Posted on 06/03/2003 12:54:18 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Things are getting a bit rough in Iraq. Do we have the staying power to hang in there to send a tough message to other terrorist-sponsoring nations? Or will we cut and run as we've done so many times before?
A lesson from history: strong nations survive, weak nations don't. Another lesson: a nation is strong only if its people and its military are strong. A strong people are blessed with strong citizens and strong leaders. A strong military is blessed with a professional force, a dedicated leadership, and the assets it needs to perform its missions. A nation can also have a weak people and a weak military, but heaven help them.
A nation with a weak people is rotting from the inside out. It has lost what it takes to keep it strong and free. Morals, values, and ethics are irrelevant or relativistic. Religion is marginalized; and atheists, cults, witches, and those "searching for something else" are celebrated. Education is experimental and more indoctrination than learning. The people have lost interest in their nation's rich history, and accept the revisionist histories of leftist historians. Academia and the media form an internationalist fifth column working against the nation's sovereignty. Political leaders are more concerned with political advantage and international issues than the sovereignty and security of the nation. They impose social policies on the military, insisting that it "reflect society," no matter what impact those policies have on long-term military readiness. Their policies suppress traditional values, promote "alternative" lifestyles, and encourage illegal and undesirable immigration. The judiciary, academia, the media, and celebrities support the leftist policies, and the docile populace follows their lead like sheep.
A strong people are all that a weak people aren't. In war, they have the resolve to dig in for the long haul. They're strong-willed and imbued with a deep love of country and its flag. They're generally religious and support moral and traditional values. They fight for a good, honest education for their children. They support a strong military and insist that it be a fighting force, not a reflection of a perverted or defeatist agenda. They fight any attempt to deprive them of their freedoms or to surrender their nation's sovereignty to international organizations. They don't pay much attention to leftist politicians, biased media wonks, or jaded celebrities. Americans in World War II were a strong people; the 1960's hippies weren't (and still aren't).
A weak military reflects a weak national leadership. A weak military is weak inside and out, driven more by politics than a desire for readiness. Training standards are softened so trainees don't feel pressured to perform. Women are assigned to combat roles, and homosexuals are allowed to serve, despite the impact on military morale and readiness. The military's career-driven leaders create their own social-engineering policies to score political points. Except for a few elite units, morale and esprit de corps are nonexistent.
A strong military is everything a weak military isn't. Its military and civilian leaders mold its forces into a strong and efficient fighting machine without being distracted by social engineering goals. It has the equipment and weapons required to accomplish its mission. The troops are tough, morale is high, their will to prevail is absolute, and there is an esprit de corps that comes with being the best.
Four scenarios with weak and strong people and military describe every nation on earth. At the bottom of the list are nations with a weak people and a weak military. Nations in Western Europe are an example. The people are wimpy leftists, and their military is so weak that those nations have to reply on others to clean up the messes in their backyards. Nothing within such a nation will sustain it in the long term in a hostile world. Its future is too frightening for its citizens to imagine, so the government diverts their attention by blaming others for its crises or hiding its weaknesses with high-blown rhetoric. Its enemies slowly squeeze the life from it without fear of significant retaliation. Other nations will feast like vultures on the bones of what's left. A once prosperous and free nation will lose its prosperity and freedoms as others beyond its borders determine its fate. In Western Europe, socialists and Islamists will prevail and destroy its freedoms and culture.
If a nation with a weak people and a strong military could ever exist, it couldn't exist very long. Its military would be strong only because the people by some quirk had voted for strong leaders and kept them in office long enough to bring the military up to strength. The people will soon vote back into office leftist politicians whose policies will again lead to a weak military. This nation will soon transition into the weak people, weak military version, with the same frightening future and chance for long-term survival.
A nation with a strong people and a weak military is also unlikely to exist, but whenever it does, it has only a better than even chance of survival. The military probably got into a mess because leftist politicians somehow managed to reduce military funding and impose social engineering policies that damaged military readiness and morale. The military could hardly remain weak very long because the citizens would rise up in anger and vote the offending politicians out of office. This nation can survive if its military can return to strength. Until a comfortable level of strength is reached, however, it is in danger.
A strong people and a strong military fuse together into a solid foundation for survival seldom seen in history. The people and military have the will to prevail against any threat. The world respects this nation, and potential enemies fear offending it, let alone attacking it. Its people live in prosperity and security, enjoying its many liberties. Its strength invites hostile rhetoric from envious leaders and citizens of weak nations, but its strength keeps its enemies at bay.
Four scenarios: Which one do you think represents America at this point in its history?
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Allan at acstover@comcast.net .
If a nation with a weak people and a strong military could ever exist..
Soviet Union - circa 1999.
A nation with a strong people and a weak military is also unlikely to exist..
United States - circa 1939.
Assuming that we were right to go into Iraq--that is assuming that it did in fact pose a clear and present danger to the United States, or was complicitous in one of the dastardly attacks on America or Americans--that purpose is completed upon the clear defeat of the Iraqi forces. Once the enemy in Iraq has been clearly defeated, that mission is ended. The idea of a long occupation is an exercise in the gravest folly. Indeed, tying up our resources in such an adventure may actually sap our ability to deal with clear and present dangers elsewhere. It will also sap the will of the American people to properly respond to other threats.
A good example of how America responds effectively, and in a way which teaches mankind respect, but does not breed the sort of hatred that presently bedevils us, was the way Jefferson handled the Barbary Pirates, during his first year in office. He sent a warship over, loaded with Marines. They seized the Barbary cruiser, killing many and losing none of our boys. Than Jefferson handed the ship back, as Congress had never authorized him to keep it.
Strength is shown in having the capacity and the will "to punish the first insult"--as Jefferson, himself put it. It is not shown in trying to impose Anglo-Saxon value systems on others. The Mother country tried that all over the world for almost two hundred years after our Revolution. It didn't work. Indeed, in many respects, the ethos of former colonies ended up corrupting Britain.
However, do not misunderstand me. The British Empire, at its height, was a most admirable achievement--not as a means of reforming the world, that was neither a pragmatic nor a moral objective. But it provided an outlet for the young manhood of Britain--the wanderlust--which otherwise would have been cooped up on a fairly small island. What was admirable, was that they could pull it off for a time.
But America still has enough space--if we will but close our Southern border--that we do not need such adventures. And much of the world, today, is far less apt to quietly accept a renewed Anglo-Saxon adventure in their respective lands. The Washington/Jefferson foreign policy--coupled with the Washington Defense policy, of strength through a well armed citizenry, proficient in arms--with a navy sufficient to protect our legitimate interests and rights anywhere on earth--is the only rational one for the 21st Century; the one best calculated to bring us unscathed into the 22nd.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You will find more references in An American Foreign Policy. You can also read Washington's Farewell Address on Line: Farewell Address.
Properly understood, there is no current foreign policy problem that falls outside the scope of our Founders' wise counsel.
William Flax
Without QUESTION! Look what it's doing to Europe. WHY, wouldn't it happen here as well?
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.