Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK
The relevant question here is: why weren't Kimmel and Short better warned?

The trip of Secretary of the Navy Knox to Hawaii, his candid report, his statement that “the United States services were not on the alert against the surprise air attack on Hawaii,” and the immediate appointment by the President of the five-man board of inquiry are all reassuring evidences of the government’s determination that the same factors that contributed to the Japanese success at Hawaii – surprise, over-confidence amounting to a complacent sense of security and a lack of military alertness – will not again operate against us.

(snip)

Second, the intelligence services of the Army and Navy and counter-espionage services of the government seem to have failed to collate and correctly evaluate the Japanese military strength; to obtain any warning of the impending Japanese attack, preparations for which must have been started weeks before Dec. 7, “a date that will live in infamy,” or to counter Japanese fifth columnist and espionage activities in Hawaii.

It looks to me like there were plenty of shortcomings. Just as with the terror attacks of 9/11, America was simply not vigilant enough, and we should have done better. The similarities between the TWO dates that will live in infamy are striking. The relevant question today is: Are we NOW vigilant enough?

87 posted on 01/01/2012 11:59:32 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: Lancey Howard
Lancy Howard: "The similarities between the TWO dates that will live in infamy are striking.
The relevant question today is: Are we NOW vigilant enough?"

One undisputed reason for the Second Amendment is: our Founders well understood the price of freedom is constant vigilance, and preparation.
Of course they knew nothing about air attacks or suicide bombers, but they did know that citizens had to be ready for just about anything.

At the same time they were hugely concerned with individual liberties, so in no way, shape or form would they countenance a police state in peace-time.
And official peace-time is what we had on December 6, 2001.

The problem today is... I want to say "faux war", but that term is totally unfair to those brave Americans who risk their lives for us.
A more accurate term might be "low level kinetic actions", but using such language should be a jail-able offense. ;-)
We are really talking about military actions at the same levels of intensity as, for example, Indian wars in the time of Custer at Little Big Horn.
These were important events, but in no way comparable to the national effort required for, say, the Civil War or First World War.

So here's my point: how many personal liberties did Americans sacrifice in those days, compared to the liberties we have freely given up today?
Or to put it another way: when did the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave first become the Land of Class Warfare, Home of Unlimited Entitlements?

And how much of that can be blamed on the current war, versus how much would have happened anyway?

I don't know, but don't like what I see now.
Somebody who understands the original concept of our Free Republic needs to take a close look at our current Big Government, and cut it back down to some more reasonable size.

So, necessary vigilance is one thing, unnecessary government is something else entirely.

91 posted on 01/02/2012 5:22:00 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson