[SMARTY]

"It has been six decades since we emerged fully victorious from a major "hot" war. This is because the very definition of war has changed."

This is not accurate.

In wars, ever and always, men kill each other and anyone else who gets in the way. Nothing new or different there.

What has changed, is that the US MSM and the institutionalized and gratuitous 'dissent' industry has gone to work on the political will of the US.

It doesn't matter how much better our technology, leadership or training is. If the political will of the US is diminished or corrupted, we cannot succeed. You think our enemies don't know that??? Anyone who thinks that the MSM and the 'dissenters' have not sold themselves to our enemies is really naive. The US will NEVER be defeated militarily, but may very conceivably surrender itself over time. Our enemies know this too. I guess it is really too much to expect MSM talking heads or grown men in Congress to comprehend how much damage they do by mouthing defeatist and anti-US policy rants during wartime.

[Gritty]

Depressing reading.

Frankly, as long as either the physical extermination or complete isolation of Islam is ruled out (and it is) our best hope in the long run is a massive Christian revival inside the Muslim peoples. But, we don't control that. The Holy spirit does.

[stuartcr]

Depends a lot on your definition of war...

[weef]

Maybe I'm mistaken but I believe we won the war a while ago and now the nation building isn't wrapping up as quickly as people would like it to.

[L,TOWM]

Only if we combine our Cold War vigilance with our World War II ruthlessness

Too many people in this country lack the will for the 1st criteria and sufficient testosterone for the 2nd. Even a few on this forum, though still a minority here.

At this point in our history, I have to regretfully answer, "NO". Ever? That is a whole seperate discussion. Contemplating what it would take for this nation to discover will and ruthlessness again is something no sane person would want to explore, even in the privacy of one's own mind.

[Uncle Miltie]

Gates is a disaster in advance. His tone is defeatist.

[NeoCaveman]

Nope.

We are a nation of pu$$ie$.

So self assured in our agnostic post modernism, certain in our uncertainty, which is certainly not worth killing or dying for.

Liberalism is a mental disorder with suicidal ideations.

[LambSlave]

I disagree with the author and most of the posts here; why did we fail to win all the other wars since WWII? It is not the MSM, the dispersion of the enemy ideology, that is at the root of the problem, it is the restructuring of our command structure and national defense system during and following the second world war in response to the nuclear threat. Military commanders could not be trusted to make such huge decisions, so the executive branch took over.

A country wins wars by having great generals; what is the purpose of a general officer in command of an army or army group? To win. He alone should have complete control over how to do that including selecting the best strategic, operational and tactical strategies and COAs. Since WWII the executive branch has refused to permit this, first just for nuclear matters, but eventually for nearly everything; the civilian leadership makes the strategic decisions, and many of the operational decisions, and even suggests/approves the tactical operations. If you want to win wars, you let generals fight them their way, with their own ROEs and with the full support of the executive branch. If this were the case, the people back home could not influence war plans once congressional approval for declaration of war occurs (another thing that is necessary and omitted from each conflict since WWII).

[PISANO]

We will NEVER win another WAR, this WHILE WINNING EVERY BATTLE, unless or until we get rid of the PC that has permeated our SOCIETY and now has full inculcated the United States Military.

We need to get LAWYERS out of the foxholes and into the court room for military tribunals.

We should NOT shudder at the thought of tactical nuclear weapons use and we should REALIZE & TEACH our nation that the MISSION of Islamonazis is the TOTAL ERADICATION of Western Civilization.

In short we have to TOTALLY COMMIT as a NATION as we did in WWII, EVERYTIME, we go to war, if we are ever to win THIS or ANY other WAR!!

[pgyanke]

We won't win if we continue to value PC over liberty. We elected a Muslim to Congress. Muslims do not believe in multicultural melting pots, religious tolerance or free speech. Yet we allow one of their members, who likely wants to see Sharia Law as the law of the land, into our law-writing body.

Freedom of religion doesn't allow cannibals to eat each other in our country and shouldn't allow those who would not uphold the Constitution to take a Taqiyah oath to do so.

As the article pointed out, there will only be PC and multiculturalism until the Muslims take over...

[Edit35]

Will we ever win another war??

What a baloney-headed writer!!

We won this war. The problem has always been that the Administration, in duplicity with the mainstream media, is still set in the old-school 20th Century definition of a WIN.

The Iraqi terror-insurgents are defeated to the point all they can do is set off roadside bombs, or IED's, or take a few pot shot mortar rounds here and there.

The PROBLEM is, and this is the HUGE problem, is that whenever a suicide bomber does his or her thing, the media (and the Bush Admin) drops into the "we are losing" mode.

You can NEVER stop all terror suicide bombers 100-percent, in any Muslim country, because around 20-percent of the populations are always radical nutjobs.

The only thing we can do is lessen the number of attacks.

[ex-snook]

When? Well the next time we are deeply affected by 15,000,000 in armed forces [in today's population, maybe 20,000,000], Rosie the Riveter leaves the office for war production (if she can manage to import the material], rationing, air raid drills, blackouts, and bond drives to raise war funds. In other words when everyone is involved in effort to win.

Would the price of winning be acceptable today? Look at the popularity of a draft and tax cuts.

Winning a war requires more than advocacy from keyboard commandos.

[faq]

"Will we ever win another war?"

You just need to come up with a definition that fits your needs. I used to think that a war had been won when your opponent's government was overthrown. I expect that many years from now historians will refer to Iraq as both "America's shortest and longest war." Hey, I should trademark that, it might catch on: "America's shortest and longest war^TM"

[A_perfect_lady]

One white nuclear flash in Mecca would solve the problem. Muslims respect nothing but strength. If we made the rock gone and Allah couldn't stop us, it would be the beginning of the end of Islam. It's a tumor and we are just fighting the symptoms.

[Doc91678]

Not if the Democrats have anything to do with it. They are the cowards of America.
They want everything yesterday and are not willing to put in the effort to win.

[ryan71]

Ruthless tactics must be used to win a war. It does not matter who is in charge in Washington. US citizens must be in full support of a war to win it. That is the only way Washington will use ruthless tactics.

What would cause US citizens to fully support a war? I fear, nothing short of nuclear annihilation of one of more US cities.

[alarm rider]

It would seem to me, in a simple common sense way to define the enemy first.

That would require bold leadership, and as much as I admire the President, the "Islam is a religion of peace" deal was a huge mistake.

Also, although this is not easy, it is necessary to identify the enemy within, and stop that appeasement first. This has not been done, and once again, it requires leadership.

Additionally, IMO it is necessary to kill alot of people in a lot of places before they kill you first. We have become too "sensitive" to doing that.

So until such time as we get a clear, constant daily dose of clear leadership, by an uncompromising and bold leader who steps on a lot of toes here and there, we will continue to see a weakened populace.

Just my opinion, but there you go.

[Centurion2000]

We could defeat both countries and win the war. Fundamentalist Islam, however, spans the globe.

We can defeat these countries, burn all the mosques and we'll win.

[Sabramerican]

Up to the minute the Saddam statute was toppled, or maybe when Bush landed on that carrier, we were fighting a war- and we easily won.

It's not the Democrats' fault and it's not the media's fault.

The war began in March of 2003, a year and a half later Bush won re-election. He had plenty of time.

You want to know what went wrong, read the FR archives. Reread what supporters expected- were certain- would occur next. Preventing Syria and Iran from arming the terrorists for example. Instead Bush held hands with the Saudis.

Bush did nothing to "win". He sent Karen Hughes to convince the Arabs to like us. There was no real aim or purpose. Where battles were fought we din't go for the kill. Abu Ghraib paralyzed the Administration. We put our stock in elections that were premature and meaningless. We supported Israel's withdrawal from Gaza which showed the terrorists that the West capitulates in the face of terror. Rice sent carrots to Iran and admonitions to Israel.

Only when sensing weakness then did the Democrats and the Media go for the kill. And they got their target in November.

[snowrip]

Will America ever win another war? Ask the democrats.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.

An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself.

For the traitor appears no traitor.

He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in hearts of men.He rots the soul of a nation.

He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.

A murderer is less to be feared.

Cicero