Connect with us

Military

Will America be in perpetual war?

Published

on

Will America be in perpetual war

Sixteen years after the 9/11 terror attacks, and America has not “won” the War on Terror. In fact, for all the fighting, we’ve lost about as much as we’ve gained, depending on how you measure such things.

Terror attacks in foreign cities around the world are just as terrifying, if not more, than they were in 2001. ISIS and Al Queda are still active and planning attacks on America and the West. The Taliban is still strong in Afghanistan. Although many of the “Arab strongmen” have been deposed, they’ve been replaced with brutal theocrats.

There are now far less Christians in the Middle East than there were in 2001. It seems that our War on Terror, which was never a “war on Islam,” has suffered mostly at the hands of Islamic extremists, who ever free as ever to operate, openly, in most of Europe.

NATO, which, for the first and only time in its history, invoked Article 5 mutual defense on 9/11/2001 to protect the United States, is weaker than it’s ever been. The Russians, should they desire, could overrun the NATO member Baltic States in just 60 hours–something the former Soviet Union could never, ever contemplate doing to any NATO member in 1990.

The U.S. military is strong, possibly stronger on paper than it’s ever been. On paper. But fighting two wars over 16 years has taken its toll. Casualties, PTSD and drawdowns have cost the Army much of its professional NCO and officer core. The Navy is down to the bare minimum for experienced seamen and ship drivers, as evidenced by the recent spate of accidents they’ve had.

And the Air Force is making due with bombers (and some fighters) that are older than their aircrews. The problems that separate our military “on paper” from the actual facts in the field are tied to logistics, maintenance, duty cycles, and upgrades. While we fly all over the world, from land and sea, our enemies (and potential enemies) are sitting back and spending on new equipment without having to fight large wars.

In fact, many of our defense industry’s largest orders are not coming from the U.S. military, but from foreign military sales (like the enormous order by Saudi Arabia, the country that 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers, plus organizer Khalid Sheikh Mohamed called home).

When (if) we finally defeat our 9/11 enemies, there will be others waiting in the wings. Do we think the North Koreans and the Iranians, and the Russians, and the Chinese will simply let us go home and rest?

If America assumes a duty to purge the world of evildoers, then doubles down on that commitment for the sake of the lives spent to achieve victory, we will find ourselves in perpetual war.

There is no shortage of evil in the world. We will never purge all of it.

I believe that, after 16 years, we have avenged the lives of the 2,896 casualties on that day. We are now trying to avenge the nearly 7,000 deaths of U.S. personnel since October 2001. Yet the struggle continues with no end in sight, while new threats rise up to challenge the mightiest superpower the world has ever known.

Isn’t it time to consider whether America should be engaged in perpetual war, or should we more carefully choose the timing of our battles, and what struggles in which we will invest our blood and treasure?

Managing Editor of NOQ Report. Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign Affairs

Trump and Reagan joking about starting a war

Published

on

Trump makes final pitch for Roy Moore in Tweet

Let us make one thing clear. America usually has never been the ones to start an attack, although the Iraq war after 9/11 might have been the sole exception. However, when we are attacked we don’t roll over and ask for “another one.” We fight back.

When Reagan said; “I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes;” it was meant to be taken as a joke. The left can dish it out, but they can’t take it in. The media used the term ‘Star Wars,’ not Ronald Reagan himself.

Trump made it clear to North Korean’s Kim Jong Un to not try to blow the United States of America sky high without paying the consequences to what could happen to his hell hole that he rules over. “North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.’ Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”

Don’t go their ‘Rocket Man,’ because we shall not roll over and play dead like many progressives want us to do regarding their idols. Most of these idols are tyrants that they wish they could be, and that includes ‘Fat Boy” as Mark Levin likes to call Kim Jong Un. Meanwhile, the left still pushes the welfare state, because wealth redistribution and the promise to “take care of you” is their only way to buy votes and gain power.

P.S. if you progressives are so concerned about despicable people in the White House, how about JFK (and his sexual orgies), Bill Clinton (sex in the Oval Office itself), and yes Barack Obama (for being the Marxist punk that he is). For all of Trump’s shortcomings, it seems that Trump is keeping the White House clean while he is there if you know what I mean.

Reference

Levin: Trump was channeling Reagan with ‘nuclear button’ tweet

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/levin-trump-channeling-reagan-nuclear-button-tweet/The Left’s hysterical response to President Trump’s now-infamous “nuclear button” tweet aimed at North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is just that: Hysterical. So said LevinTV host Mark Levin on his national radio program Wednesday night.

At the beginning of the segment, Levin compared Trump’s tweet to a quip from President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign where the Gipper joked, “I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

WTF MSM!? #NuclearButtonGate has the media in a tizzy

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/wtf-msm-nuclearbuttongate-media-tizzy/Is there a button? … Yesterday, in response to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s declaration that he has a button to launch nukes, Donald Trump tweeted in response:

The Trump Derangement Syndrome-fueled responses were expected. But this morning a new narrative began to emerge: Trump’s tweet was factually incorrect. You see, there isn’t a button to launch U.S. nuclear weapons. It is more of a process. It began with a “fact-check” by the Associated Press, and now others like CNN’s Chris Cillizza are piling on. These folks know exactly what Trump meant, and calling it a nuclear button is a long-standing literary device. Pedantic attacks like this show just how biased and petty the media is.

Rush Limbaugh on Trump NKorea Tweets: He’s ‘Brilliant’

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/donald-trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un-nuclear-button/2018/01/04/id/835236/Radio host Rush Limbaugh on Thursday mocked the outcry from critics of President Donald Trump after he tweeted about having a bigger nuclear button than North Korea leader Kim Jung Un.

“They act like the greatest insult to human dignity and the presidential regime that has ever happened,” Limbaugh chided during his daily radio program, adding the remark that it “wouldn’t cause a ripple in your average Twitter sewer.”

Continue Reading

Democrats

Michael Mullen, Obama’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the 2009 Iran protests

Published

on

Michael Mullen Obamas chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 2009 Iran protests

Iran is going through several days of strong protests against the regime over economic oppression and lack of rights. President Trump has expressed immediate and unwavering support for the protesters. The same cannot be said the last time there were similar protests in 2009 when President Obama chose to side with the nation he’d hoped would solidify his foreign policy legacy.

His former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, made a comment that appeared to demonstrate the weakness of the administration back then. While not explicitly attacking the President, his words left room for us to read between the lines:

“I think we chose to not be as supportive as we could have been then. And I hope we can be right now so that Iran can continue to evolve.”

Source: Townhall

Former Obama Official: US ‘Chose to Not Be as Supportive’ of 2009 Iranian Protesters

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2017/12/31/former-obama-official-says-us-chose-to-not-be-as-supportive-as-we-could-have-been-in-2009-iranian-protest-n2428678Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen appeared on ABC News “This Week” where he voiced concern that President Barack Obama was not as supportive of anti-government Iranian protesters as he should have been in 2009. He told ABC News that he hopes President Donald J. Trump is “supportive of more freedoms in that country.”

Host Martha Raddatz asked Mullen his opinion regarding President Trump’s response to the recent Iranian protests. Mullen was supportive and made key distinctions between how President Obama handled the situation in 2009 and how President Trump is in present day.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Trump has a point: North Korea should have been dealt with long ago

Published

on

Trump has a point North Korea should have been dealt with long ago

President Trump Tweeted a video pointing out four facts. 23-years-ago, President Clinton made a bad deal with North Korea that directly led to the situation we’re in today. 18-years-ago, Trump called for action against North Korea before it’s too late. A month ago, Jennifer Griffin reported on Fox News that their missile technology may be able to reach the continental United States. Lastly, James Mattis recently declared we’re working with South Korea to counter the threat.

The video doesn’t do much to help the situation other than asserting that the President was right well before he was President. It’s a good ego stroke, as Trump often does for himself, but it’s also a reminder that the situation we’re in could have been handled more easily before they had a petulant leader who may have his fingers on the nuclear button.

This does less to help in the North Korea situation than to remind us the situation that’s currently brewing in Iran. The similarities are striking. A weak U.S. President made a deal with radical leaders of a nation that hates us in an effort to slow down nuclear proliferation. On one hand, the moves may have been effective in slowing them down, but in both cases it’s being demonstrated that slowing them down does not mean preventing them. If anything, it hurts our ability to put an end to the threats before they become tangible.

It’s tangible now in North Korea. It may be tangible soon, if not already, in Iran. Both nations need to be dealt with soon before they turn their threats into actions.

Source: Twitter

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.