The best memorial for our soldiers is victory and keeping our promises

My father’s war was waged with determination, skill, industry, sacrifice, pride and eventually the most destructive weapon ever used in war.

Obama at National Defense University. (Getty Images via WSJ)

My generation was tasked with stopping the falling dominoes of communism. Politicians dictated strategy, technology and even targets. That war ended with the April 30, 1975, big bug out.

Two years ago at the National Defense University, President Obama basically declared a unilateral end to the  “global war on terror.”

In a 7,000-word speech that covered reducing drone strikes, closing Gitmo and reciting a litany of terrorist attacks, Obama said:

“We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism, a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

“So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism — from North Africa to South Asia.  As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking.  We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep-rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred.”


Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire Saudi construction magnate. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated and well off.

In Vietnam they called it winning the hearts and minds, but nonetheless Obama calls for:

“For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.  That has to be part of our strategy.”

It worked so well before.

Obama addressed the Coast Guard Academy graduating class recently and told them one of the biggest threats to national security is climate change.

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security,” he said, “and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.  And so we need to act— and we need to act now.”

He basically said denial of climate change as a threat is dereliction of duty.

He said this in the same week the Islamic State overran Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria.

Obama seems oblivious to the potential for terrorists to use chemical weapons from Syria or nukes from Iran or North Korea.

This is Obama’s bug out.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that a year after we heard about sick veterans languishing on waiting lists, Veterans Affairs statistics show that the number of veterans facing long waits has not declined, though Congress shelled out $16.3 billion to shorten waits for care.

Since this past summer, AP found that the number of vets waiting more than 30 or 60 days for non-emergency care is largely unchanged, while the number of medical appointments that take longer than 90 days to complete has nearly doubled.

The Obama administration can’t seem to figure out how to win wars or keep its promises to those who fight them.

People flee Ramadi (AP photo)


43 comments on “The best memorial for our soldiers is victory and keeping our promises

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    Any PFC would make a better C in C than BHO!

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    This is what we get for electing a community organizer, little more than a Chicago street hustler, to the presidency. Not that he alone pushed the “transformation”, far more devious and intelligent individuals set the schedule for America’s decline internally and externally, he was their frontman for socialism, including Islam is his reward.

  3. nyp says:

    Ah, there you go. “Little more than a Chicago street hustler ….”
    Vern, it must send a little shiver down you leg to write that. How transgressive!

  4. nyp says:

    From the CNA Corporation Report “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change”:
    “In 2006, CNA convened a Military Advisory Board (MAB)
    of retired three-star and four-star Admirals and Generals
    to assess the actual and projected impacts of global
    climate change on key matters of national security. Our
    2007 report, National Security and the Threat of Climate
    Change, identified climate change as a “threat multiplier”
    for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the
    world and laid the groundwork for mounting responses
    to address these threats. This military perspective is
    now reflected across the security community, including
    DOD’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), in which
    the effects of climate change are identified as “threat
    multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as
    poverty, environmental degradation, political instability,
    and social tensions—conditions that can enable terrorist
    activity and other forms of violence.”

  5. nyp says:

    Here is some more:
    “In northern Africa a growing body of academic research indicates that although environmental stressors similarly did not “cause” the Arab uprisings of 2011, the impacts of climate change may also have served as catalysts for these conflicts.24 For example,
    the research notes that drought conditions in Russia and China, and subsequent global wheat shortages, contributed to higher food prices in Northern Africa and may have helped catalyze and sustain the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings in 2011. Syria’s ongoing
    conflict was preceded by five years of devastating droughts, coupled with unresponsive state institutions, and overgrazing that decimated livestock, devastated 75 percent of crops in some regions, and forced millions to migrate to urban areas. In both rural areas affected by water and land insecurity, and urban areas burdened by inadequate support systems,
    antigovernment forces were emboldened. It is the MAB’s hope that a better understanding of these types of cascading climate-related impacts, along with proactive efforts, can help avoid similar future conflicts. ‘

  6. nyp says:

    Just one more, though you really should read the entire report:
    “To fight and win our nation’s most complex wars, the military relies on a “total force” concept and certain capabilities that exist only in the National Guard, reserves, or Army Corps of Engineers. Yet the Guard, reserves, and the ACE already are being called on more frequently to battle wildfires, respond to flooding and major snow events, and move water to drought-stricken areas, at home and abroad. We believe that the increased frequency, duration, and magnitude of these extreme weather events will stress these organizations’ capacities and increase the degree to which active forces will be called on in DSCA missions. While response to HA/DR and other related missions should not be a force-sizing parameter for active forces, the increased demand on the Guard, reserves, and ACE must be factored into future war plans. Planners should not assume that all forces will be able to deploy on short notice.”

  7. Winston Smith says:

    That’s right, AGW lead to those Arab uprisings, not this:

  8. nyp says:

    Remarkable to me that people here, starting with Thomas Mitchell, do not believe that there are serious geostrategic implications to desertification, mass migration, flooding of coastal areas, breakup of arctic icepacks, shifts in temperate zones, ….

  9. Steve says:

    Alarmist. Doomsayer. Scaremonger.

  10. Rincon says:

    Wrong, Steve. A doomsdayer is someone who predicts a catastrophe. Nyp’s quotes merely state that global warming can cause military and foreign policy problems. The only people who wouldn’t accept that are the antiscience types that refuse to acknowledge those possibilities.

  11. Yep, it is those anti-science conservatives who are afraid of GMOs …

  12. nyp says:

    Just a thought: wouldn’t the “best memorial for our soldiers” be to not engage in land wars in Eurasia on the basis of phony factual premises?


  13. Steve says:

    You aren’t paying attention Nyp. I have never been supportive of the second Iraq invasion and Winston is (and was) dead set against it and many other similar things.

  14. Winston Smith says:

    Steve, remember, petey has only been trained to debate mainstream conservative Republicans, not those people that have moved beyond the false left/right paradigm and recognize the bullshit from both sides of the aisle.

  15. nyp says:

    I guess i did not appreciate that when Thomas Mitchell accuses the President of “bugging out” in Iraq, and when he says that the proper memorial to our troops is “victory,’ he isn’t actually advocting policies that are more agressive than what the President is actually pursuing.

  16. Steve says:

    If you are in it, you better win it.

    What Mitch is saying is more about the lessons we SHOULD have learned from Vietnam.

    Sadly, it certainly appears we have not.

    Rand Paul said some good things this morning to Charlie Rose and Gale King…and Charlie obviously hates Rand Paul.
    Especially obvious when Rand Paul clearly restated his opposition for the Iraq Invasion.

    You guys simply have stop being partisan and start looking at the messages from individual candidates.

  17. Rincon says:

    “Yep, it is those anti-science conservatives who are afraid of GMOs” I was wondering when someone would point that out The same applies to those who want nuclear power eliminated at all costs. Conservatives certainly don’t have a monopoly on anti-science attitudes. They just exhibit it on a more regular basis than most others.

  18. Steve says:

    Nyp used the word “are” where you read the word “can” The two are mutually exclusive.
    Nyp’s statement remains Alarmist. Doomsayer. Scaremonger.

  19. Athos says:

    This odious cretin is repugnant to decent Americans. To say he simply has no clothes is to ignore his obvious plan to “fundamentally transform” this country into a third world cesspool. (AKA Communist Socialist Republic).

    It’s all Ø knows, and the real shame is the “useful idiots” that blindly regurgitate their marching orders are being used by the Democratic Party Plouffe boy trolls.

    And Rinny, when Algore gives up his mansions, private jets, and SUVs, THEN you have a right to preach to me about AGW. Otherwise, you’re as big a hypocrite as he is (but too dumb to cash in on it)

  20. Rincon says:

    There are profiteering preachers. Does that make the Bible untrue? Similarly, Al Gore’s actions have nothing at all to do with the validity or invalidity of climate change. Besides, I think he still buys carbon offsets. You don’t resent the rich, do you?

  21. Steve says:

    “There are profiteering preachers. Does that make the Bible untrue?”

    It’s not the “bible” it’s how PEOPLE USE the bible!

    See what I did there?

  22. Rincon says:

    Conservatives say the scientific community is wrong regarding global warming in every way imaginable. They haven’t gotten to the point of worrying how people use the knowledge. They dispute the knowledge in the first place.

  23. Athos says:

    Come on Rin. What I can’t stand about AGW is the shakedown artists that propagate it. You really believe that Algore (or anyone for that matter) “buying” carbon credits is going to save the day? Or just redistribute wealth?

    And how about a more pertinent question asked by our esteemed MSM to the potential Presidential hopefuls.

    “Knowing what we know now, was pulling out of Iraq in 2011 a good move?” Zerø can’t answer that one, thus his misdirect on AGW (which also lines the pockets of his chosen donors)

    You’re not really that blind are you?

  24. Athos says:

    High FlyinBrien: perfect thumbnail!

  25. Steve says:

    Closer, Rincon, you are getting closer.
    The fact is THAT is EXACTLY what I have been saying.
    They way people have chosen to USE what the science says about AGW is precisely the problem.

    Athos has a strong example…buying “credits” does nothing to lower the carbon outputted by the buyer of those “credits”.
    It does, however, REALLY enrich the sellers of such “credits”.

    They really got a sweet deal there…great con game. Selling absolutely nothing!

  26. Patrick says:

    “A carbon tax is supported by growing number of conservatives including Republican Treasury Secretaries George Schultz and Henry Paulson; Nobel Laureate in economics, the late Gary Becker; economist Arthur Laffer; and conservative thought leaders published by the Cato Institute, the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and others.”

  27. Patrick says:

    “…But we found a strong tradition of support from Republican presidents for cap and trade, which uses markets to try to reduce pollution.

    We rate this claim Mostly True.”

  28. Steve says:

    Carbon tax is not the same thing as cap and trade.
    Both have intrinsic problems in implementation and effectiveness.

    Neither of those is anything like the “Carbon Fund” feelgood scam.

  29. Rincon says:

    “buying “credits” does nothing to lower the carbon outputted by the buyer of those “credits”. Of course not. Who ever said it did?

    “Carbon Fund” feelgood scam” An opinion presented with no evidence to back it up.

    Do you prefer the income tax to a carbon tax?

  30. Steve says:

    Carbon fund claims it does. I see a scam. My opinion of everything and every claim I have read about it and on its website.
    Scam. Send them money to “offset” your output! woo-hoo. I have some oceanfront property available along the western edge of Clark County NV for anyone who believes that crap.

    Are you saying we can trade the income tax for the carbon tax? That would be interesting…lets see some numbers, Rincon.

  31. Rincon says:

    I checked the Carbon Fund Web site. I see no such claim. Show me how you “know” this.

    Easy. Reduce income tax by a billion dollars, create a billion dollar fossil fuel tax. If you prefer to maintain the billion dollars of income tax, then you must prefer it to the carbon tax.

  32. Steve says:

    “ – reduce what you can, offset what you can’t.”

    Truly, Rincon, you are blinded by the trees.

    Love your “numbers”, you got might big balls claiming I make shit up!

  33. Steve says:

    “You can be a leader in the fight against climate change: make a tax-deductible donation to offset your carbon footprint and support our industry-leading carbon reduction projects. Thank you!”

    “offset” SCAM!

    Since I own wilderness property with lots of trees, I AM “carbon neutral” according to this pile of shit.

  34. Athos says:

    Gotta post this. Whether it’s parody or not, it’s too good to be true. And their solution is right on the money!!!

  35. Athos says:

    Zerø is the gift that keeps giving. What idiots voted this joke into office not just once, but twice?

  36. Rincon says:

    Lemme see here. Have I got this straight? Steve and Athos are against anything and I mean anything that is directed at climate change, but they aren’t anti-science. And Steve is only concerned that humans will act inappropriately about the issue as if he thinks there is ANY action that would be appropriate (he certainly won’t name one). And Steve thinks that growing trees, burning fuel more efficiently or using renewable power will not affect greenhouse gases, so that makes the Carbon Fund a scam. So to Steve in particular, have I got it straight or am I once again maligning your good name by putting words in your mouth?

  37. Steve says:

    Once again, you mangle my words, Rincon.

    Lets see IF there is ANY room for understanding;
    View story at

    Because I own wilderness land with lots of trees, I am “Carbon Neutral” I don’t need any feelgood scam to wave at the suckers. I grow trees!
    The Carbon Fund remains a scam.

  38. Steve says:

    Doesnt like the link. Here it is again.

  39. Rincon says:

    If the trees were there when you acquired the land, then you are not carbon neutral. If some guy plants new trees by giving to the Carbon Fund, then he can become carbon neutral. Is this really that hard to understand?

  40. Steve says:

    IF I buy land that was once logging land then I AM “carbon neutral”!!!! HA!

  41. Steve says:

    It’s as good a con as the carbon fund is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s