Giving aid and comfort to the enemy today and yesterday

During any other war, the following list that Vasko Kohlmayer complied would show treasonous conduct. In this War, it’s politics as usual:

• They have repeatedly conceded defeat in Iraq with Harry Reid claiming ‘this war is lost;’
• They purposefully downplay any and all American military successes;
• They have sought to portray our troops as violent and brutal thugs;
• Jack Murtha accused our soldiers of being cold-blooded murderers while John Kerry alleged they terrorize women and children at night;
• Dick Durbin compared our military personnel to Nazis and Pol Pot’s henchmen;
• The have sought to paint our military commanders as stooges of a manipulative president (the Petraeus hearings);
• They have called our Commander-in-Chief ‘stupid,’ ‘loser,’ ‘incompetent;’
• They seek to extend constitutional protections to foreign terrorists and enemy combatants;
• They have outed and obstructed an important eavesdropping program designed to monitor terrorists’ phone calls and e-mails;
• They are trying to eliminate crucial components of the Patriot Act;
• They have repeatedly leaked classified information;
• They lobby for the release of most Guantanamo Bay detainees most of whom are dangerous terrorists;
• They have sought to destroy the reputation of the American military by making scandals out of minor incidents (Abu Ghraib);
• They have portrayed America’s main terrorist detention facility (Guantanamo Bay) as a torture chamber even though it is the most supervised and inspected prison in the history of warfare;
• By manufacturing bogus scandals they have seriously damaged their country’s reputation in a time of war;
• They have forced the resignation of an effective defense secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) and a number of other administration officials committed to winning this war;
• They visit and praise America’s enemies even those responsible for the deaths of American troops (Nancy Pelosi in Syria);
• Dennis Kucinich called the Iraq war ‘wrong’ and ‘immoral’ in the presence of Bashar Assad, the head of the Syrian regime that is a sponsor of terrorism
• They want to run and cut from the battlefield in the middle of a war.

You can read here the rest of what Kohlmayer has to say.  (H/t:  American Thinker.)

We live in a topsy-turvy world.

In a somewhat similar vein, because it involves dealing with the enemy — although I’m thinking of dealings, not during the war, but once victory is achieved — I have to comment on something that flashed through my head yesterday as I was watching Ken Burns’ The War (which I’ve been slowing getting through, courtesy of TiVo).   One of the guys interviewed was a Marine pilot during the War, and for that, he gets kudos forever.  However, the things he said during the show make him sound as if, in the here and now, he’s a kind of ordinary anti-War Democrat.  Since I haven’t walked a mile in his battle tested shoes, I’m loath to criticize his viewpoint, but I can and will criticize something stupid he said.

Speaking of the enemy, he said that, by 1944, word was getting out about the atrocities the enemies were committing.  He added, though, that he wasn’t rushing to blame them, because he always wondered what Americans would do under similar circumstances.  A little “stupid bomb” popped off in my head, because we don’t need to wonder, we know.

During World War II, when it came to the Japanese taking over a territory, official policy (not the aberrant behavior of individual troops) resulted in the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, and the civilian concentration camps in which tens of thousands of civilians were tortured and died.  (No link for that last.  I grew up hearing those stories from my mother, who survived the camps.)

During World War II, when it came to the Germans taking over a territory, official policy (not the aberrant behavior of individual troops) resulted in the Death Camps, which not only wiped out 6 million Jews, but sought to enslave and/or destroy whole populations of Gypsies, Poles, Communists, Homosexuals and other “undesirables.”  That doesn’t even count the horrors the Nazis visited on civilian populations without the bother of a death camp.  Mass graves still reveal themselves today outside of forgotten villages once under Nazi control.

During World War II, when it came to the Russians taking over a territory, official policy (not the behavior of the much tried Red Army troops, behavior that was indescribably cruel, but perhaps understandable after what the Germans did to the Russians) was to turn the territory into one giant Communist prison.

During World War II, when it came to the Americans taking over a territory, official policy was the Marshall Plan.   And you can’t downplay American humanity in this regard by saying that the Americans hadn’t suffered the way the Russians had, for example, so they were going to be softer and kinder to their defeated enemies.  To begin with, when the Japanese and Germans engaged in their inhuman conduct, they were on the ascendant in their wars, and hadn’t suffered either.  This was their standard M.O., and not the results of soldiers pushed to the brink.  And to end with, the Americans had suffered terribly.  The Marines and Navy in the Pacific, the Army in Europe, and the Air Force all over, had suffered unimaginably.  But at the end of it all, our goal, the American policy carried out by American troops, was to build up the countries taken in war, not to engage in the wholesale slaughter and enslavement of the civilians.  (The same holds true, by the way, for the Brits.)

And so I’ll say here and now that American and British values, at least as they played out during their peak during WWII, were better than other values.  They’re still better, although most Britains, and many Americans (notably House Democrats) seem to have forgotten that fact.  You won’t hear any moral relativism from me.  When American values are good, they’re the best.


19 Responses

  1. Having a contrary opinion is not treason. Most of the list falls into the category of “taking a position Bookie disagrees with”-which by any standard is not treason.

    I won’t deny that some Democrats have not been the best spokesman for their position-but then again so have some Republicans.

    The key issues remain:

    1) What does being in Iraq really gain for the long term national interest?

    2) Are the rights that we giving up in the name of security really what we want to do-and if we do how to you keep some other President from misusing them down the pike?

    3) Re Rumsfeld: If you accept the premise that Petreaus’ “new strategy” is working ( Even though its not new and its not written by Petreaus)-then why shouldn’t the man who refused to resource that strategy and the rest of the Armed Forces be fired?

    There has to be a debate about these and other issues. The tone we set now will be the underpinning of American policy for years to come. All the bombast aside there are serious questions that need to be wrestled with. If that is treason-then send the thought police over here now.

  2. Skippy-san, you know I’d love to agree with you, and I do agree that no one thing on that list, taken alone, is treason. However, when you have a pattern and practice of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, and that’s what you’re doing when you try as hard as you can and as often as you can to destroy your own side’s morale, to denigrate your troops and to defund your troops, you’re pretty much throwing the battle to the other side.

    This is an entirely different argument from saying we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place, something I will agree is open to debate. However, I won’t debate that, now that we’re there, when our own Congress people attack our troops our own troops and our side of the issue political gain, even if that means strengthening the enemy, that type of conduct is a bad thing and, under traditional approaches to warfare, treason.

    Indeed, on the one hand, there’s a distinct difference between looking for ways to win quickly or get out gracefully, and, on the other, (1) trumpeting isolated acts of American troop malfeasance to our enemy, which demoralizes our troops and incites the enemy; (2) planning a time table for our defeat; or (3) personally consorting with nations that are are working to destroy America and kill American troops. If a Congressman thinks that these nations they should, in fact, be touchable, he should deal with that in Congress, not by frolicking off on his own.

    Ultimately, the way these Democrats do things smells a lot more like partisan politics, aimed at undermining an Administration by destroying that Administration’s war efforts than like a principled opposition to war.

  3. But so too do Republicans play politics. Other wise-why has the nation not been mobilized for the war as it should have been-because we don’t want to upset the markets.

    You’ve heard me say it before-the two sides are more the same than different and I would submit to you that both sides exploit the troops for their own political purposes.

    Which brings me to to one of your points-if the administration had been looking to win quickly they would have crushed the Iraqis from the git-go. They wanted to win cheaply-which is something quite different-and in the end has cost the nation a lot more than following the Powell Doctrine would have.

  4. As to that, Skippy, I totally agree with you. The only thing that distinguishes the Administration in that regard from the Democrats is that, no matter how stupidly it proceeds (and it is stupid to fight war on the cheap), it wanted to win, where the Democrats, for political purposes, undoubtedly want to lose.

  5. Here’s a thought nobody will like: go easy on that “kudos forever” stuff for someone who once served. Like all of us of a certain age, he was drafted. The fact that having been drafted he went on to do the job – the other option in that earlier time was to go to jail – doesn’t all by itself make him worth talking to.

    Everybody got drafted, including otherwise worthless jackasses. That they appeared in uniform doesn’t change that they were worthless jackasses, as John Kerry demonstrates every day.

  6. You’re right, JJ. But he still did what he did. When I watch “The War,” I am struck as I always am, regardless of the War at issue, by men’s ability to go forward into possible death. My Dad did it, the guys and gals in Iraq did it, the people in all past wars have done it, and I’m always impressed and amazed. He may have been drafted, but he was still a Marine, in combat, during WWII, and I have to acknowledge that. That he’s less than sensible now . . . well, that’s a different story.

  7. I doubt that a marine pilot was a draftee. However I think the man was just trying to say “it’s not for me to judge.” Keep in mind that in the 40’s, America was a fairly anti-semitic place. It was the horror of the Holocaust that shocked the American Christians out of it — hopefully forever.

  8. It doesn’t give them a pass for all time. “We honor them for their service.” I don’t know.

    Do we honor Hitler for his? He did what he did, too, and he was one of very few enlisted men – it was mostly reserved for officers – to win an Iron Cross during WWI. A genuine hero. An excellent and completely reliable guy to have beside you in a trench – but he was still Hitler.

  9. In WWII virtually everybody was a draftee, Ellie – we had a tiny prewar military.

    For example, in 1933 the US Army consisted of 134,024 guys. In 1940 it was 267,767. By mid-1941, when everyone recognized – very belatedly, in this country – that war was coming, (it had already started in China and Europe) the first draft lifted it to 1,460,998. That’s a gain, via the draft, of 1,193,221 almost a 400% increase – in one year.

    The newest of the battleships bombed at Pearl Harbor was built in 1923 – “Arizona,” the memorial ship, was built in 1916.

    Just before Pearl Harbor, the Marines mobilized everybody – active duty, and air and ground reserves: there were a total of 65,881 of them.

    With a large party of people who actually believed WWI was the “war to end wars,” followed by the ravages of the Depression, we didn’t have a military in the prewar years. We had to reinvent it, and that right smartly, to be able to fight WWII. That was done via massive drafts.

    Unless this guy was a career Marine and had been in since before the war, he was a draftee. They all were.
    Once in he volunteered to fly, sure; but the odds are he didn’t volunteer to be in.

  10. JJ – somewhere I got the idea in the 60’s (Viet Nam era) that the Marines had never accepted draftees. Beside the point.

    The point is in WWII very ordinary boys did heroic things. And those parents (mine – I was born in 1947) stiffled the anti-semitism they had been taught and taught their children (boomers) that the Jews were Americans, just like us.

    So, do not snear at this elderly pilot.

    My mom’s upbringing still popped up from time to time — until she died she referred to bargaining as “jewing someone down” and in the WWII years, she named a black lab “nigger” — much to her later mortification.

    So, yes, give him a pass. He’s not Hitler.

  11. I sneer at no one, and will absolutely give him a pass. It’s entirely possible to be a hero on Monday, and a bozo by Wednesday. (In fact, as my own life abundantly proves, it’s entirely possible to be a hero Monday, and a bozo by Monday evening…)

    Wednesday’s bozoness does not negate Monday’s heroics.

    After all, the best fighters Jackson had at the battle of New Orleans were the damn pirates – previously best known for looting, raping, and murder!

    But guys like Kerry, Murtha, et al don’t deserve kudos forever, either. I gues it comes down to: honor the actions, not the man. If the man is honorable, fine: honor him too, but otherwise not.

  12. JJ- Thank you. WWII and the Holocaust changed everything. For us .For the Muslims, nothing changed.

    In my youth, I read the Bible and thought “how could I ever be persecuted for my belief?”

    Now I know — if Islam rules.

  13. JJ,

    I think you’re using “draftee” a bit freely; it sounds to me as if you’re saying everyone who wasn’t part of the pre-Dec. 7 military was a “draftee”, including those who voluntarily enlisted. 8 December 1941 was, I understand, a bumper day for voluntary military enlistment.

    There were drafts later on. And wartime volunteers would have been considered “reserve” personnel along with draftees in that their serial numbers would have begun “US” rather than, for example, “RA” (for the Army; not sure about the prefixs for the other branches). But not everyone who fought in WWII but wasn’t in the military before the first actual draft in 1940 was drafted.

  14. Well, if you were drafted then they would send you to wherever they wanted you to be. If you volunteered, then you could choose your branch and many fighters chose the Marines. Not most, but still many.

    The real point is that if this person had no conception of whether he needed to speak out against WWII or not, given that it is over now and back then when he was able to, he was fighting in it.

    People were too busy fighting and worrying to worry about tearing down Roosevelt and becoming the new Caesar of the Americas. The same is not true for today.

  15. This was their standard M.O., and not the results of soldiers pushed to the brink. And to end with, the Americans had suffered terribly. The Marines and Navy in the Pacific, the Army in Europe, and the Air Force all over, had suffered unimaginably.

    Haven’t you realized by now that the fake liberals only see suffering as valid when it is the enemies of America suffering? Did they feel that My Lai was explainable because Americans had suffered from guerrilla style attacks from the VietCong? No. Why? Cause they were Americans, and not the enemies of America, whether Nazi or Communist. The suffering of the proles in Russia, which the Communists used as cannon fodder, now that was glorious, BOok.

    And so I’ll say here and now that American and British values, at least as they played out during their peak during WWII, were better than other values.

    That’s a warmonger position, Book. Get in the real reality, the nihilist and narcissist reality, and you will understand why such things promote war rather than make things better.

    They’re still better, although most Britains, and many Americans (notably House Democrats) seem to have forgotten that fact.

    That assumes Robert “KKK Kleagle” Byrd ever remembered such “facts” in the first place. Thou Shalt Not Murder was also glossed over by bon bon Kennedy the still living, as well.

    When American values are good, they’re the best.

    If something is seen as the best, then this means wars will result in people trying to be the best, trying to steal the best, and trying to overthrow the best, Book. This is counter to the Leftist creed of humanocentric dogma and religion.

    You’ve heard me say it before-the two sides are more the same than different and I would submit to you that both sides exploit the troops for their own political purposes.

    Such beliefs will prevent war and make a better world, in your view. But they won’t, for they are foolish and false beliefs.

    They wanted to win cheaply-which is something quite different-and in the end has cost the nation a lot more than following the Powell Doctrine would have.

    The Powell Doctrine was explicitly designed to prevent any kind of war that would take out Saddam. Now you are using it to prop up decades old pipe smoke from the midden heap. Talk about counter-insurgency and next gen warfare, for the Powell Doctrine is something else entirely.

    Winningly cheaply is the very definition of the Powell Doctrine. Powell even called up General H. Norman Schwarzkopf to worry about the number of really expensive cruise missiles the General had authorized. In some cases the Powell Doctrine is a very good dog and pony show with the requisite number if illusionary tricks and propaganda advantages, but it would be downright foolish to call it a doctrine concerned over crushing an enemy.

    Nostalgia is not something people should indulge in, especially the Baby Boomer generation. For nothing good will come of it. No saved lives. No good policies. No solutions for current problems.

    The tone we set now will be the underpinning of American policy for years to come.

    The seeming success of the Powell Doctrine in Gulf War 1 did indeed create the underpinning of American policy for years to come. How perceptive of you. You could always blame Bush the elder rather than Powell, but you won’t do that, now will you.

  16. Binder, you’re right: there were some huge volunteer occasions – post the attack at Pearl Harbor. The numbers I’m giving are mid-1941: six months before Pearl Harbor. We hadn’t been attacked yet, there was no reason for an outburst of patriotism at the time in question.

    I’m old enough to have been “invited” to serve myself, and well remember the way the Boston Navy Yard, which was the induction center, handled matters. The Navy and Air Force didn’t much indulge in draftees (they did – but for specific jobs): those two branches were usually fine for personnel. Bbut the Army and the Marines certainly drafted.

    The way it was done in Boston was, they lined everybody up, and asked if people had preferences. Everybody of course wanted to go into the Navy – forget it. The Navy didn’t need bodies. But – having been drafted, you could then “volunteer” to go to the Marines or a specific arm of the Army.

    Those who didn’t do so were then allocated according to quota. You got lined up, and you counted off by threes. And then the announcement came: “Ones, you’re in the Army; twos, you’re on your way to Parris Island; threes, you’ll be available for assignment.”

    The threes were there to cover the fact that situations would arise, and the Navy or Air Force might need some bodies – usually for heavy lifting or ground-based work. Those branches generally want technically oriented or specifically trained people, but they also have a need for strong-backed “generalists” now and then. Once their quota was filled, the remaining threes went to the Army – or Marines.

  17. It is so sad that traitors can openly question the wisdom of The Commander in Chief, particularly in a time of war. They should all be rounded up and sent to Gitmo. I wonder if they would be so traitorous after a year or two of sleep deprivation.

    If you want to spread lies like “There were no WMDs” or “Iraq didn’t blow up the world trade center” then we’ll see if we can change your opinion with a free trip to Cuba. The Commander in Chief TOLD you there were WMDs! He told you Saddam was behind 911. If you don’t believe the Commander in Chief during a time of war then you are a traitor and should be shot.

    I can just hear them blabbering “Oh, poor me, I want a lawyer!” If you fuck with the US of A then you don’t get a lawyer, you get dogs chomping at your nuts.

    But what if they make a mistake, you say? What if they get some of the wrong people? Please. This is the DHS we are talking about here, people. Those guys aren’t fucking around. Do you honestly think they’ll get anyone but the traitors? Please.

    If only we could just round up all of the dumb-ass liberals and shoot them. Then we could get on with things in Iraq and Iran.

    The dumb-ass liberals say that we are loosing the war. Wrong! We may have lost around 3,800 of our glorious heros, but we’ve taken out probably around 1,000,000 rag-heads. That doesn’t sound like loosing to me. If it weren’t for all the bleeding-heart liberals then we could get down to business and nuke the crap out of them. I bet the Iraq-fucks wouldn’t be blowing up any buildings if they were drowning in a sea of molten glass.

    And what’s the deal with liberal idiots who worry about their phone and Internet being read by the DHS? Why worry unless you have something to hide? What, were your grandparents rag-heads or something? The people reading your email are here to protect the fatherland! What do you think they are there for?

    Bush and the Administration need all of the tools necessary to fight evil, both internal and external. We are at war. Our leaders need to be able to vanish and torture the right people so that we can win. We need to be able to listen to the communications of all citizens so that we can root out those who challenge the Administration.

  18. […] is a sponsor of terrorism They want to run and cut from the battlefield in the middle of a war. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy today and yesterday Bookworm Room On the worst day in a string of exceptionally bloody days for U.S. troops, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, […]

  19. lort, you are clearly very naive and gullible and know nothing about human nature. Humans make mistakes, humans tell lies, humans mislead each other for their own personal benefit. And guess what? The commander-in-chief is a human being just like you and me, so just because he says something doesn’t make it true, and people should definitely have the right to question it. If you want to go live in a totalitarian regime where everyone must agree with the leader pack your bags and go live in North Korea! America was founded on liberty. If you had your way there would be nothing left about America worth protecting.

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

%d bloggers like this: