Editorial: Diddling While Americans Die

[leobold1]

Diddling While Americans Die

Oliver North | February 16, 2007

He was an American hero. On his second tour of duty in Iraq, he had already served in the Western Pacific and a prior combat tour in Afghanistan. On Friday afternoon, February 16 , when Sgt. Joshua Frazier, USMC, was laid to rest in the soil of his native Virginia, his comrades in arms from the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines were fighting terrorists on the mean streets of Ramadi, in Iraq's bloody Al Anbar Province. As Sgt. Frazier's grieving mother was being presented with a carefully folded American flag, the Congress of the United States was debating a meaningless non-binding resolution attacking the commander in chief.

Heroes aren't athletes who set new sports records or Hollywood actors who make "daring" films, or politicians who make bold promises. Heroes are people who place themselves at risk for the benefit of others. Joshua Frazier was certainly such a man. Unfortunately, there are far too few members of Congress who fit the definition.

At Joshua's funeral, I gave his parents photographs of their son that had been taken a few weeks ago while I was embedded with his unit in Iraq. We had just returned from a patrol to a newly re-opened school where little Iraqi girls were being taught arithmetic. Standing around us are the Sunni police officers and Shia soldiers who had accompanied us on the mission. Sweat stains from his 40-pound flak jacket are still evident on his uniform and he is smiling through exhaustion into the lens. He and his squad of Marines had been up for more than 24 hours chasing down an enemy sniper. His is one of more than two dozen Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard units to be extended in Iraq in order to increase U.S. troop levels by 21,500. These are the young Americans who will bear the brunt of what Congress is doing.

Marine Sergeant Joshua Frazier is one of 2,507 U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq. Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that the resolution being debated by the House of Representatives is a measure that "will continue to support and protect" U.S. military personnel. Yet, she also says it shows "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." How this does anything but damage U.S. and Iraqi morale and embolden America's adversaries is beyond comprehension.

"The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of action in Iraq," Pelosi said Tuesday, as the resolution was introduced. She said the president's plan "is based on the judgment that the way out of Iraq lies in sending more troops in," adding, "Our experience has proven just the opposite."

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, "Our experience," in Ms. Pelosi’s words, has proven that pulling U.S. forces out of a fight before the war is won is a formula for disaster. In Korea, the decision to withdraw UN troops to the 38th parallel resulted in stalemate and today's despotic, nuclear-armed regime in Pyongyang. In Vietnam, the Congressional cut-off of funds in December 1974 precipitated the North Vietnamese Communist takeover of the entire country less than five months later. The combined losses in both wars–more than 108,000 Americans killed in action – should be an object lesson for this Congress. Pulling out, holding back, withdrawing support, "de-funding" the war – whatever it's called – is tantamount to squandering lives.

Is that where this Congress is heading? Are the lives of courageous young American volunteers like Joshua Frazier worth so little to our Congress that they would ignore our peril for perverse personal political profit?

If the morale of America's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Guardsmen and Marines doesn't have meaning to our legislators then perhaps they should look at what America's enemies are doing. While Congress debates hollow, but ultimately damaging legislation, there is new assertiveness in Iran – on everything from acquiring nuclear arms to supplying terror cells in Iraq with advanced weaponry. Tehran's radical Islamic theocracy headed by Grand Ayatollah Khamenei doesn’t have to worry about "resolutions of non-support"–but they are very adept at measuring American ambivalence and uncertainty.

This week's show and tell of captured Iranian sniper rifles, surface-to-air missiles, mortar rounds, sophisticated explosively formed penetrators and evidence of Iranian complicity in killing more than 170 Americans elicited nary a peep from the new Congressional leadership. They were more concerned with their pet resolution – and getting Speaker Pelosi a bigger military airplane for her commute between Washington and San Francisco. That's a telling signal to Tehran that our Congress is backing away from protecting our vital interests – and our troops.

Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Today, Congress diddles as Americans die. Tomorrow, we may all pay the price.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by leobold1

Heroes aren't athletes who set new sports records or Hollywood actors who make "daring" films, or politicians who make bold promises. Heroes are people who place themselves at risk for the benefit of others. Joshua Frazier was certainly such a man. Unfortunately, there are far too few members of Congress who fit the definition.

This is so true. I get so frustrated when people talk about actors and athletes being heroes. True, there have been heroes who acted, or played sports, but not many.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, "Our experience," in Ms. Pelosi’s words, has proven that pulling U.S. forces out of a fight before the war is won is a formula for disaster. In Korea, the decision to withdraw UN troops to the 38th parallel resulted in stalemate and today's despotic, nuclear-armed regime in Pyongyang. In Vietnam, the Congressional cut-off of funds in December 1974 precipitated the North Vietnamese Communist takeover of the entire country less than five months later. The combined losses in both wars–more than 108,000 Americans killed in action – should be an object lesson for this Congress. Pulling out, holding back, withdrawing support, "de-funding" the war – whatever it's called – is tantamount to squandering lives.

Yes, that inconvenient history they would like swept under the rugs of time.

This week's show and tell of captured Iranian sniper rifles, surface-to-air missiles, mortar rounds, sophisticated explosively formed penetrators and evidence of Iranian complicity in killing more than 170 Americans elicited nary a peep from the new Congressional leadership. They were more concerned with their pet resolution – and getting Speaker Pelosi a bigger military airplane for her commute between Washington and San Francisco. That's a telling signal to Tehran that our Congress is backing away from protecting our vital interests – and our troops.

Gee, I wonder why this isn't getting at least half the press of Anna Nichol's corpse?


Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Today, Congress diddles as Americans die. Tomorrow, we may all pay the price.[/quote]
Agreed

[Shooterman]

While I like Ollie North and always have, the case, at least in my mind, can be made we should never have been in Korea to begin with, and there was never justification to have 550000 thousand pairs of boots on the ground in 'Nam.

Uncle Joe, in my estimation, snookered Harry S into Korea, and LBJ snookered the USA into 'Nam.

The one fiddling while America burns in the Southwest is President Bush.

We know the DIMS are pure unadulterated scumbags. That, however, is no excuse for President Bush to crawl into bed with the buggers and open the borders and declare Shamnesty.

[Manchu34]

[quote=Shooterman;3290605]While I like Ollie North and always have, the case, at least in my mind, can be made we should never have been in Korea to begin with, and there was never justification to have 550000 thousand pairs of boots on the ground in 'Nam.

Uncle Joe, in my estimation, snookered Harry S into Korea, and LBJ snookered the USA into 'Nam./QUOTE]

Actually, if you look at the complete history of the entire conflicts in Vietnam, you would see the that FDR sent OSS military agents to Vietnam to train and equip Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh guerrillas.

The first US military death occurred September 26, 1945.

On July 26, 1950 - United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French. American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French.

September 27, 1950 - The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.


1953: During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America's financial commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a "falling row of dominoes." The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

1954:President Eisenhower dismisses the conventional air raid and the nuclear option after getting a strong negative response to such actions from America's chief ally, Britain. Eisenhower also decides against sending U.S. ground troops to rescue the French, citing the likelihood of high casualty rates in the jungles around Dien Bien Phu. No action is taken.

Just think, if Ike could have started a Nuclear War.

The rest is well documented.

Souce: The History Place - Vietnam War 1945-1960

[Shooterman]

[quote=Manchu34;3290637]

Originally Posted by Shooterman

While I like Ollie North and always have, the case, at least in my mind, can be made we should never have been in Korea to begin with, and there was never justification to have 550000 thousand pairs of boots on the ground in 'Nam.

Uncle Joe, in my estimation, snookered Harry S into Korea, and LBJ snookered the USA into 'Nam./QUOTE]

Actually, if you look at the complete history of the entire conflicts in Vietnam, you would see the that FDR sent OSS military agents to Vietnam to train and equip Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh guerrillas.

The first US military death occurred September 26, 1945.

On July 26, 1950 - United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French. American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French.

September 27, 1950 - The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.


1953: During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America's financial commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a "falling row of dominoes." The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

1954:President Eisenhower dismisses the conventional air raid and the nuclear option after getting a strong negative response to such actions from America's chief ally, Britain. Eisenhower also decides against sending U.S. ground troops to rescue the French, citing the likelihood of high casualty rates in the jungles around Dien Bien Phu. No action is taken.

Just think, if Ike could have started a Nuclear War.

The rest is well documented.

Souce: The History Place - Vietnam War 1945-1960

Interesting info. My understanding is we had about 800 or so military advisors in 'Nam when Ike left office.

When Kennedy was assassinated, I think we had about 50000 troops on the ground. So much for Ike deciding it was too risky to send ground troops, eh? Then along came Landslide Lyndon and his infamous, "Mothers I will not send you sons to Vietnam to die", BS.

I had heard somewhere we had supported Ho Chi Minh at one time. We should, in retrospect have continued to do so. It may have saved a hell of a lot of Americans lives.

[Manchu34]

Originally Posted by Shooterman

Interesting info. My understanding is we had about 800 or so military advisors in 'Nam when Ike left office.

When Kennedy was assassinated, I think we had about 50000 troops on the ground. So much for Ike deciding it was too risky to send ground troops, eh? Then along came Landslide Lyndon and his infamous, "Mothers I will not send you sons to Vietnam to die", BS.

I had heard somewhere we had supported Ho Chi Minh at one time. We should, in retrospect have continued to do so. It may have saved a hell of a lot of Americans lives.

You would be surprised at who we supported via training, equipment, etc. people like Chairman Mao from Red China. I recall reading that we even brought him to the states for special training and even supplied weapons and money during WW2 to fight Japan.