R.R. Donoho


13 Sep 2007 10:35 pm
It is my sad duty to report on the failure of our military intervention for this century. In the first years since the great tragedy that befell us we have seen our country’s leader condone the massive failure of our own military forces. In battle after battle we have lost brave men and yes, women, all to the folly of our president. Therefore, it is with great regret that I recommend the full withdrawal of all military forces back to the United States.

Signed, Harry Reid and the Democrat Party (after their new review of the time traveling machine developed at MIT.) 14, March, 1943.

Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Coral Sea, Bataan, Corregidor, Battle of the Atlantic (loss of merchant shipping to U-Boats), Battle of the Java Sea, Kasserine Pass and others. These battles were not defined as defeats but described to the American people as heroic defenses of freedom. Only one of these battles was fought on American soil. The rest were in foreign countries of which the Democrat Party of today would argue were none of our business.

The attacks on Gen. Petraeus as well as the political posturing by these individuals would have resulted in the wholesale surrender of the United States to Japan and Germany in World War ll. The perseverence of our political body back then is a far cry from the total lack of understanding and appreciation in the Democrat Party for the will and courage that is needed for a nation to exist.

There is an old saying, “what goes around, comes around” and if the American people do not wake up to the necessity of maintaining the will to defend our way of life, then that dream that is our country will disappear from the earth.

This is not a threat but a simple prediction based upon the lessons of history. To see this clearly one must only look to the great nations that have gone before. Where are the great pharaohs of Egypt? How did the great Greek experiment in Democracy disappear? What about the Roman Empire? What of the great nations of Europe which settled and colonized the entire globe? Even the Soviet Union which withstood the avalanche of Nazi terror has passed from the annals of history.

All of these empires succumbed to the one great enemy of mankind. This is the great evil of complacency. Someone once said that the sun never set on the British Empire. It does now. Is the sun setting on the great experiment called the United States?

Does the Democrat Party and the obviously erroneous media, now speak for the will of the American people? According to polls they do. When something is hard, America used to take it as a challenge, not just quit. Now, people see and hear that less than four thousand soldiers are killed and believe that it is too high a price to pay. Nor do they recognize the value of these soldiers’ sacrifice.

Back in 2003 our Congress was presented with both our own and foreign intelligence reports which described a threat which was believed by all concerned, but when faced with an enemy who refused to give us absolute proof to back up this intelligence we are now the first ones to condemn ourselves for having the guts to act on a proven outlaw regime.

These are facts reported in the media; We found three trailers that the German engineers who built them told me in a briefing in Germany could only be used for biological weapons. These trailers were constructed to destroy any evidence contained in them with the push of a button. We found warehouses full of insecticides which when combined with a catalyst would become a toxic nerve gas. Over five hundred shells with chemical warheads have been discovered. The head of the nuclear project for Saddam Hussein admitted in media reports that he was lying to his boss by telling him that they were on the verge of being able to make nuclear weapons.

Democrats and their allies in the media responded that the trailers could have been used for carrying vaccinations to outlying villages. No one commented on the massive amounts of insecticide that were discovered. (the Germans used an insecticide called Zyclone B. to kill the Jews and others in the concentration camps), There was no comment about the artillery shells that were discovered except to say that they were old and five hundred was not a large enough number.

The Democrats were simply ridiculous in their roles of denying the ongoing capability of Saddam Hussein to utilyze what we call today weapons of mass destruction. Yet, according to everyone none of these finds can point to the basic concern we had about WMDs.

This condemnation of the use of military force in Iraq by the Democrats is a farce of the greatest scale. But, the acquiescence by the American public in believing this farce is an indication of a total lack of an acceptance of reality bordering on suicidal.

Basic logic dictates that the argument of the Democrats right now in Congress are baseless and indefensible. THEY gave the go ahead to go to Iraq, then tried to use it as a political bat to beat their opposition instead of educating their constituents about why they approved it in the first place. (If they were fooled into going into Iraq, do you really trust them to now be smart enough to know the “right thing to do” now?) THEY accepted Petraeus’s military plan for Iraq then condemned it before even listening to his report! Are they prescient? (well then why did they approve it in the first place?) Now, THEY want to tell the American people what to do.

If someone was wrong as many times as the Democrat Party in Congress is why would anyone ever listen to them again?

Remember, What goes around, Comes around.

Our second president, John Adams in one of his multitude of letters wrote the following about America as the Constitution was being written,

“The people in America, have now the best opportunity and the greatest trust in their hands that Providence ever committed to so small a number since the transgression of the first pair; if they betray their trust, their guilt will merit even greater punishment than other nations have suffered and the indignation of Heaven.”

R.R. Donoho

07 Feb 2007 12:06 am

spirit.jpg

They marched a lot longer than most would believe.

Conflict After American Wars - - We are losing the war in Iraq?

In Iraq today we are allied with an emerging nation. But there seems to be a belief that a government based on the freedom of the people, what we call a democracy but is really a democratic republic, can be created overnight. The constant theme is that the violence in Iraq shows a lack of resolve by its people or a mistake of the current U. S. administration to successfully prosecute a war of this kind.

NEWSFLASH: This war is an insurgency and we have found this problem in almost every war we have ever fought.

The great American Revolution that ended in 1783 brought us 17 years of internecine strife. This included Shay’s Rebellion from 1786 to 1787, Harmar’s defeat in 1790, St. Clair’s defeat in 1791 by the Indians, (He lost nine hundred men and women) Anthony Wayne’s victory (massacre?) in 1794, The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and from 1798 to 1800 our undeclared war with France.

These are the major conflicts that occurred during this time period in our country. Numerous acts of “terrorism” by individuals, groups of Indians and former loyalists were also common in these years. If this happened today the major news media would have us petitioning the King of England to take us back.

How about our next war, the war of 1812?

The last battle of that war, the battle of New Orleans, was fought after the war ended. Our capitol was burned to the ground and we lost most of the battles. Conflict with the Indians and small groups of “disloyal” Americans as well as Canadians occurred constantly for the next fifteen years. Most, if not all, believed to be instigated by our former enemies, both external and internal.

The Mexican War was fought in the 1840s. Before, during and after that war we had and have had numerous violent actions of Mexican and American citizens.

They include: Mexico providing safe havens for hostile Indian tribes raiding into the United States, Mexican bandits constantly crossing the border to steal, murder, deal drugs, and rustle from the end of the Mexican War to today, and in the most publicized event to occur, the raid of a U. S. town by Poncho Villa leading to the second invasion of Mexico by U.S. forces in 1914.

The terrorist or insurgency actions after the Civil War are obvious, but if there are some doubters then refer to the numerous secret societies and outlaws from after that conflict to today.

The Spanish American War ended and we fought the Moro’s in the Philippines for the next 20 years.

After WWI we had troops in Central America until WWII. Our troops left Europe but our allies had troops there until just before WWII.

The occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII did not end until relatively recently. There was violence in Germany until the early 50s.

Perhaps not all of these instances apply to Iraq, but all do apply to the idea that birthing a viable democratic government is not something that is done in a period of a few years!

Update: There is a view by the news media (and from this the American Public) that we are paying too high a price in Iraq. In fact, the level of violence and casualties (3000 U. S. dead) are the major talking points for those who believe that we are losing this conflict. Let’s look at a few facts:

1. The population of the United States in 1783 is estimated at about 2,000,000 people. St Clair’s defeat and loss of 900 people in 1791 constitute a loss of .05 % of our population. This was just one conflict in a series of hostile actions against our citizens from 1783 to 1797.

2. The loss of 3000 soldiers in Iraq by 2006 constitutes about .001% of our population.

3. As to the argument that the Iraqi are not fighting their own terrorism, according to the same media estimates given below, since the establishment of the Iraqi government over 5900 Iraqi police and soldiers have been killed. Taking the casualties that we had before the establishment of the Iraqi police and military, this means that the Iraqi has lost about 2 of their security force to every one of our soldiers killed.

4. Some press sources state that Iraq has lost over 600,000 people. Others say that 28,000 have died. If you look at these from the timeframe given in each article, the largest estimate is 15,000 deaths per month to 2800 deaths per month. Yet articles from the same media state that the Iraqi people are not interested in winning their own war. (During the same period the United States has lost 4750 people per month from murder and auto accidents. Granted that this is with a population of 300,000,000 but it is a look at the normal loss of life in our country to tragic circumstances during a period of peace.)

5. The estimated population of the United States in 1860 was between 30 and 34 million (ref. U.S. Census 1860). The estimated population of the United States in 1870 was about 26 million (ref. U. S. Census 1870). During this ten year period we fought a civil war and using the number of 2 million (instead of 4 to 8 million) as a very conservative estimate of civilian and military casualties during this conflict we find that the number of people lost per month would have been around 40,000.

If, as the media tells us, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, then even the loss of 15,000 per month is quite a bit less than our own civil war. (As to the argument of how we have better medical capability now, remember, we also have better ways to slaughter people. In addition our population of between 26 to 34 million compares easily with Iraq’s population of 26 million.) Terrorism from outside sources is not a civil war, it is terrorism.

Well, what is the bottom line to these facts? The bottom line is that it seems that the American people are being presented with a very tainted story either by design or by ignorance.

Anyone who learns the history of our country will readily consider that, in large part, today’s perilous times call for the concerted efforts of leaders who will strive to overcome despite the difficulties. We would do well to consider how we gained our own freedom and the men who gave their lives, fortunes, family and TIME to make us what we have become. Our focus should be on the one goal of winning the war.

Isn’t this the focus of President Bush?

Why are we trying so hard to find reasons to lose this war?

Why is it that we, who have such a great example of history before us, refuse to see that which history teaches?

Robert R. Donoho
COL(ret), USA