However, it seems that we are no longer in armed conflicts to win them but instead after decades with no declarations of war by Congress (required by the Constitution) we have been snookered into permitting wars to continue unabated. Why not just win them and then they are done and we can go home for good?
These conflicts are often begun in the name of defending our national interests, but then all of a sudden we are running guerrilla policing campaigns that cost us our precious soldier's lives, and we seem to give terrorists exactly what they want. Why can we not figure out how to avoid all American deaths as a condition to assist the countries that call upon us for help? And Donald Trump is right. We should not bear all the expenses for helping save the world from terrorist forces.
You may know that we have troops in over 120 countries. Can you imagine that? Isn't that a little much? If we are helping so many countries, why do so many hate us? Why is the president's tactic to apologize for America instead of gaining respect by winning wars and helping all who we can? Does he care? Why do we care? If we do so well overseas in 120 countries, then why are our own borders unprotected? Does it make sense to fight terrorists abroad on their home turf when our own front door is wide open and unlocked.
How is it that we permit over a million illegal aliens (perhaps as many as three million) to cross our borders each year without our knowledge. Is this not a clear threat to our nation's security. And when we have no jobs for Americans, is it not stupid for us to give foreign nationals American jobs -- our jobs?
American Independence v Entangling Alliances
The Founding Fathers warned us that concern for other countries above America sacrifices our independence and integrity as a nation. Jefferson was the most vocal. In his first inaugural address, he proclaimed that America should have "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
Today, America's interests are undermined by subtle deference to foreign entities such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and the United Nations (UN). It's time to end the things that do not make sense for America. Who sold us out?
Foreign Policy -- War and Peace -- Ronald Reagan
Here is what Ronald Reagan had to say about that:
"Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender."
"You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
"You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, 'There is a price we will not pay....'There is a point beyond which they must not advance.' And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's 'peace through strength.'
"Winston Churchill said, 'The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals.' And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
In this speech in the 1960's Reagan also said, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny."
What will be our destiny?
Will the US die because our leadership no longer cares about the people about whom, their oaths were sworn?
Teddy Roosevelt was a Rough Rider and he believed we must speak softly and we must carry a big stick. Today there is a lot of tough rhetoric against Iran and North Korea, and a theoretical non-country named ISIS. For some strange reason, however, there is also tough rhetoric against Israel from an American president. Who does that help? When was the last Israeli terrorist bombing in the US? What is wrong with this President? What does he see that we do not see and why will he not tell us why he sees what he sees? Does he see a future for America with policies that permit us to be easy targets? Does he see America having a right to freedom? If I knew the answer my friends, I would not be asking such questions? Who knows the important answers to those questions?
We live in a strange world. Right now we have wound down a war in Iraq in a wrong-headed way, and because of our President's promises, we fired up another war a lot more than a few notches in Afghanistan. But before our definite and total victory in Afghanistan could be achieved, the same president called for a withdrawal again, just as in Iraq. Why is America prohibited from winning wars and calling it quits?
Because we have a poor leader as a president, history will find that we have lost both wars because that was his plan. In my experience as a computer scientist, I have learned that logic is the key to making systems work. If logic does not apply with Obama's intentions, that does make sense. Real logic when given the facts would definitely conclude that our President is simply not happy having to protect Americans when so many other citizens of the world have a tough time every day.
Should we have foot soldiers in any of these lands for any extended period? I say no unless we protect them at all costs by our men being permitted to kill all the enemies who fire upon them. Once I believed these wars were necessary but the rules of engagement by white collar executives (of all skin colors) that prevented us from using our might and winning--are what killed so many of our soldiers. Why send our boys and men into battle with their hands tied? If we go, our mission is a simple one --- we win!
The courage of the US Fighting Man from the days of the Revolution is what protects us. But, good leadership would never send anybody into harms way if the soldiers are not permitted to inflict the greatest harm upon our enemy. If we have no enemy we should not be at war. And, Congress should be declaring the wars in which we engage. Congress, not a milk-toast president should be working on the terms of engagement rather than permitting the commander in chief to kill our soldiers in meaningless acts. When at war, from my perspective, one American is worth a million enemies. Ask Harry Truman-- a Democrat! He is the only guy I think ever knew who blew up a world first that would have blown up the US if they had had their chance. What would today's Democrats do? Why do we show weakness instead of strength when strength wins and weakness emboldens the enemy. No American soldier wants to put a smile on an enemy's face! Americans are winners and we want to be able to win!
I am not against the efforts that are underway and I do appreciate the work of our brave armed services. I am against wars in which we offer our young as potential casualties because we choose rules of engagement that cause Americans to die. I say we either fight to win and we fight the war like it is a war and not a police action, or we get the hell out. Each American who perishes in battle needs to have a tribunal about how his death will be eliminated in the next round. No American deaths are acceptable....PERIOD! No mistakes about American lives are permitted!
Win and leave would be my strategy in ending the Afghanistan conflict, which continues regardless of Obama's declarations, and of course the worldwide ISIS war. Let the peace-keepers then come in when the battle is over and the dead and maimed need caring. Let them all be from other nations. If we engage, our mission should be get in, win, and then get our warriors out, and bring the peace-keepers in. I don't have access to the information that the President has available so I don't see all that he sees. BUt, we have not won much of anything recently and our country is now threatened from within.
Something is wrong when we can't win or choose not to win against puny little countries. Even sillier is giving them billions of dollars to stockpile nuclear bombs to use against us. What's wrong is that we either have chosen bad wars or we have chosen not to win. And when I am your Congressman, and we finally have a President who loves America, that crap will end.
Until George Bush decided to win the Iraq war, with the surge, we were sending our boys to be slaughtered by roadside explosives or picked off by snipers in a country that wasn't sure if they even wanted us there or not. We should back countries who are our friends like Israel and we should not trust countries with whom we do not have a long standing history of trust. We should not bear the price tag for all these wars either. If the Saudis and others are benefiting from our involvement in the Middle East, they should be presented a bill for our services as we exit stage right.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Brian W. Kelly