[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] timeontarget's Blog
What did our wars win.
Last comment by timeontarget 7 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

This column was written by Pat Buchanan

Timeontarget copied it from THE DRUDGE REPORT


“He ended one war and kept us out of any other,” is the tribute paid President Eisenhower.

Ike ended the Korean conflict in 1953, refused to intervene to save the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and, rather than back the British-French-Israeli invasion, ordered them all out of Egypt in 1956.

Ending America longest wars may prove to be Barack Obama’s legacy.

For, while ending wars without victory may not garner from the historians’ the accolade of “great” or “near great,” it is sometimes the duty of a president who has inherited a war the nation no longer wishes to fight.

That was Nixon’s fate, as well as Ike’s, and Obama’s.

And as we look back at our interventions in the 21st century, where are the gains of all our fighting, bleeding and dying?
We know the costs — 8,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion in wealth sunk. But where are the benefits?

After Moammar Gadhafi fell in Libya, the mercenaries he had hired returned to Mali. The French had to intervene. In Benghazi, the city we started the war to save, a U.S. ambassador and three Americans would be murdered by terrorists.

Libya today appears to be breaking apart.

While Gadhafi was dreadful, what threat was he to us, especially after he had surrendered his weapons of mass destruction?
In Egypt, we helped overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and hailed the election of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammad Morsi.
A year later, we green-lighted Morsi’s overthrow by Mubarak’s army.

Terrorism has returned to Egypt, the Sinai is now a no man’s land, and almost all Egypt hates us now.

The Shia regime we brought to power in Iraq has so repressed the Sunnis that Anbar province is now hosting al-Qaida. Fallujah and Ramadi have fallen. President Nuri al-Maliki is asking for U.S. weapons to retrieve Anbar and for U.S. personnel to train his soldiers.
Unlike the bad, old Iraq, the new Iraq tilts to Tehran.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign a status of forces agreement giving our troops legal protections if they remain. This could cause a complete U.S. pullout in 2014, leading to the return of the Taliban we drove out in 2001.

Sunday saw terrorism in the heart of Kabul, with a restaurant favored by foreign officials targeted by a car bomb, followed by a machine-gunning of dining patrons in which 21 were killed.

Americans have fought bravely there for a dozen years. But how has our nation building in the Hindu Kush benefited the good old USA?

Pakistan, with nuclear weapons, has become a haven of the Taliban, perhaps the most dangerous country on earth. Anti-American elements in the Khyber region have, because of our drone attacks, been blocking a U.S. troop exodus to the sea.

How enduring is what we accomplished in Afghanistan?

Last summer, Obama, goaded by democracy crusaders and the War Party, was about to launch strikes on Syria when America arose as one to call a halt.

We did not attack Syria. Had we, we would have struck a blow for an insurgency dominated by the al-Nusra Front and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The ISIS goal? Detach Anbar from Iraq and unite it with jihadist-occupied sectors of Syria in a new caliphate.

Can we not see that Bashar Assad’s worst enemies are ours as well?

Syria’s civil war, which has cost 100,000 dead, with millions uprooted and a million in exile, has spilled over into Lebanon, where Hezbollah backs Assad and the Sunnis back the rebels.

The neoconservatives say much of this might have been averted, had we left a stronger contingent of U.S. troops in Iraq and supported the Syrian uprising before the jihadists took control.

They were for attacking Assad last summer, are for more severe sanctions on Iran now, and are for war if Iran does not give up all enrichment of uranium.

But the neocons have broken their pick with the people. For they have been wrong about just about everything.

They were wrong about Saddam’s WMD and a “cakewalk” war.

They were wrong about how welcome we would be in Iraq and how Baghdad would become a flourishing democracy and model for the Mideast.

They did not see the Sunni-Shia war our intervention would ignite.

They were wrong about how our interests would be served in attacking Libya.

They did not see the disaster that would unfold in Pakistan.

While we did not follow their advice and attack Syria, how have we suffered from having taken a pass on Syria’s civil-sectarian war?
From Libya to Lebanon, Syria to Yemen, Iraq to Afghanistan, the Maghreb and Middle East are aflame. What have we lost by getting out of the wars Obama found us in? How would we benefit from parachuting back into the middle of the fire?

Which raises a related question: Was Obama wrong in extricating us from the wars into which George W. Bush plunged his country?

How will history answer that one?


A Pat Buchanan column found on the Drudge Report


Latest Activity: Jan 23, 2014 at 6:08 AM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by timeontarget
Send timeontarget a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (311) times.

timeontarget commented on Thursday, Jan 23, 2014 at 06:26 AM

I imagine this will displease some of our military and to them I must say I'm sorry but I disagree.

Our invasions of those Nations was not to protect my freedom nor any of my loved ones.

Our WAR MONGERING elected President's and Congress have bankrupted America financially and morally.

Our MERCENARY MILITARY is the greatest threat to the security of our citizens in coming years.

JimmyMack commented on Thursday, Jan 23, 2014 at 15:25 PM

Tot: it seems to me that politically speaking that you are all over the map. How can one spew venom at Liberals while adopting a Liberal concept regarding the wars at the same time?

You wanna know what I really think, Tot? I think inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I will ADMIT IT and have done so here on these pages when I am wrong. I seriously doubt that you are capable of doing the same thing. Ever.

timeontarget commented on Thursday, Jan 23, 2014 at 16:55 PM

While I am well aware that this,

particular perspective of mine,

aka TOT is not what is expected from the older citizens of this great country,

please all who read this,

Know that I am not alone in my opinion.

JimmyMack commented on Friday, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:53 AM

We know you are not alone. You, Phil Robertson and Honey Boo Boo share the same family tree.

sebekm commented on Sunday, Jan 26, 2014 at 13:41 PM

"I imagine this will displease some of our military..."

I'm not sure why it would. The military act at the beck-and-call, direction, and pleasure of the CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP. They go and do what the CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP wants them to do. In this country, the military doesn't run the government - it's the elected civilian leadership that runs the military. Case in point: The "Commander-in-Chief" of the United States armed forces is an elected civilian.

TOT: Without a "mercenary military," neither you nor I would be able to speak our minds on sites like these as our freedoms continue to be preserved, protected, and defended by those mercenaries.

This country has always had a "mercenary military," since as far as I know we have always compensated those who have fought at the direction of our CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP in one way or another. What we have now is a system - ENACTED AND ENFORCED BY OUR CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP - which lets them avoid having their sons (and daughters) in harm's way unless they CHOOSE to do so. If you have any issues with the system, take it up with the civilians. Our current military forces continue to do what they are required to do - as they have down through the centuries.

JimmyMack commented on Sunday, Jan 26, 2014 at 14:33 PM

@Sebe: Good luck at penetrating the conundrum known as TOT.

timeontarget commented on Monday, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:44 AM

Yes we have always compensated those who were in service to the various military branches.

However when we had the military draft compensation was not nearly as generous as it has become since the draft.

Before the draft was done away with service was a hardship financially for some but it was proudly endured by almost any and all folks from all walks of life.

Some draftees served their hitch and as soon as possible went back to civilian life returning to their more prosperous employment opportunities in the private sector.

Some draftees made excellent soldiers and attained rank rapidly. Many of those felt that they could better provide for themselves by staying in and did so.

Many of those retired as yet young men and collected many decades of compensation from our treasury.

This has gradually become a tremendous burden on the taxpayers.

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:34 PM

I just finished watching Capt. Phillips with Tom Hanks. The degree of professionalism displayed by our Navy Intelligence, and the Seals was unbelievable. I know Hollywood can exaggerate but this movie proved what I already knew: We Americans have the most advanced, savvy, and brave men and women protecting us then ANY nation in the world. One of my best friends, a retired Full Bird from G-2 (Army Intelligence) of 34 years, continually amazed and amazes me with his astonishing knowledge. So, when I saw that Naval Intelligence in the Tom Hanks movie was able to ascertain not only the Somali pirate 'captain's' name, Najee, but told him they knew what village he came from, who is family members were all the way down to his grandchild, I was not surprised. It made me proud to be an American. Najee, and the rest of the terrorist pirates knew they could not escape being brought to justice by the United States and that they had to negotiate and not kill Capt. Phillips.

These people DESERVE any all the 'benefits' be it monetary or other, that they get from our country. Your referring to them in a somewhat negative connotation by calling them 'mercenaries', implying that their patriotism and sacrifice is bought and paid for, is an outright ridiculously uniformed insult.

sebekm commented on Monday, Jan 27, 2014 at 14:33 PM

I'll try again: TOT - if you want to reinstitute the draft, don't blame the military. The civilians got rid of it. The civilians perpetuate an economy which makes military service attractive. The civilians want ever-more power and world influence, making a "super-power" military necessary to gain that power and keep/expand that influence. The civilians know that when you dance, you eventually have to pay the band - one way or another. The military is just an instrument which enables our government to play its never-ending series of sets.

The draft will NEVER be reinstituted as long as the civilians-in-charge in the White House and Congress prefer the status quo. You can't ask YOUR military to give up their lives, their livelihood, their families, their personal freedoms, etc., for YOU (i.e., the CIVILIANS) without adequate compensation. What is adequate? Adequate is whatever is necessary to keep the boots filled in the quantity and quality necessary to fulfill YOUR civilian aspirations and YOUR "national interests."

You - TOT - are WE THE PEOPLE and YOUR government is running the system in YOUR name. Your gripe is not with the volunteer military - no matter how many of them you may feel have dissed you over the years. Your gripe is with your CIVILIAN government which says this is the best military we've ever had, and wants to keep it that way.

timeontarget commented on Monday, Jan 27, 2014 at 16:22 PM

sebekm, I wholeheartedly agree with every single word of your post just above.

timeontarget commented on Tuesday, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:26 AM

My gripe is with my elected officials and their misuse of mercenary troops to invade sorverign nations and wreak havoc on citizens of other countries.

Our draft era military would have no part of what our military has done in these most recent invasions on foreign lands.

Remember those who went to Canada.

Ike warned us about this in his farewell address.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by timeontarget
 
Has Hillary Ever Been Right?
August 30, 2014
Has Hillary Ever Been Right? Friday - August 29, 2014 at 12:12 am By Patrick J. Buchanan Sen. Rand Paul raises an interesting question: When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy? The valkyrie of the Democratic Party says she urged President Obama to do more to aid ...
Read More »
 
Rand Paul / Hillary Clinton
August 30, 2014
This piece was published in Bob Livingston's PERSONAL LIBERTY DIGEST. I personally hope that Senator Paul is correct. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// August 28, 2014 by Sam Rolley Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton Is A Warmonger Who Would Get Clobbered In 2016 UPI Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) this week blasted former Secretary of State— ...
Read More »
 
Bob Livingston Is A ‘Liberal Jackhole’
August 25, 2014
Many of the articles copied by me and posted on this Courier blog site come from Bob Livingston's PERSONAL LIBERTY DIGEST. Following is an update from the editor himself explaining what he and the Digest are all about. Please read and consider ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// Bob Livingston Is A ‘Liberal Jackhole’ August ...
Read More »
 
YOU DECIDE The Buffet Rule
August 22, 2014
YOU DECIDE. The Buffet Rule We must support this...pass it on and let’s see if these idiots understand what people pressure is all about. Salary of retired US Presidents . . . . . . . . . .. . $193,000 + FOR LIFE Salary of House/Senate members . . ...
Read More »
 
Sociopath In The White House???
August 21, 2014
Wayne Allen Root's column on Obama is published on today's Personal Liberty Digest. Obama and root were both members of the class 1983 at Columbia University. Root has reported in the past that he nor virtually none of his classmates can recall ever encountering Obama. I think some who visit ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology