Posted on 09/02/2019 1:01:56 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Jim Mattis, the former Marine Corps general and Pentagon chief, has lashed 2020 Democratic front-runner Joe Biden for fueling the rise of ISIS by insisting on the total withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"You may want a war over. You may declare it over. You may even try to walk away from it. But the bottom line is the enemy gets a vote, as we say in the military, and we simply have got to understand that terrorism is going to be an ambient threat," he said in an NPR interview.
As vice president, Biden was tasked by President Barack Obama with overseeing Iraq policy. In his new book, Mattis, 68, argues that Biden, 76, was "indifferent" to the consequences of complete withdrawal - consequences that included "tens of thousands of casualties, plus untold misery for millions of innocents," as well as the kidnapping and beheading of westerners, and horrific terrorist attacks across the world.
"He wanted our forces out of Iraq," Mattis writes in Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead. ”Whatever path led there fastest, he favored. He exuded the confidence of a man whose mind was made up, perhaps even indifferent to considering the consequences were he judging the situation incorrectly."
Biden had voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq invasion, after opposing the Gulf war in 1990. Obama, who has denounced the Iraq invasion, had campaigned in 2008 on pulling out.
The U.S. pulled out its forces from Iraq in 2011, despite warnings from Mattis that this would be folly. At the time, Mattis was head of Central Command, overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama sent forces back to Iraq in 2014 after the Islamic State seized parts of the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
> Damn, I might have to stop calling him The Idiot Biden. <
There’s an easy work-around. He was right back then. But he’s been wrong ever since. So just call him The Currently Stupid Biden.
At some point we have to stop sacrificing the arms and legs of our beautiful young warriors. Either let them go and get it done or bring them home. I’m tired of us worrying over “civilian” deaths while our kids get massacred. Let them fight the damn war.......or end it.
It’s been that way since Alexander the Great.
***************************************************
TRUTH!
Why do people refuse to acknowledge history?
IN WW II, the good guys used the same tactics that the bad guys used.
They bombed our cities and killed our civilians and we did the same to them, in spades.
When we nuked the japanese cities, we killed several hundred thousand and saved several million and the entire world knew we would do it again, if we had to.
We fire bombed dresden and many german cities and never flinched.
If we killed 2-3 hundred thousand taliban and several hundred thousand civilians got killed in the bombings, we could walk out of Afghanistan in a month.
If that happened, iran, the Norks, and the russians would piss their pants trying to make peace with us.
We don't have the political will to do what is required.
Yup. Another “expert” with the same worldview the Left handed off to you.
Go ahead, tell us how your opinions are any different than our “anti war” Communists.
And while you’re at it, tell us all about you military experience.
On the contrary. It is you and the military brass on the side of the Left. On the homosexualization of the military. On feminization of the infantry. On support for our deadbeat NATO “allies”. On undefended open borders, etc., etc.
The military brass has opposed POTUS pretty much across the border. Interestingly, they were just fine with Team Kenya as Obama decimated the military. You might want to ask yourself why that is before casting stones elsewhere.
In the meantime, the South was constantly fighting to keep them out for two years. That means resupply is necessary and costs money. Up until then the South was doing well, even without US troop which departed by Oct. of 1973.
Ero, the Democrats hated Ford and refused to fund the South. Egro, defeat.
Ending the Vietnam War, 1973-1975 Newly elected President Richard M. Nixon declared in 1969 that he would continue the American involvement in the Vietnam War in order to end the conflict and secure "peace with honor" for the United States and for its ally, South Vietnam. Unfortunately, Communist North Vietnam's leaders, believing that time was on their side, steadfastly refused to negotiate seriously. Indeed, in March 1972 they attempted to bypass negotiations altogether with a full-scale invasion of the South. Called the Easter Offensive by the United States, the invasion at first appeared to succeed. By late summer, however, Nixon's massive application of American air power blunted the offensive. At this point, the North Vietnamese began to negotiate in earnest. In early October, American and North Vietnamese representatives met in Paris. By October 11, they had hammered out a peace agreement. Its key elements were: all parties would initiate a cease-fire in place 24 hours after signing the agreement; U.S. forces and all foreign troops would withdraw from South Vietnam no later than 60 days after signing the agreement; American prisoners would be released simultaneously with the withdrawal of American and foreign forces; and a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord would be created to organize and oversee free and democratic elections to determine the political future of the South. The agreement represented a victory for the North Vietnamese but also it seemed to provide an honorable way out for the Americans. Nixon quickly approved the terms. On October 22, however, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu stopped the process in its tracks. Especially infuriating to him was the cease-fire in place. It left thousands of North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam (estimates ranged from 140,000 to 300,000) well positioned to continue the war when the Americans departed. To gain Thieu's support, the Americans reopened negotiations with the North Vietnamese based on his objections. This so offended the North Vietnamese that they too insisted on renegotiating several settled issues. By mid December the talks had collapsed. Diplomacy had failed and a greatly frustrated Nixon concluded that only force could persuade Hanoi that negotiating with the United States was preferable to continuing the war. The President ordered his military commanders to mine Haiphong Harbor and to initiate a sustained air campaign in the Hanoi-Haiphong region. Beginning on December 18 and continuing for 11 days, American bombing attacked all significant military targets in the region. Even though the targets were military, the aim was psychological—to shock the North Vietnamese back to the negotiations in a frame of mind to end the war. On December 26, the North Vietnamese signaled their willingness to be agreeable and to meet in early January. After 3 more days of bombing, Nixon ended the air campaign. Nixon also believed that the bombing would remind the South Vietnamese that American air power was the most powerful weapon against the North Vietnamese, and that its continued availability was contingent upon South Vietnamese support of the agreement. Nixon's plan worked and in early January 1973, the Americans and North Vietnamese ironed out the last details of the settlement. All parties to the conflict, including South Vietnam, signed the final agreement in Paris on January 27. As it turned out, only America honored the cease-fire. Furthermore, the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord was stillborn. The North wanted to destroy South Vietnam while the South wanted to defeat the Northern forces. The inevitable solution, therefore, was to fight until one side won. Military facts on the ground, not words on paper, would determine South Vietnam's future. Additionally, within 24 hours of the cease-fire coming into effect, the return of the almost 600 American prisoners began, as did the redeployment home of the remaining American and South Korean troops in South Vietnam. The January accords, titled the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam," neither ended the war (except for the United States) nor restored the peace. A little over 2 years later, 30 North Vietnamese divisions conquered the South and restored peace in Vietnam. The American commitment to defend South Vietnam, described as unequivocal by Nixon and Kissinger, had been vitiated by the Watergate scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation. By that time, the Paris Accords seemed memorable only as the vehicle on which the United States rode out of Southeast Asia.
We didn't come up with homos in the service or girls in the infantry - that was Obama and his civilians in the Pentagon.
Again, if President Trump orders our Armed Forces to the border, we're ready.
Meanwhile, why aren't you in uniform? Maybe you could make a difference.
Chainmail - Your argument that only combat veterans should comment on war strategy is pathetic and ignorant. It is about like arguing “you would not understand because you are not [insert “black” or “gay” or whatever...]. It is a deeply anti-intellectual basis for argument. It is great that you served in the military, like millions of other Americans including me. But try to frame thinking argument instead of invoking yourself as the only legitimate authority. But since that is what you are doing in attacking longtime Freeper Alberta’s Child, why don’t share a bit about your military career. Were you involved in a strategic planning?
Well, the war was over, but we got no victory - although the Dems got exactly what they wanted which was a humiliating US defeat in Southeast Asia. As an added bonus, our South Vietnamese allies got slaughtered (as did the Laotians and the Khmer).
One can always count on Progressives to act like good Communists and work hard for the other side while claiming they are doing it on our behalf. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Biden’s perfect record continues...
He’s never been right on foreign policy in his life!
Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939. Japan surrendered on 2 September 1945. That’s six years.
We were not involved until Dec. 7, 1941. That’s the time frame I listed.
Just really tired of hearing people with zero military experience expounding at length about stuff they’ve never experienced - or even traveled overseas to see what’s actually happening in the rest of the world.
I said “altogether.” We were providing arms and material support to our allies and had already suffered battle casualties before Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Your posts are pretty pathetic and make a lot of dumb assumptions about who you’re arguing with. I’m a Viet Nam vet who is sick and tired of seeing this country bled white by the warmongers and chickenhawks who take lots of money from the American taxpayer and send lots of servicemen into the meatgrinder in foreign wars all over the globe defending one s**thole country after another, while we can’t seem to get the gumption to prevent an out of control alien invasion right at our own damn border. And like others have stated, the “top brass” of the military today have gone all in on implementing one degenerate social policy after another into our service branches but can’ t seem to figure out how to win a war in the past 60 years. Eff Mattis.
The scariest think about Biden is he doesn’t care if you know how stupid he is.
#2. Additional: Dems are very proficient at selling out our country and denying victor because they are Marxist traitors and fools.
Calling John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy. Your “Order of Lenin” medals are ready for pick up.
“But we all must be careful about denigrating the opinions of non-professionals.”
Let him denigrate, it reveals how he thinks. McCain had plenty of personal military experience. By his logic McCain would be superior to Trump. Enough said.
First: at least both of those odious individuals bothered to join the service during a war, however poorly they did later. The rest of you managed to avoid risking anything at all while you sat on the sidelines and carped.
Second: All of you make a great show of patriotic fervor whenever the flag is displayed and push each other out of the way when it's time to say how grateful you are for the service of veterans - but the truth is, there isn't a farthing's difference between you and the Communist Left when a veteran disagrees with you.
This started with some of you attacking Jim Mattis - ants attacking an elephant: He has done greater service to this country than all of you combined - for that matter, so have I.
Really? What outfit and when? Combat vet or in the rear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.