Tag Archives: kinetic military action

Words Really Do Make A Difference

What a difference the choice of wording makes!

On September 14, at Ground Zero, President George W. Bush declared:

“I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Simple words from the heart and soul of a man who was tireless in his fight against terrorism. These words struck a chord so deep within me and inspired me so much that this quote is now framed and hanging on the wall in my home office.

While I did not agree with everything that President Bush did in office it was not hard to see that he was committed to take whatever action necessary to make sure the perpetrators of the most heinous act of terror on American soil were punished. In the midst of the most horrific terror and most overwhelming sorrow our nation has ever faced in modern history, I saw resolve in our nation’s leader.

It is most unfortunate that the same cannot be said for the current administration.

Words are no longer simple and from the heart and soul, they are instead pretentious, flowery,  calculated and pre-determined at an attempt to “soften the blow” of the reality we face as a nation. This administration fails to realize that calling a lion an overgrown cat doesn’t change the ability for destruction that a lion is instilled with.

In 2009, in her first testimony to Congress, newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sought to diminish the steadfast determination of this nation’s military men and women who were and still are sacrificing their time, blood, sweat, tears and very lives to bring justice that Americans so rightly deserve for the terrorist attacks against us. During her testimony she couldn’t bring herself to breathe the “t” word, opting instead to rename the attack and others like them to “man caused disasters”. I guess it just sounded “cuter to her!  When asked by the German news site Spiegel Online if Islamic  terrorism “suddenly no longer posed a threat” to America, she stated that this administration wanted to move away from the “politics of fear”, opting instead to “be prepared for all risks” that can occur.

It appears as though she missed the mark on that one! This administration is not at all prepared for any risk that comes along! Investing in the stock market is more risky now than it was in the previous administration. In today’s housing market, it is quite risky to buy a house. And one of the biggest risks Americans take today is driving up to the gas pump! The price of gas is rising at a rate of overwhelming proportions! Personally, I would never have called any of these situations terrorism, but it does most definitely resonate with Ms. Napolitano’s newly defined terminology. President Obama and his administration are most certainly causing an abundance of disasters. But isn’t this just running headlong back into the “politics of fear”? They would probably do better if they chose to call it more along the lines of “politics of conspiracy.”

President Bush was very clear that we would make no distinction between the terrorist themselves and the countries and leaders who harbored them. Not so with President Obama, because there is no longer a “War On Terror”, it is now downgraded to an “Overseas Contingency Operation.” What does that even mean?

According to the definition given at dictionary.com, this is the last term in the world that would give me confidence that we have things under control.

con·tin·gen·cy
dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty.

Thesaurus.com gives synonyms for “contingency” as: accident, crisis, crossroads, emergency, event, if it’s cool, incident, juncture, likelihood, occasion, odds, opportunity, pass, pinch, predicament, probability, strait, turning point, uncertainty, zero hour

Plus there are a few more listed.

So, I could essentially rename President Obama’s Operation as “Across The Ocean If It’s Cool Operation”.

Or how about “Transmarine Crossroads Operation”?

Hmmm…. We could go with “On The Other Side Of The Very Large Body Of Water Uncertainty Operation”. No… none of those combination of flowery words seem to give me true confidence that yes, we will take whatever means necessary to see this to an end!The latest member of Obama’s administration to try his hand at flowery rhetoric is Eric Holder. Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, when asked if enhanced interrogation methods were used in obtaining information that led to the eventual killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Holder simply could not bring himself to affirm that yes, our country succeeded in killing the mastermind behind the most horrific terrorist attack on our land! In true fashion that is this administration, he said, there was a “mosaic of sources that led to the identification of people who led” our military to Osama bin Laden. He said that assuming enhanced interrogation methods were used is hypothetical. OK, if you say so, Mr. Holder! Come on now, let’s be real! I guess this is what he had to say, because the sensibilities of the left just cannot handle the truth in this matter! And  my goodness! What if Muslims found  out that we indeed used some form of enhanced persuasion on these enemy combatants!? They might just retaliate…. or something! But wait! We can no longer call them “enemy combatants” !  Let’s instead call them “Bad Person Contenders”. Or we could even say a “patchwork” of things led us to identify the “Revolutionary Serviceman”? Yes! Much better! That will work indeed! It’s all good. Just look it all up at thesaurus.com!

And finally, in an effort to make everyone feel better about events in history, I guess we will now have to reprint all the previous books that use that horribly offensive word “War”. Hitler was bad enough! We don’t want to have to utter that horribly offense “W” word! So now we will just call it “World Kinetic Military Action 2”. And we really must use the written number rather than the Roman Numeral to keep things from appearing so barbaric! Oh hey, look! Now it makes it seem almost like a movie sequel- right?  Things weren’t so bad after all!

See now?  Changing the words to “tone down” the harsh reality makes you feel allllll better now… right??!!

Hey, Hey, BHO. How Many Wars Do You Have To Go?

Hey, Hey, LBJ. How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? The liberal anti-war movement of the Vietnam era intoned this chant countless times. They used it in mass rallies. They used it any time President Lyndon B. Johnson got up the courage to show his face in public. They used it as a means to an end. They used it ad nauseum. And it worked. Now, 38 years since the last American troops left Vietnam, yet another Democratic president has launched a new war that threatens to bog the U.S. military down for the long-term. President Harry S. Truman started the semantics game during the Korean War by refusing to call it a war. He called it a Police Action. President Barack Obama has borrowed a page from the Truman playbook and is calling his Libyan adventure a Kinetic Military Action (KMA) – whatever the Hell that is supposed to be. Obama gains a couple of talking points with the KMA semantics game. He can claim that he didn’t need the approval of Congress prior to commencing military operations in Libya because it isn’t a war. It’s just a KMA. And he also gains supposed credibility as a tough talker/tough walker with his ass-kicking routine at the expense of a tinhorn Arab dictator. What could go wrong? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Just a few short years after Nancy Pelosi proclaimed dissent to be the ultimate act of patriotism, the peacenik, anti-war; Nancy Sheehans of the country are nowhere to be seen. The total absence of leftist protesters in the face of this ill-advised Libyan misadventure exposes the hypocrisy of the left. The left never was against war – the left just used anti-war protests as a way to leverage them into power. Let’s not kid ourselves here. It was a Democratic president that appeared before Congress after the attack on Pearl Harbor and declared war on Japan. It was a Democratic president that owned the Police Action in Korea. It was a Democratic president that first sent advisors to Vietnam. It was a Democratic president that escalated the Vietnam conflict to the point that we had half a million troops in the jungle nightmare of a war. It was a Democratic president named Bill Clinton that dodged the draft in 1969 but had no problem sending U.S. troops into harm’s way 30 years later in Yugoslavia. And it is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic President that has interjected himself into Libya – a nation in which the United States has no vital national security interest. Given that track record, who are the Democrats to complain about George W. Bush?

Obama is also taking yet another ill-advised course by placing U.S. troops under NATO command – a move which is schedule to take place tomorrow evening. Can you say UNITED WORLD ORDER? American fighting forces will now conduct military operations under the orders of foreign leaders. Obama has been frantically backpedaling from taking responsibility for his involvement in Libya. He prefers that the New World Order command our troops. He prefers that European leftists and Arab League tyrants take command of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It gives him cover for whatever might go wrong. And what could possibly go wrong? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Obama’s failure to convince the nation that he had just cause to promulgate the Kinetic Military Action, or war for lack of a better term, in Libya demonstrates once again the hypocrisy of the left. Obama ignores the threat to our nation on our southern border. He ignores the threat to international shipping by pirates off the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean. He ignores the righteous cause of the Sunni protesters in Syria. He ignores the growing insurrection in Yemen. He ignores the protesters in Saudi Arabia. He ignores the near certainly of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining complete control in Egypt. He ignores the missile offensive by Hamas against Israeli cities. He ignores the bomb blast in central Jerusalem that has been determined to have been the work of professional terrorists. Instead, Obama chooses to engage as a full participant in the Western campaign against Muammar Qaddafi. Obama is teaching the world a lesson in how liberals conduct war. Obama tells us that the United States will work with its allies to hasten the day when Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi leaves power, but will not use force to topple him. It makes you almost think that Obama is nothing more than Neville Chamberlain in drag. Obama sounds tough. He drops a few bombs. He risks the lives of precious American servicemen and women. But he doesn’t follow through. He has problems defining the mission. He has problems following the mandates of The United States Constitution regarding his duties in regard to obtaining Congressional approval – not very impressive for a man who considers himself a Constitutional scholar. He abdicates command for American troops to NATO, the European Union, and the Arab League. He claims U.S. involvement in Libya is for humanitarian purposes but instead of protecting the Libyan citizenry he allows scope creep to occur and is now demanding regime change.

In Vietnam Redux, Obama is repeating the mistakes of that benighted conflict. A rank amateur in all things military, Obama is now micromanaging three wars simultaneously. Obama ran his campaign on an anti-war platform. But he is governing like a warmonger run amok. He escalated the war in Afghanistan – and lowered the boom on the brilliant General Stanley McChrystal in the process. His waffling on troop levels and his insistence on following a strategy that can’t win is eerily reminiscent of Vietnam – where political meddling resulted in orders that prevented American troops from achieving victory. Now Obama is doing the same thing in Libya. He seems to think you can have a pretend war where nobody gets hurt. He orders the military into action but forbids ground troops – which are a prerequisite for victory. In fact victory appears to be a naughty word as far as Obama is concerned. If we aren’t in it to win it what are we in it for? By no means am I suggesting that the U.S. should be involved in the Libyan “Kinetic Military Action.” But if we are going to be involved shouldn’t we have the aim to achieve victory? And given Obama’s vacillating attitude on the scope of the mission just what would constitute a victory? – Or at least an exit strategy. Or for that matter, what was our entry strategy? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

But no matter what happens in Libya now, Obama owns the mess. General Colin Powell is famous for his statement that if “you break it, you own it.” Obama owns the mess in Libya. He started it. He broke it. It is all his. He can’t blame Bush. He can’t blame Palin. He can’t even blame Bill Clinton. This one is his. To date, Obama still hasn’t loosened up on oil drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska. He just doesn’t seem to have grasped the concept that with the Middle East engulfed in flames that perhaps the wise thing to do would be to ensure a reliable source of energy for the United States. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t care. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has so weakened anti-terrorism initiatives that Obama is going to completely own any future terrorist attacks on American soil. And if the U.S. economy craters it is fully on Obama’s shoulders where the blame will rightly fall. Obama is pursuing economic policies that handcuff the nation’s economy, put workers on the welfare rolls, and slowly squeeze the life out of countless private businesses.

Obama is a disaster for America. It is unthinkable that he isn’t aware what he is doing to America. Oh, he’s aware all right. The problem is that he approves of it. He is nothing more than a communist ideologue that is bent on the destruction of the greatest nation in the history of mankind. He desires for America to become a communist dictatorship in which every imaginable aspect of our lives is controlled by puppet masters. He has a vision of a communist Utopia and he is determined to bring it to pass regardless of the damage he does in the process. Obama’s wars are just one more lever he pulls in order to drain the vitality and strength from America. He is intent on bringing down the American dream and replacing it with his communist utopia.

Isn’t there someone in America who is willing to stand up to this dictator wannabe? Aren’t their patriots in Congress willing to commence impeachment proceedings against America’s first anti-American President? Won’t Congress hold Obama accountable for his flagrant disregard of the Constitution of the United States? Won’t the Supreme Court of the United States step up and declare Obama’s actions to be unconstitutional. Aren’t there brave men and women left in the country who will rise up and defend freedom against this tin-horn tyrant?

Yes, there are patriots who will fight Obama. It doesn’t appear that there are enough of them in positions of power to rid the country of Obama at this moment. But we still have the power of the ballot box. November of 2012 is coming and Obama knows it. The only question is who will be left standing at that time, Obama or us? Let us pray is it us.