McNamara documentary "The Fog of War"

[DasVivo]

I’m temptedto lead with “so what?” But I’ll savethat till later…. but … sir, (a) you have a short memory about American “unpopularity.”


I don’t likealways being a reality check… but … sir, (a) you have a short memory aboutAmerican “unpopularity.”

Do you haveany memory of the riots andcommunist-instigated unrest, stoked by the left wing European press during thedeployment of the Pershing missiles, “Ronald Reagan’ mad dog warmongering,”etc. just to name one moment among many? Yet 8 years later east Europe was free… andthose who were doing the bidding of the communists for years had to grumble intheir hate.

Anotherthing about your “perception” of popularity … (b) So what? What has your “perception” of European mass popularity of American to dowith anything … especially removing dangerous threats to peace such as SaddamHussain… at a time when the President of France was on Saddam’s payroll? How would the US and the coalition of thewilling face the threats to peace in the world better with more “popularity”and with Saddam and Sons still in power in Iraq?

Most of theEuropean leaders understood quite well what was at stake in Iraq … even Germanyhelped by basing the logistic network. Those people who believe America is an evil force in the world havealways believed it. No one in theirright mind morns the demise of Saddam and Sons. Regardless of American “popularity” within Europe, very few in EuropeTODAY fail recognize the threat of Islamic terrorism. THAT WAS NOT TRUE DURING THE COLD WAR…. When agreat many left wing Europeans actively support the evil empire, and despisedAmerica.

But whatreally bothers me is the perception that deadly world conflict is won by ‘popularity.” It seems to be a failure by coffee shop, armchair pontificators to substitute the reality of armed conflict with somethingakin to Ghandian moral authority. Well…Ghandi himself stated that his methods would never work except against anethical and moral opponent. A brutalmurderous dictator state would simply kill him and his supporters.

I recommendgiving some thought about the people and causes the US had fought against thelast 100 years. Nazis, Communists in SEAsia who later murdered 5 million people, not to mention Communists in Europewho murdered 50 million of their own people, Japanese Imperialists, crazy massmurderers such as Saddam, and Islamic terrorism that seeks to impose itselfupon the world. Yet the US is “unpopular?”

Popularitywill not stop the Islamists, nor will it check the imperial ambition of China,or the remove mad men who would like to incinerate the world. That is a job for the only country that can…and your perception of “popularity” is meaningless when the shooting starts.

I suggest that the people who un-popularizethe US are the ones who need to look in the mirror and ask… “what is it Isupport?” Than God for the British, Aussies,Kiwis, Canadians, and others (ROK) who had steadfastly stood with the armies ofdemocracy through the decades.

The communists in Europe murdered 50 million of their own now? I suppose you have statistics for this?

[Jacknola]

I suggest read a little – start with the Gulag Archipelago, continue with the history of the Russian Communists in their own country, the Kulak genocide, the “engineer-conspiracy purges,” Stalin and his killers, then move on to those murdered,imprisoned, tortured and exiled in the satellite countries in E. Europe. Reagan was dead right about the "evil empire.” Funny… Stalin killed more of his own countrymen then Hitler… yet the memory of that is fading.

[Anla'Shok]

1234567890

[Corrupt]

But whatreally bothers me is the perception that deadly world conflict is won by ‘popularity.” It seems to be a failure by coffee shop, armchair pontificators to substitute the reality of armed conflict with somethingakin to Ghandian moral authority.

Popularity in and of itself does not win or lose a war. I've never claimed that. However the perception and popularity of a war does effect the politics around it and the nations involved. War is effected by the politics, fears and hopes of the nations involved, it is not fought in a vacuum. Nor do those perceptions cease once the war ends, they continue to affect policy and diplomacy for years.

You cannot effectively fight a war against the will of the population. Especially if that population will vote you out of power at the next election. In Kosovo, one of the less controversial campaigns recently, the Italians and the Greeks struggled against opinion at home to deploy troops.

The opinion of a war a country is involved in affects how other countries treat it. Post Iraq, Britain was viewed as (more) of an outcast in Europe, and a Trojan Horse for American power, as De Gaulle had predicted decades earlier.

Perception and popularity do not win wars on their own, but to deny that they effect the outcome and the aftermatch of a war is naive.

[Atlantic Friend]

[But what really bothers me is the perception that deadly world conflict is won by ‘popularity.”

They can be lost by lack thereof, that at least is a fact. Impopularity at home, and /or impopularity in the country where the troops are sent can nullify military success and political combinations.

[Jurinko]

View from the North:


Q: How could the Americans have won the war?
A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?
A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.



http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...px?ARTID=13274

[DasVivo]

I suggestread a little – start with the Gulag Archipelago, continue with the history ofthe Russian Communists in their own country, the Kulak genocide, the “engineerconspiracy purges,” Stalin and his killers, then move on to those murdered,imprisoned, tortured and exiled in the satellite countries in E. Europe. Reagan was dead right about the ‘evilempire.” Funny… Stalin killed more ofhis own countrymen then Hitler… yet the memory of that is fading.

Without intending to derail the thread, that quoted figure of 55 Million is questioned, generally it seems the more accepted figure within the west in 20 Million.... Bear in mind both russian and english sources citing the SU population at 138 Million in 1920 and growth by roughly 2 million p/year save for famines etc
I will quote also

As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion.•Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity: •In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin
iirc even Solzhenitsyn revised his numbers after some time.. His numbers being based off Ivan Alekseevich Koshkins work (I.A Kurganov)who left the ussr in 1945, joined anti communist groups and who said that the USSR lost 110 million by 1959....
He died in 1980 before the USSR collapsed and many archives were indeed ever opened...

Do not get me wrong, Stalinism was horrific to the extreme, I just question that figure as one that is generally 'accepted' even within much of western academia


Anyway this is an interesting documentary and I do not want to derail it... To the topic of popularity winning wars, I agree it does not win wars... That said lack there of can cause one to lose wars whether due to external support being completely non existant or internal support simply collapsing... What is popularity?

"[mass noun]the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people:"

- Oxford Dictionary

The fact of the matter is Vietnam ceased being popular as a War with policy makers, support for continued prosecution of the war as a result diminished and peace accords were signed, thus causing the results which we are all pining on about now
We could argue further still that the war ceased being popular with the population causing the same result.... We could argue that lack of 'popularity' meant that the US could not rely upon more support in prosecution of the war from other partners causing the US to have to take more of the burden itself, we could argue that lack of popularity among segments of the population might have actually driven some to oppose the US action there (not stating %'s or like) but to say popularity is irrelevant to conflict is I would think most innaccurate

[Jacknola]

I agree that national moral imperative is important in war…. But recognizing the fundamental difference between the decision to go to war by a democracy, and war making by a dictatorship, the subject of national moral imperative perhaps deserves examination in a separate line.

This line was to examine McNamara’s rationalization in that sad and self-justifying interview, and to place it in its proper historical context. That context, and the applicability of lessons-learned to Iraq and Afghanistan, must start with Vietnam.

That McNamara declared Vietnam “unwinnable” 20 years after the tragic end of the war, in my opinion was his attempt to negate history, join the intellectual political left, and therefore deflect historical blame for the consequences from his personal failings and the consequences of the failings of his policies.

The aftermath of the communist takeover of S.E.Asia was indeed horrific…. A third to half the population of Cambodia murdered, millions in Vietnam killed, driven into the sea, imprisoned to this day in S. Vietnam, etc. Given the results, how can anyone make a claim today that “the war in S. Vietnam was morally unpopular”, or lacked moral authority? To declare that is to declare the result was morally acceptable.

“Popularity” in terms of Vietnam was only important to the conduct of the war in its relationship to American national resolve. McNamara’s (and Johnson’s) legacy is the destruction of national resolve… though it took 10 years to do it.

1. The Vietnam war was at core, a war of good vs evil… as proved by the result. This does not deny shades of gray were present in the short term, but strategically, is there any question?

2. The Vietnam War could have been won for the forces of democracy;

3. McNamara’s policies contributed to the failure of the forces of democracy in Vietnam, and in that failing, he came close to causing the loss of the cold war to a force of evil every bit as horrific as the Nazis … he should have acknowledged that. At least Chamberlin later seemed to acknowledge that his fantasy of “PEACE FOR OUR TIME” was a horrible mistake… not so McNamara.

4. But in addition to the millions in S.E.Asia who paid the price for his arrogance and hubris, he betrayed the American vets, their families, and the American people who struggled to win that war…

5. America grew weary of the war (but the people never abandoned the goal…the leaders did), mostly because of the failure of the political leadership to define the conflict, mobilize the country, and produce a winning plan. This was in large part because of McNamara’s incompetence and inexperience and political cowardness. Only .

He is not the only incompetent to run a war. But this attempt to justify his failures in that interview pretty much negates the historical value of that interview, except as an example of what not to do. What this also means is the world “popularity” seems to have little immediate relationship to “doing what is right”, good vs evil …hence the need to ignore European perceptions of Iraq/Afghanistan, and to standback and admire the tenacity and vision of Bush-43, compared with Johnson/McNamara.

The certainty of evil consequence of leaving Saddam and sons or the Taliban/AlQaeda in power in Iraq/Afghanistan negates the transitory importance of European “popularity” about Iraq, or about Afghanistan. And it raises some important questions about moral responsibility vis a vis the rest of the Axis of Evil = the mad men in Iran and N. Korea… and possibly increasingly in Pakistan.

[DasVivo]

I just noticed the earlier pages a little more and figured I would just add a couple comments (nitpicks if youwill)

Comparing the Contributions between 1991-2003 Iraq Wars is probably somewhat inaccurate if we talk about contributions of say Nations, during the Gulf War 1991 the USSR still existed as a state thus of the Countries that contributed to the second gulf war; (

Estonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Lithuania are automatically out from the first gulf war...

If we add the FYR we get

Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ad in Czechoslovakia we get

Czech Republic and Slovakia




So of the 40 Countries in the second, lets say reduce all of those "Nations" I outlined above and reduce them to one state for 3 total (for comparison to 1991 situation, even then is unrealistic )

You have lost 14 States as outlined, and gained 3, putting the Coalition in the second war at 29 Countries (by your own count) versus 32 in the first war... Now let us view contributions....
With maximum 'contribution size' say that of the USAs and as we see it in 1991 it sent 500,000+ , in 2003 it sent 150,000 giving roughly 3.3 as many soldiers in the first war, lets assume the reasoning for size disparity from '91 to '03 is due to increased capabilities and now lets pretend Coalition forces in the second war contributed were even better equipped than the US so rather than needing 3.3 in 1991 to every one in 2003 they only needed two to be able to replace their numbers, we will now compare the top 5 non american contributions from each war with those sent in the second doubled in number to make up for say qualitive differences.....

1991: 2003
#2 Saudi Arabia: 60,000-100,000 #2 UK:45,000 x 2 = 90,000 = 150%-90% (depending on variant of KSA strength)
#3 UK: 53,000 #3 ROK: 3600 x 2 = 7200 = 13.5%
#4 Egypt 20,000 #4 Italy: 3200 x 2 = 6400 = 32%
#5 France 18,000 #5 Australia/Georgia = 2000 x 2 = 4000 = 22%

If we compare those numbers, we get roughly as total comparison: we get...

#1) 71% Contribution versus 1991 levels (presuming KSA sent only 60,000 and that all coalition soldiers are x2 as effective as the first war
#2) 56% Contribution versus 1991 levels (presuming KSA sent 100,000 and that all coalition soldiers are x2 as effective as their equivalents in the first war)

Note when I did this I heavily pushed everything in favor of the second war, and yes I am aware that you can argue that some soldiers were more effective anyway than some of those who fought in the first war but the point I was trying to make is that the contributions which made up the second war were in many instances quite small as an overall % of the coalition, they were often from nations which one could argue had a lot to gain by showing a contribution to US efforts (Eg: Eastern European Countries and fUSSR), and some of those countries in the first war were quite noteable in their absense in the latter, eg: France, KSA, Egypt (in fact much of the Middle East)

Lastly I would say in regards to popularity (though I cannot speak for the 1991 gulf conflict) but the 2003 one was unpopular with many from the outset with the populations in atleast a few of the contributing states so while countries may contribute it does not necessarily mean it is what People are in favor of.. (Nor does it mean they were all against it).. Regardless what we do see is that particular nations such as Australia, ROK, Netherlands actually INCREASED their contributions, and the UK kept pretty close to equal


In all I think comparisons are difficult but I think what Corrupt is saying is actually not that unreasonable, in many Peoples perceptions Iraq was a fiasco that did nothing to help US Image and simply comparing the number of states as was done on the last few pages is putting it too simply for my tastes /endrant

[Jacknola]

In all I think comparisons are difficult but I think what Corrupt is saying is actually not that unreasonable, in many Peoples perceptions Iraq was a fiasco that did nothing to help US Image and simply comparing the number of states as was done on the last few pages is putting it too simply for my tastes /endrant

You were doing well until your conclusions. To me, Corrupt's argument was that "image, popularity, etc" has a tangible power that impacted Vietnam, and that as such, "world popularity" is something to be sought, presumably because it provides strength to military endeavors. I think that is baloney, and it was baloney in Vietnam.

Regarding your last paragraph conclusions ... " "Fiasco?" Iraq II was supported by 7 different UN resolutions, and the equivalent of a declaration of War by the US Congress, after a lengthy debate. "Fiasco?" the goals were clear and were obtained, 1. removal of Saddam and Sons; 2. removal of the weapons that made Iraq under Saddam a threat to all its neighbors; and 3. insure that Iraq would not again invade, pillage, plunder, destroy; 4. remove Iraq as a State-protected haven for international terrorism... State-originated, or NGO orginated.

All those goals were accomplished. "Fiasco?" ... the perception of "fiasco" was mostly advanced in the left-wing European press, the denizens of which also steadfastly opposed Gulf War I, and have held the US to be "unpopular" even during the cold war - being virtual fellow-travelers with the Soviets. Most of those also have been consitently anti-US through history, except when being freed from the grip of the Nazis.

Don't you think that "fiasco" is a far different term than "unpopular?" And as far as unpopularity, it didn't slow the advance of the Allies in Iraq one whit... and the "unpopularity" of Iraq II didn't keep Saddam in power for an extra 10 minutes. Indeed, "popularity" on a world scale has virtually no effect on military conflict. Dictators, pirates, terrorists, don't care about popularitiy, and democracy, once the ponderous machinery to resort to war has been activated, doesn't respond or change military course because of polls. War is not a vote, and wars are not won by votes of the world press.

In a democracy, when the flag is committed it is the responsibility of the political leadership to define the goals and mobilize the people. A democracy cannot sustain a war that is "unpopular" only if that unpopularity is internal, and even that is not of immediate impact if the forms of the committment of the flag were adhered to. but even external popularity/unpopulairty is of dubvious effect once war is begun.

What this means is that far too much effort is expended on "world approval opinion polls" for military action. Far better to spend that time defining goals and means. McNamara and Johnson never understood either goals, or means.

PS: If you think "world popularity" has anything to do with war, consider the S. China Sea. China's claims to all of the region, and portions of Japan (including Okinawa), Taiwan, Korea, cannot be very "popular" in the world. Do you think that unpopularity will stop their imperialism, or slow it for a single minute?

PPS: If you think "world popularity" should be consulted, consider the international situation that would exist today had the US left Saddam and Sons in control in Iraq. Just stop and consider what the world would be like .... so much for "popularity" being a sign post for what is needed.

[DasVivo]

You were doing well until your conclusions.

Just to clarify which part do you consider to be my conclusions that you are objecting to?


I cannot speak for how corrupt intended his words or his message... I can only speak of my views of the 'popularity' of conflict, and owing to the fact that I never witnessed the Vietnam conflict and how it was perceieved first hand I cannot really comment on that aswell as others so I will stick to the modern Iraq War and the issue of Popularity in the conduct of war


As for the rest of your post, allow me to clarify.... Fiasco might be too strong of a word but needless to say things that I said

in many Peoples perceptions Iraq was a fiasco that did nothing to help US Image and simply comparing the number of states as was done on the last few pages is putting it too simply for my tastes /endrant

In many Peoples perceptions is the key part to this statement...

The Goals of removing saddam and ending his place as a threat were met, no arguement there... The Years of what was effectively a state of civil war I think you could say in Iraq however did damage the image of both the war further still and of the US as the primary player in its orchestration. Infact in many of the countries that are traditionally US Allies and whom backed the US into Iraq this view is I would say not entirely uncommon either...
What are the ramifications of this? Well...

Don't you think that "fiasco" is a far different term than "unpopular?" And as far as unpopularity, it didn't slow the advance of the Allies in Iraq one whit... and the "unpopularity" of Iraq II didn't keep Saddam in power for and extra 10 minutes. Indeed, "popularity" on a world scale has virtually no effect on military conflict. Dictators, pirates, terrorists, don't care about popularitiy, and democracy, once the ponderous machinery to resort to war has been activated, doesn't respond or change military course because of polls. War is not a vote, and wars are not won by votes of the world press.

In a democracy, when the flag is committed it is the responsibility of the political leadership to define the goals and mobilize the people. A democracy cannot sustain a war that is "unpopular" only if that unpopularity is internal, and even that is not of immediate impact if the forms of the committment of the flag were adhered to. but even external popularity/unpopulairty is of dubvious effect once war is begun.

What this means is that far too much effort is expended on "world approval opinion polls" for military action. Far better to spend that time defining goals and means. McNamara and Johnson never understood either goals, or means.

PS: If you think "world popularity" has anything to do with war, consider the S. China Sea. China's claims to all of the region, and portions of Japan (including Okinawa), Taiwan, Korea, cannot be very "popular" in the world. Do you think that unpopularity will stop their imperialism, or slow it for a single minute?

PPS: If you think "world popularity" should be consulted, consider the international situation that would exist today had the US left Saddam and Sons in control in Iraq. Just stop and consider what the world would be like .... so much for "popularity" being a sign post for what is needed.

On the contrary, Unpopularity of Saddam externally made it all the more acceptable to remove him... I agree whole heartedly that Dictators Terrorists etc are not entirely swayed by popularity (though they may attempt to operate so as to claim it), and I agree that war is not so much a vote.. That said the point is not to suggest that Wars are won by Popularity in of itself, but popularity has a part in actually getting circumstances to allow for a war or to facilitate its conduct.... Whether its because neighboring states will not allow the use of their airspace/territory for the conduct of your war, will not lend you direct military assistance, will actively help or hinder you or bring about pressure for a resolution to things.. It depends upon the system of course but I would argue that the real tangible costs that can come about at times when supporting an unpopular effort can actually persuade people to not lend such support, whether those costs are losing at the polls, internal unrest, sanctions (How popular was Assads crack down in Syria thus far internationally?), isolation (how many people are rushing to defend North Korea?)

As to whether China would be stopped by popularity? Well firstly I am no fortune teller, they will as always weigh costs vs benefits as any sensible player would. That said I suspect if they had backing globally for say more imperialistic efforts they would certainly be more unrestrained than already they are....

As to the situation in Iraq if Saddam was left in power? Who knows, none of us know exactly how things would of panned out to the letter.. To play devils advocate we can say that the removal of a rival block to the Iranians and the subsequent instability has actually increased the Iranian threat all the while focus was argueably taken away from the effort in Afghanistan (which had far broader support) and which finally served only to further anger many People in the world thus argueably increasing the risks of anti western threats... We could go the other way and suggest that the outcome was perfect that Saddam was removed just in time and that the Iranians can be dealt with likewise in time and that everything 'bad' that happened was merely inevitable in whatever circumstances.

Personally I think it is rather premature to say how the venture there has paid out given that the situation in the region is far from stable yet and I consider it merely a part of that common situation
Anyway I enjoy reading your posts so do not take it as an attack or anything that which I am saying, but if we all agreed it would hardly make for interesting banter nor challenge our notions

[Jacknola]

Your writings are quite well thought out. My objection to your conclusions were mostly with the word “fiasco.” But the semantics about war and popularity means there may be a modern confusion about “war,” and its place in the world.

War is policy by other means. Policy, diplomacy, soft power, influence, cultural strength, all have elements of “popularity” and those disciplines rightly have “popularity” and “international support” as a tool.

But once war is underway, a different dynamic is introduced. The goal of war is to bend the enemy leadership to accept your point of view. Trouble is, it gets progressively harder to switch war off once it is started and sacrifices are made. Therefore, coalition politics, transitory perceptions, newspaper and armchair strategists should not direct the course of a war… the national aims that caused a resort to war is what drives its continuation.

In war, it shouldn’t be surprising if unexpected developments ensue. We seem to have gotten used to war that is predictable,short, with no surprises. In reality, when the shooting starts there are going to be set backs and unforeseen difficulties. The political leadership’s role is to keepthe national focus and to withstand the setbacks.

In Iraq, the Sunni-Shiia civil war, fueled by international Islamists was unexpected in its intensity… but was nicely dealt with… with an added bonus. The murderous rampage ofthe Islamists, and their dictatorial methods, destroyed their credibility intheir own heartland. And now the “softpower,” strength of culture, is undermining the rest of their support… few young Arabs want to be goat herders and live in the 12^th C. A great many would like to live in the U.S.for instance.

For the Iraq II War, the source of much of the discontent with the conflict was internal US politics… the same element that supported the N.Vietnamese in the 1960s, hated George Bush so bad they were willing to side with Saddam Husain rather than admit his strategic plan… and that plan was deeper than just removing Saddam. The so-called neocons realized that the Arab-Islamic heartland was in Iraq… which gave a geo-strategic element beyond just removing Saddam.

Bush never seemed to worry much about the transitory objection to the Iraq war. He often stated that history would render its verdict. Well, as with Vietnam, it is now increasingly hard to find anyone who admits to supporting Saddam by condemning the Allies actions in Iraq. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors,and is not a source of worldwide terrorism.

Which for me indicates that the Allies would likely have won the war in Vietnam with a President more like Bush and with a defense secretary that had a clearer picture of goals and means than exhibited by McNamara.

[Hollis]

Excellent posts gentlemen. Thanks for the very good read.

[Flagg]

Excellent posts gentlemen. Thanks for the very good read.

+++++++100

[Beowulf]

I’m tempted to lead with “so what?” But I’ll save that till later…. but … sir, (a) you have a short memory about American “unpopularity.”

Do you have any memory of the riots and communist-instigated unrest, stoked by the left wing European press during the deployment of the Pershing missiles, “Ronald Reagan’ mad dog warmongering,”etc. just to name one moment among many? Yet 8 years later east Europe was free… and those who were doing the bidding of the communists for years had to grumble in their ideological hate. It will be interesting to see how Iraq is regarded 8 years from now.

Another thing ... about your “perception” of popularity … (b) So what? What has your “perception” of European mass popularity of American to do with anything … especially removing dangerous threats to peace such as Saddam Hussain… at a time when the President of France was on Saddam’s payroll? How would the US and the coalition of the willing face the threats to peace in the world better with more “popularity”and with Saddam ... and Sons still in power in Iraq?

Most of the European leaders understood quite well what was at stake in Iraq … even Germany helped by basing the logistic network. Those people who believe America is an evil force in the world have always believed it. No one in their right mind morns the demise of Saddam and Sons. Regardless of American “popularity” within Europe, very few in EuropeTODAY fail recognize the threat of Islamic terrorism. THAT WAS NOT TRUE DURING THE COLD WAR …. when a great many left wing Europeans actively support the evil empire, and despised America.

But what really bothers me is the perception that deadly world conflict is won by ‘popularity.” It seems to be a failure by coffee shop, armchair pontificators to accept the reality of armed conflict ... desirting to substitute something akin to Ghandian moral authority. Well…Ghandi himself stated that his methods would never work except against an ethical and moral opponent. A brutal murderous dictator state would simply kill him and his supporters.

I recommend giving some thought about the people and causes the US has fought against the last 100 years. Nazis, Communists in SEAsia who later murdered 5 million people, not to mention Communists in Europe (edit: and China) who murdered 50 million of their own peoples, Japanese Imperialists, crazy mass-murderers such as Saddam, and Islamic terrorism that seeks to impose itself upon the world. Yet the US is “unpopular?”

Popularity will not stop the Islamists, nor will it check the imperial ambition of China, or remove mad men who would like to incinerate the world. That is a job for the only country that can…and your perception of “popularity” is meaningless when the shooting starts.

I suggest that the people who un-popularize the US are the ones who need to look in the mirror and ask… “what is it I support?” Thank God for the British, Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, and others (ROK) who have steadfastly stood with the armies of democracy through the decades.

Damn! I'm ready to re-enlist now.