Filed under: Energy, Foreign Policy, Military, National Security, The United States | Tags: Armed Services Committee Says No, Military Green Energy Experiment, No Subsidies - No Fuel
The House Armed Services Committee’s proposed Pentagon Budget contains a provision that could bring a screeching halt to the U.S. military’s ambitious experimentation with biofuels. This is a very good thing.
Actually, it was probably the president’s ambitious idea. President Obama seems to be a true believer in anthropogenic global warming, whether from conviction on his own part or from conviction urged by the support of Big Green is unknown.
The Army has been developing alternative fuel technologies for ground vehicles, such as a high-tech steam engine that can run on a variety of fuels, including biofuels. The Army is contracting with Cyclone Power Technologies developer of the all-fuel, clean-tech Cyclone Engine, and Advent Power have been awarded a contract to develop a compact 10kW auxiliary power unit designed to increase operating efficiencies and decrease fuel usage of ground combat vehicles.
The committee sensibly voted to ban the Department of Defense from purchasing alternative fuels that cost more than traditional fossil fuels.
The Air Force has been test-flying a 50-50 blend of camelina and jet fuel in public displays of its high-performance Thunderbirds demonstration team. Camelina is a weedy plant in the mustard family.
The Navy has been testing a variety of biofuels in ships and aircraft, including its Blue Angels demonstration team. Along with camelina, the Navy’s tests include algae and waste grease. The Navy has spent a whole year in an all-out effort to launch a Green Strike Group by mid-June, in time to participate in the multinational Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) maritime exercise. Every member of the Green Strike Group, including both ships and aircraft, must run on green fuel.
When the Commander-in-Chief supports clean green fuels, the military salutes and says yes sir. But the world has changed, or rather our knowledge of the energy situation in the world has changed. America is awash in accessible fossil fuels. The Navy attended a “Sustainable Maritime Fuels Forum in Australia earlier this Spring, and toured local biofuel facilities. Yet Australia has become a fossil fuel powerhouse, with plentiful resources for hundreds of years.
Governments are picking winners and losers with their usual wisdom. One after another of President Obama’s “green investments” is going broke. Europe is backing away from wind and solar as fast as they can— even sunny countries like Spain. Both wind and solar rely on fossil fuel energy as the required 24/7 backup. The math doesn’t work. Without subsidies and mandates for fleets or utilities to purchase biofuels, there would be no market.
The House Armed Services Committee has it right. If all this alternative energy costs way more than our own traditional fossil fuel; subsidies and mandates from the government to attempt to force their bright ideas on an unwilling military, that don’t, as yet work, is folly. Our military has enough problems with ill-advised downsizing, presidential leaks, and failure to understand the military’s mission. They don’t need to be messing around with alternative fuels as well.
It is very odd that at the same time the military is being forced to downsize, and desperately needed replacement of needed equipment is cancelled, we are indulging in wispy ideas that small experiments in alternative fuels can be expanded to supply massive quantities of fuel to run the military. The math doesn’t work. Growing crops to compete with fossil fuel takes vast acreages of land needed for food; and is only conceivable if the price of fossil fuel is extraordinarily high. The president is trying to make that happen, but the people aren’t going to go along.
Filed under: Freedom, History, Military, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Photographic Essays, The American Civil War, The Origins of Memorial Day
It was after the worst war in our history that we began to officially celebrate Decoration Day, when the graves of the fallen were decorated with flowers, and ceremonies of remembrance were held. It was three years after the Civil War ended on May 5, 1868 that Major General John A. Logan, head of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), declared that Decoration Day should be Observed, and the last Monday in May was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all across the country.
The first national observance was held that year at Arlington National Cemetery, just across the Potomac River from Washington D.C.. The Arlington Mansion, the former home of General Robert E. Lee, was draped in mourning. Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant presided over the ceremonies, and after the speeches, children from the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Orphan Home and members of the GAR made their way through the cemetery strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers and singing hymns.
There were so many fallen, the traditional numbers were 618,222 — 360,000 from the North, 258,000 from the South. Demographic historian J.David Hacker combed through newly digitized census data from the 19th century, and recalculated the death toll and increased it by more than 20 percent — to 750,000. At that, Dr.Hacker made assumptions and the numbers are only an educated estimate. The data suggested that 650,000 to 850,000 died as a result of the war. He chose 750,00 as the midpoint. That meant 37,000 more widows and 90,000 more orphans.
Here is a fascinating photographic essay about the places of the Civil War 150 years ago, with 48 images. Photography was still in its infancy, but war correspondents produced thousands of images bringing the harsh realities of the frontlines to those at home in a new way. Remember that the United States was only 85 years old at the time. Here are some of the people of the War, the generals and the ordinary soldiers, the slaves, the President, the heroes and the dead.
I lost four great, great uncles in the Civil War, two on each side. One in the battle around Richmond where he was badly wounded and died from his wounds. His older brother and brother-in-law drove a wagon up from South Carolina, near the Georgia border, across South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia to bring his body home. His brother was killed at Snickers’ Gap, the only Confederate to die in that exchange. Their younger brother was in the South Carolina Calvary and survived the war.
On the Union side, the Ohio soldiers fought in the war down the Mississippi valley. One, I know only as “Uncle Frank who was killed in the war” for I have a tintype portrait. The other, I believe from the dates, was wounded at Chickamauga and died from his wounds.
War is terrible, and none was ever more terrible than the War between the States. but the nation healed slowly, and remained a strong union. “As we here highly resolve, these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Filed under: Middle East, Military, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: "Peace Dividends", Never Prepared, War and Peace
These videos from the Heritage Foundation explain some of the problems with America’s current defense posture. Whenever a war in ended and troops returned home, politicians are sure that was the last war, and they can quit spending money on a lot of military stuff, and spend it instead on things that will buy more votes at home. “The Peace Dividend” they always call it. Liberals are sure that we wouldn’t have any wars if it weren’t for the warmongering Republicans always in favor of throwing our weight around — around the globe.
It is partly a matter of basic philosophy. Liberals are usually opposed to guns, sure that if there were fewer guns, there would be less crime. That attitude spills over into national defense. What we need, they are sure, is simply more dialogue, more peacekeeping, more U.N. Obviously, I’m generalizing here.Liberals believe that the natural state of the world is Peace. Conservatives are more apt to recognize that War is pretty much the natural state of the world, and that the periods of Peace are to be celebrated, but to have Peace, you must prepare for War. Nicely encompassed in the statement “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.”
In 1933, the Army of the United States was 137,000 men. The U.S. Army was 16th in size in the world. The French Army, on the other hand numbered 5 million men. The military had built up somewhat by Pearl Harbor, after all, the war had been going on in Europe and China for a couple of years. Germany had invaded France in May of 1940. ,We were desperately unprepared, with obsolete planes, battleships for a carrier war. We couldn’t even strike back until Midway in June of 1942, and that was mostly luck. It was a long desperate slog until the American arsenal began to catch up with military needs. When the troops came home, we had a “Peace Dividend.”
By 1948 the army had declined to 554,000, and we were totally unprepared for the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950. And so it goes. The Taliban is stronger than ever, and the government is discussing how to ‘dialogue’ with them. We can talk about how it is impolite to throw acid in little girl’s faces, because they want to go to school.
Filed under: Election 2012, Global Warming, Islam, Middle East, Military, Politics, The United States | Tags: Afghanistan, Electoral Politics, The American Military
Uncle Jimbo, from Blackfive, takes exception to President Obama’s ‘strategy’ in Afghanistan. He wouldn’t have gone for the idea that the troops were fighting on Obama’s behalf either. The administration’s plans to ‘dialogue’ with the Taliban seem to be some vague part of the ‘strategy,’ whatever that is. It seems to be about— getting out before the election. There’s certainly a lot of rather large problems that must succumb to electoral politics.
Filed under: Europe, Freedom, Heartwarming, History, Military, National Security, The United States | Tags: General Mark Welsh III, U.S Military, U.S. Air Force Academy
If you can manage the time tonight, watch this speech by General Mark Welsh III, Commander U.S. Air Forces Europe, speaking to the cadets at the Air Force Academy last November. You will quickly see why he is such a respected leader, and the speech is moving, inspiring, and worth every minute of your time.
This week, General Mark Welsh III was nominated to be the next chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force. By all accounts, General Welsh is perhaps the most respected leader in the Air Force today, and for months both active and retired Air Force personnel were rooting for him to occupy the top slot. Currently serving as Commander, U.S. Air Forces Europe, Welsh will take over a service whose mission is more vital than ever, but one that has flown through lots of turbulence in recent years, from severe budget cuts to program mismanagement and security failures. It would be hard to find an American military leader as inspiring as General Welsh, now that David Petraeus has retired, and the Air Force will have a formidable leader in the coming years.
Like this:
Filed under: Election 2012, Military, National Security, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: Killing Bin Laden, The Afghanistan Speech!, The United States Military
It’s not that hard. You just think of who it is that’s doing the really hard stuff. You don’t have to expose them to publicity, which they don’t want. Just offer thanks and gratitude.
Filed under: Freedom, History, Literature, Military | Tags: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
[A little Henry Wadsworth Longfellow for the eighteenth of April]
Today is the 237th anniversary of the “Shot heard Round the World”
Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
He said to his friend,”If the British march
By land or sea from the town tonight,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light—
One if by land, and two, if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm.”
Then he said, “Good night!” and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, a British man-of-war:
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.
Meanwhile, his friend, through alley and street,
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.
Then he climbed to the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry-chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the somber rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade—
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town,
And the moonlight flowing over all.
Beneath in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night-encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel’s tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, “All is well!”
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay—
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide, like a bridge of boats.
Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now gazed at the landscape far and near.
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth
And turned and tightened his saddle girth:
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and somber and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry’s height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns!
A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet:
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides:
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.
It was twelve by the village clock,
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer’s dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.
It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, blank and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.
It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadows brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket-ball.
You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled—
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the red-coats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm—
A cry of defiance and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will awaken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.
A lovely paperback edition illustrated by Ted Rand, if you have kids.
Rick Moran has a nice bit of history of the day at American Thinker. It’s hard to imagine an essentially unarmed, unprepared nation without even an army taking on the British Empire, but Americans have never been afraid of a challenge.
Filed under: Islam, Military, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Militant Islam, The Long War, Understanding the Stakes
The following is an excerpt from an essay in the Claremont Review of Books about wars and how they end. This excerpt refers to Lessons for a Long War by Thomas Donnelly and Fredrick Kagan of AEI.
Today the United States is engaged in a worldwide struggle with militant Islamist terrorists and insurgents—a true war and one that has already lasted decades. Many Westerners would like to think that the stakes of this war are not vital; that it is all the result of some terrible misunderstanding; that the United States itself may be primarily to blame; and that in any case we can and should disengage ourselves at little cost. … But the jihadists understand the nature of this struggle better than we do. All we have to do is listen to them, since they are happy to state their claim. They say very clearly and with obvious conviction that they aim at the restoration of a trans-national Islamic caliphate; the overthrow of secular governments within the Arab world and beyond; the complete ejection of Western influence from the non-Western world; the restoration of Islamic rule in historically Muslim territories; the destruction of Israel; and the death of millions of Americans. They declare not only that they are at war with the United States, but that this war can have no ending short of utter defeat for one side or the other. And they pursue this war primarily through the deliberate killing of innocent civilians — a barbaric policy not adopted even by Nazi Germany. One would think that the moral and geopolitical stakes could hardly be clearer. Yet somehow respectable mainstream thinking in Western intellectual circles has come to the conclusion that this is a morally troubled and overhyped struggle. Indeed, Barack Obama said as much when running for president.
I thought that was a strikingly true and correct statement by Colin Dueck who is an associate professor of public and international affairs at George Mason University. He is the author, most recently of Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Military, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: A Slashed and Burned Military, Eliminating Our Nuclear Deterrent, Feckless and Naive
“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Oct, 2007
The war on terror is far from over, except for the convenience of the President of the United States. President Obama has used the phrase “as we end today’s wars” when he spoke of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in a document from the administration intended to provide “strategic guidance” for the Defense Department. The president wrote:
Our Nation is at a moment of transition. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, we have responsibly ended the war in Iraq, put al Qaeda on the path to defeat—including delivering justice to Osama bin Laden—and made significant progress in Afghanistan, allowing us to begin the transition to Afghan responsibility.
Security in Iraq has fallen apart following the departure of U.S. combat troops in December, and our ability to influence affairs there is demonstrated by the departure of half of the embassy staff. The president’s agenda was to end the wars, and now that he’s in full election mode, he wants out right now, never mind the consequences. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are ready to move back in as soon as we are gone. The retreat from Iraq, Obama claims, is just abiding with the Bush administration’s 2008 agreement, but Obama made no effort to modify the agreement. Iraq Body Count tracks violent civilian deaths at 460 since troops departure, a 35% increase over prior monthly averages.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban is waiting the American departure out, preparing to take over. Our troops remaining no longer get combat pay unless they are actually shot at in combat, which is just misguided. They are all apt to get shot or blown up at any moment.
President Obama is in full campaign mode and wants to be able to say he has fulfilled his electoral promises. I suspect that few were aware of his promises, and voted for the cool young African American who promised to end partisan dissension in Washington. That hasn’t gone too well. Statements like the above idiocy were a big reason why I voted against him.
American military forces will shrink — drastically —the Army will shrink by 72.000, the active Marine Corps will be reduced by 20,000, the Air Force will see six tactical fighter squadrons eliminated while an additional training fighter squadron will be scratched. The next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement will be slowed. The Navy will retire seven cruisers and two amphibious ships and procurement of new ships will be delayed. This returns us to approximately the levels we had under President Clinton when we had a hard time executing the smaller missions in Kosovo and Bosnia, and before 9/11. But Obama the SEALS got Osama bin Laden, so al Qaeda is not a problem any more.
To compensate for the hollowed-out military, the administration plans to increase reliance on unmanned drones and special-operations teams based around the globe. The military is in danger of becoming the broken force of the Carter era. The above does not count the automatic budge cuts amounting to as much as $600 billion that were part of the Budget Control Act that Congress passed last summer.
Obama seeks to cut the American nuclear arsenal by 80%. He has decided that a world without an American deterrent is a good start. Good timing. We now have a world where rogue states with unstable leadership like Pakistan, and North Korea have nukes, and Iran may be very close. North Korea depends on the income from passing on its technology. Iran has been notable for its promise to eliminate Israel and America, and for its active support of terrorist organizations.
Pentagon planners have been asked to consider 3 force levels as part of a nuclear force review 1) 1,100-1,000 warheads 2) 700-800 warheads and 3) 300 and 400 warheads. Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret) says that even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational. “No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy.” An editorial at Investors Business Daily says:
This latest example of presidential naiveté, which makes even Jimmy Carter look like a warmongering hawk, seems based not on geostrategic reality but rather on the wishful thinking that the threat posed is nuclear weapons, not the enemies that possess them.
Liberal loon Edward Markey (D-MA) has introduced a bill that would cut $100 billion in nuclear weapons programs, a bill co-sponsored by 34 other Representatives. Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense James Miller said that Markey’s initial call for cutting $200 billion over 10 years would result “in the immediate and unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States.” At present more than 30 countries all over the world rely on U.S. nuclear weapons. They have not developed their own weapons or expanded their arsenals because they believe that the U.S. would respond with devastating force if they are threatened. Even the credibility of the United States would diminish if our arsenal is not properly maintained.
It seems unbelievable that Obama can look at the world today and so totally misunderstand it. He believes that our retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan makes us more popular. Daniel Greenfield sums up the Obama Doctrine as he sees it. It’s not a pretty picture:
The Obama Doctrine can be summed up as the assertion that for the United States to have influence and standing on the global stage, it must first abandon its interests and its allies.
The doctrine is rarely described as bluntly as that by its proponents who employ euphemisms like multilateral policies and honest broker to mean much the same thing, denouncing the previous administration and all the preceding administrations going back to old Tom Jefferson for alienating the world by pursuing American interests and cutting deals with non-progressive allies. …
This leaves the United States as less than a nation, a version of the United Nations with its own military and a great deal of wealth. It has no interests except reaching out to befriend its enemies and it has no allies except those enemies willing to pretend to be its allies, at which point they will become enemies. But the United Nations was designed to be a forum in which nations pursue their own interests, it is not supposed to have interests or allies. The United States is a nation and it is meant to have both. If the United States cannot articulate interests apart from the UN agenda then it no longer functions as a nation on the world stage.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Military, National Security, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics | Tags: "Do-Nothing Congress", Good Campaign Basis?, Truman Reelected 1948
President Obama has never been shy about blowing his own horn, to put it modestly. If you remember, he tried to imitate Lincoln on his way to the inauguration — left from Springfield, just as Lincoln did on the train, ate the same meal, took the oath on Lincoln’s bible. He said he thought he ranked fourth in accomplishments after, perhaps, Lincoln, FDR and LBJ. Others, not so impressed, have compared him unfavorably to Jimmy Carter. He has compared himself to Martin Luther King Jr. because he has been vilified, just as King was. Well, now he’s going for Truman. Call it the Truman Gambit.
In 1948, Harry Truman was expected to lose, and lose badly. The Democrat Party was fragmented, with splinter parties. And the Chicago Tribune was famously caught with it’s headlines down. Truman ran against a “do-nothing Congress.” Which is what Obama is planning. Democrats are sure that slogan is what gave Truman a huge win in spite of all the odds. Personally, I think it was Dewey’s mustache. I strongly suspect that way more people make up their minds about how to vote based on how the candidates look. And Dewey just didn’t look like a really fun guy. He looked a lot more like a standard movie villain, and post-Hitler, mustaches just weren’t hot fashion. But that’s just my opinion.
We have a Democrat Senate that has not produced the budget they are required by law to execute for 1,019 days, that’s nearly three years. The president’s budgets have been late every year, and the last one was so dreadful that even the Democrats wouldn’t vote for it. The Republican House has regularly produced their budgets on time, but without Senate compliance with the law, they are stuck with running the government on continuing resolutions. Republicans will not agree to more “stimulus” because it doesn’t work and is a waste of money. If refusing to allow more stimulus and more borrowing from China can be categorized as “do-nothing,” it’s going to take some pretty spectacular lipstick to put on that pig.
Nevertheless, that is what is being attempted. Obama is sending down a budget that is simply unable to find anything to cut back on. All that huge, enormous, inflated, unmanageable, bulbous and continuing to expand federal bureaucracy can not be cut back. Evidence that the average federal bureaucrat is paid nearly twice as much as their counterpart in the private sector — an elite island of secure and highly-paid workers — makes no nevermind. They’re just special and they deserve it.
The federal bureaucracy cannot be cut, except for the military and their weapons systems, and their maintenance, and their bases. They are being slashed, but the newer, politically-correct armed forces with gentler, friendlier, climate-conscious manner will be ready to reach out the hand of friendship to all the world. And surely our friends will take over, now that we are scaling back? We can’t be expected to be the policemen of the world. Someone else will have to take that over, but who?
I find that troublesome. In 1933, the army of the United States consisted of 137,000 men. It was 16th in size in the world, but Hitler was already Chancellor of Germany, and Stalin was engaged in eliminating anyone who disagreed with him, and Asians date the beginning of World War II from the Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1931. We unnecessarily lost a lot of Americans before the Army was rebuilt and reequipped.
And then, when the War finally ended, the army declined to just 554,000 men and we were completely unprepared for Korea. Americans are an optimistic people and always believe that the war just completed was the last one — ever. Looking out at the world today, I don’t see a lot of reason for optimism.
Obama can be optimistic though. He has the newspapers of today on his side. J.E. Dyer, a former Navy intelligence officer, says:
There is no doubt that a significant segment of the MSM has the same peculiar worldview as Obama and his advisors, and takes care to frame everything in the terms of that worldview. But that doesn’t necessarily explain the behavior of the entire MSM.
Please note: I am speaking here of how “straight news” is framed in the news pages or broadcasts. Various opinions may be expressed on the editorial pages, but it matters greatly how the MSM attempt to reflect reality, which is what we all tacitly accept they are doing in “straight news” reporting. This reporting comes, over time, to write the narratives in our heads about what is going on in the world. And I have never seen reality so reflexively misinterpreted in the retailing of “news.”…
Congress is gridlocked, unable to exercise its proper role in the separation of powers. President Obama, besides presiding over a network of executive agencies larger and more powerful than any previous president had at his disposal, is a deliberate political “divider,” constantly – constantly– making divisive appeals to one constituency and rhetorically “flaming” another. No president has behaved in anything close to this manner since FDR in the mid-1930s.
This president is not Bill Clinton, or even Jimmy Carter; he is not Lyndon Johnson or JFK. He and his administration have broken with America’s trademark political mindset of gradualism and respect – however grudging at times – for the people. So why is the narrative by which his administration’s actions are explained the same one the MSM has used for decades? Why is this administration being interpreted on the same terms as its predecessors, when its actions and perspectives, in both domestic and foreign policy, are so very different?
We’ll see. Can Obama persuade Americans that it only a recalcitrant Congress that is keeping him from fixing the economy. Will the voters be impressed with the headlines? Can he convince them that all that hope and change he promised will really and truly make everything better and this time will be different, if he just gets another four years to promote more green energy, and fix more crumbling infrastructure and build more high-speed trains? Will the Truman Gambit work?
