Military's political correctness is no way to win a war

Center for Security Policy ^ | November 1, 2003

[Tailgunner Joe]

Is Bill Clinton still president? Consider the following:

- A US army officer saves the lives of his men by forcing an Iraqi terrorist to talk before the Americans are ambushed and murdered. The US Army files a criminal assault charge against him.

- One of the nation's most senior special operations generals, a Christian soldier if there ever was one, is under official investigation because he went to church in uniform and expressed his religious views.

- A Muslim Brotherhood operative and al Qaeda funder established the military's Muslim chaplains corps. His group and Saudi-funded entities vet and train Muslim chaplains. His group vetted the Muslim Army chaplain who sympathized with the al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo. The Pentagon told senators that it won't investigate the groups or cut them off.

General Jerry Boykin's religious views were exposed by left-wing columnist Bill Arkin. Arkin's exposure prompted Hamas mouthpiece Nihad Awad of CAIR to demand the general's ouster. Awad and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), one of the most radical members of Congress, teamed up to force General Boykin out of the Pentagon.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is standing by the general's rights, but others in the administration appear ready to cave in to the critics - effectively letting Hamas front-men help purge the top ranks of our anti-terrorism warriors.

That's no way to win a war, friends.

[Levante]

Thanks for posting this article. A real eye-opener.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

CC2CO
These people who lead from the rear not from the front.
They think it is better to get soldiers killed then to scare a terrorist.

[Tired_of_the_Lies]

I don't think this is simply political correctness run amok. This is informational or pschological warfare and should be treated as such.

[The Westerner]

A friend of mine recently gave a talk on the morality of war to West Point staff. It is very disappointing to hear how non-militaristic these staff are in their views of fighting war. To put it another way, no Patton could give a speech to his Third Army in today's culture. He would be villified. When war was about killing in order to avoid being killed, it was simple. These days, such as in Iraq, the boys were given orders to avoid civilian casualites at all costs. This is no way to unleash the guns of war.

[LurkedLongEnough]

Lawyer, or cowboy? A little of both is required. It is a complex subject. The President directs our military and diplomatic actions on advice fed to him by international law experts along with his slew of other experts.

Where do you draw the line and when? And who can make exceptions? There seems to be a definite disconnect between all of these factors.

We don't want to be "international law breakers", because that implies moral authority for any other country (or entity) to act accordingly, right?

I can't imagine Clinton as a cowboy, no matter how hard I try. (He keeps riding away in a limosine...) George W. Bush must be both to stop the madness.

[Montfort]

It reminds me of the scene in Guarding Tess where the Secret Service agent shoots the suspect in the foot or something to get him to reveal where he has buried the President's Widow.

In the real-life case, of course, there was no actual violence done, only violence prevented.

I almost wonder whether this officer would never have been prosecuted at all if he had gotten the informant to reveal a planned attack on the President of the US. Yes, I know what happens in a movie may not reflect reality, but does anyone here believe that if the President's life had been saved by this officer we would have heard about this matter.

[cavtrooper21]

Here we go again..
I'm worn out.

[Dubya]

Good post. Thanks for posting it.
DUB

[cake_crumb]

Sickening.

[StonyBurk]

Prior to 2001 there were NO Ramadan Dinners at the WhiteHouse.To Taco Bill"run for the border" Clinton
we owe that tradition.
Gen.George Washington in the GeneralOrders issued to the
Army that secured our Liberty hoped,and expected every Officer and man to endeavor to live and act as becomes
a Christian Soldier. . . "President Lincoln (Nov15,1862);
President Harrison (Jun 7,1889);and Woodrow Wilson (Jan20,
1918)each affirmed they expected the same.But Bush says that isn't his policy?

[goldstategop]

Oh I agree. I'd wish the President would stop pandering to our enemies by granting them a dignity they don't deserve. Patriotic American Christians and Jews are sick and tired of all the political correctness in the War On Terror, beginning with a refusal to name the enemy, even though every one ostensibly knows who he is. Being less than honest and acting like its a technique rather than a totalitarian foe we're fighting makes one doubt we have the will and the resolve to win the war against Islamism. Why not say we're on a crusade for freedom? Oops, that will glom the PC Police on me in no time! ;-)

[narses]

Is war the answer?

[El Gato]

Is war the answer?

What is the question? Sometimes, as when your country is attacked, war is indeed the appropriate answer.

[jt8d]

In 'An Open Letter to President Bush,' I made commentary about how badly PC is distorting our ability to fight. In doing so, I caught much flak from the PC RINOs here at FR. Goto:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011842/posts

[Tailgunner Joe]

We don't want to be "international law breakers", because that implies moral authority for any other country (or entity) to act accordingly, right?

The only thing that keeps sovereign nations from acting in ways contrary to our interests is the threat that we will use our immense power to punish them.

It is not imaginary "international law" that keeps our enemies in check, but raw, naked power. When we allow ourselves to be restricted from using that power by foreign internationalists bent precisely on weakening our level of influence in the world, we are not ensuring that there will be international order, but rather we ensure that other nations will defy and challenge us.

[dwd1]

There was a movie called "Rules of Engagement" that dealt with similar circumstances...

I hope that we don't have too much life imitating art over there....