Saturday, April 18, 2009

Talkin Bout My Generation

If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, would we have entered World War II? In both hemispheres? Would we have had the resolve to see it through? Or would we have watched from the safety and comfort of home while good people suffered at the hands of some of the most evil characters the world has ever known?

I like to think the Greatest Generation would have jumped into the fight anyway, for both our strategic interests and in defense of the innocent. History certainly would have been different, but in the end evil would have been defeated.

But after WWII, for some reason, we started to doubt ourselves. The peace-at-all-costs crowd gained influence over media and education (especially at the university level), making it more difficult to rally the nation around any cause that involves the military. Yes, in July of 1953 the fighting in Korea stopped and a line was drawn. No winner, no loser, just peace. But look at what became of the North and South since then, perfectly illustrating the true nature of collectivist versus individualist ideologies. I would like to ask the anti-Korean War protesters of the time: Was it worth it? Have 50 years of intense suffering by the North Korean people been preferable to steeling our resolve and winning the war?

And if Korea showed the slippage of our national pride, we hit rock bottom in Vietnam. Like Korea, we were there for a reason: to stop the spread of an evil ideology and to defend innocent people from its effects. But by this point the question "War, what is it good for?" had no one to answer. It was just too cool and a sign of enlightenment to denounce any war, for whatever cause.

But again, we watched the results unfold. Yes, we brought our boys home from the war, but we also condemned millions to death and misery in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in yet another stark example of what transpires in the absence of American influence. I wonder if Jane Fonda ever thinks about those poor people . . . she certainly is never asked about them during her "Larry King Live" appearances.

Over the last few years, we have seen this pattern continue to play out. After 9/11, we briefly regained our desire to assert American values in the shakier parts of the world. Afghanistan was obvious . . . go get the guys who attacked us. And at first, invading Iraq and ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was well supported here at home. The naysayers were a small minority, especially when Saddam's statue came down so quickly.

But then things got difficult . . . a hard slog. Mistakes were made and the mission wasn't quite accomplished. Good men and women died and it was heart wrenching to watch. This is when public sentiment started to turn, led by some of the most opportunistic and shallow politicians the world has ever known . . . almost all from the Democratic Party. What happened during those long months when victory was not assured, when the path forward looked worse than the path back, when the only reason to keep going was a belief in core principles of our nation?

Character was revealed.

A philosophical rot has taken hold at our core. How many people do you know that were supportive or OK with the war at first and then jumped ship a year or two down the road? Take note of these people and be reminded not to rely on them for anything important. They will let you down. Again.

Fortunately President Bush did not waver and ensured Iraq was won before he left office. But, the price we will pay thanks to the wobbly left is impotence against Iran. This is an evil regime, on the road to becoming dangerous. If we, as a nation, had stayed committed to winning in Iraq and now turned our attention to Iran, we may have been able to gain influence without further military action. Now, there seems to be only one path: a nuclear armed Iran and a foolish hope they won't use it. They will.

It's no longer in style to believe that America is great, that our values are fundamentally noble. Apologies are in vogue. Bowing to monarchs that have no respect for individual rights and shaking hands with socialists who condemn America . . . Presidents used to not do these things.

Sometimes fighting for what you believe in requires actual fighting. There are people who want to tear down what we value. Embracing them will not change that. Do we really have to continuously learn that the hard way?

(PS - 20-April-2009, on the 2 year anniversary of Harry Reid's declaration: ''...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything ...")

1 comment:

  1. What could have been...imagine, as suggested, that we had remained determined and the Democratic Party remained a strong proponent of victory. The objectors to winning in Iraq would have been a silent, whining, minority.
    The mistakes would still have happened (war is not easy); the surge would have still worked; BUT Iran would likely not be in the aggressive posture they are in today. They may very well have gone the way of Khaddafi's Libya.

    We could have been in a position of strength with a feared US fighting force and a willing ally in Iraq right across the border from Iran.

    ReplyDelete