| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Here was the part of Kerry’s acceptance speech in which he risks terrible danger to our country.
And as President, I will bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.
Bring back the time-honored tradition: Kerry is making the classic military mistake, of fighting today’s war with the tactics from the last one. The results of such a mistake are often devastating:
In medieval times, the knight on horseback was dominant on the battlefield. Then the British came up with a devastating anti-knight weapon: the longbow, which could penetrate chain mail at 100 paces. At the battle of Crecy in 1346, and again at Agincourt in 1415, charging French knights were mowed down in rows.
Yet the use of horsemen in battle persisted for centuries, even as combat mortality rates soared. ...the main reason that the military style of large-scale cavalry formations lasted for so long was cultural: Officers and gentlemen liked riding around on horseback.
Other cultures were even slower to comprehend what was happening. At the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, the Egyptian Mamelukes—riding the finest Arabian stallions, wearing all their burnished armor, waving jeweled pistols and scimitars—charged headlong into Napoleon’s infantry and were slaughtered.
Same thing today. The terrorists have this new tactic, in which they seek to use our own nobility against us. They rightly know that we would do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties. So they figure, they can kill our civilians, while we can only kill their soldiers (who are willing to risk death). This strategy has benefits to them. It lets them harm us in a way in which we forbear to harm them. It lets them hide within civilian populations. Additionally, such battles are often fought on a tit-for-tat basis, in which they kill civilians, and then comes a retaliation in which they lose a few soldiers; this tit-for-tat basis is something they can sustain for many years, as in the case of Israel vs. the Palestinian terrorists.
Clearly new tactics are called for in order to win the war on terrorists. George Bush has found a new tactic and used it to great effect. It is this: you strike us; we take over a country that supports terrorists, remove its dictators, and turn it over to its people.
This does not work so well for the terrorists.
But Kerry has chosen the tit-for-tat approach. He said it loud and clear: “Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.” He left no room for doubt. He said he won’t take the war to them; he’ll leave it to them to come and kill our civilians; and when they do, he’ll kill a few of their soldiers in return.
And that would go on for years or even decades.
It’s yesterday’s tactics.
It’s exactly what the terrorists want.
It is surrender.
In conclusion: A vote for Kerry is a vote for fighting today’s war with yesterday’s tactics. And that is a classic military error, which we must not make.
Update 8-5-04. Welcome, Carnival of the Vanities readers! This site is proud to have this article included in the latest Carnival of the Vanities, hosted this week by Seldom Sober.
See also these recent posts:
#1
#2Thanks for your comment.
> Kerry is advocating increased global cooperation and developing an
international intelligence-sharing arrangement that has never before been
seen on the planet.
Intelligence did not prevent 9-11. It cannot be relied on exclusively to prevent future terrorist attacks.
> Bush's method is the one that's been tried and failed for millenia. It's
basically: Might makes right. Invade whoever pisses you off, or happens to
have resources you'd like to control. Empires rise and empires fall,
generally because they start thinking that they can do whatever they want
without consequences. Then there's reality, which includes consequences.
>
> Bush's is a recipe for disaster that's been played out time and time
again. War, itself, is "yesterday's tactics", dude.
We all agree that war is a terrible thing. However, Al Qaeda and other terrorists are willing to nuke us anyway. What would you do to prevent another 9-11?
Kerry is advocating increased global cooperation and developing an international intelligence-sharing arrangement that has never before been seen on the planet.
Bush's method is the one that's been tried and failed for millenia. It's basically: Might makes right. Invade whoever pisses you off, or happens to have resources you'd like to control. Empires rise and empires fall, generally because they start thinking that they can do whatever they want without consequences. Then there's reality, which includes consequences.
Bush's is a recipe for disaster that's been played out time and time again. War, itself, is "yesterday?s tactics", dude.
Evolve, already.