A Prophetic Look In The Mirror

Three 44s

New member
By Dr. Kern:

Recently, I was asked to look at the recent events through the lens of military history. I have joined the cast of thousands who have written an "open letter to Americans."


----------------------------------

14 September, 2001

Dear friends and fellow Americans

Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it.

This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II.

These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing — better said anxious — to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long?

In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them.

In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only superpower (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent counter-terrorist organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional body snatch, (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens.

Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and is presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear centers of gravity to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft — this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders.

Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned.

Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but also less audacious sand in the gears tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our comfort zone forcing the average American to pay more and play less and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a remarkable trinity of war that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail.

Everyone I've talked to in the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another, "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain. God Bless America

Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy

 
Last edited:
The cost of being in Iraq is about 200 million dollars PER DAY. The bottom line is our country cant pay for this war anymore. Heaven forbid if the chinese stop loaning us money. This war was lost when it turned into a full blown invasion of a sovereign nation.
 
Yeah surrender is a much better option. That projects a real position of strength. The war on Islamic facism (you know, the non-existent "boogeyman") is much broader than Iraq. Afghanistan, the Phillipines, North Africa, and in places we've never heard of the battle is on. We're killing a lot of vicious "boogeymen" all over the world. I guess we should surrender on all those fronts, too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
Are you still buying in to the administrations spin that the occupation of Iraq is part of a war on terror? We went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and helped the Afghan people put his allies the Taliban out of business. After they crossed the border into Pakistan the administration lost interest in them. They were much more interested in selling us on their invasion of Iraq. Now the idea of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda have been dismissed along with claims of WMDs, visions of the Iraqi people greetings us with flowers and the claim that Iraqi oil would fund the war. Their claims about a weapons program in Iran have now come under question and already you see the spin and cover-ups. For whatever reason the administration has been wrong in a consistent and frightening manner. Someone answer this question for me. If you were president and your daily briefings told you that a particular terrorist wanted to strike at the US, another briefing discussed the use of airplanes as weapons and there were reports of mid-eastern types taking flying lessons; how long would it take you to order the airlines to strengthen cockpit doors and arm the pilots? If you can’t admit to a mistake how can you learn? Instead of answers we get cover up and spin. Instead of an analysis of the problems we get denial and attacks on the messengers.
 
Quote:
Yeah surrender is a much better option. That projects a real position of strength. The war on Islamic facism (you know, the non-existent "boogeyman") is much broader than Iraq. Afghanistan, the Phillipines, North Africa, and in places we've never heard of the battle is on. We're killing a lot of vicious "boogeymen" all over the world. I guess we should surrender on all those fronts, too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif



When we surrendered in vietnam, did communism take over the world? Nope. So what do you want? Our service men and women to storm the earth and occupy every country and commit genocide on the muslim religion? Or we could try and use diplomacy, like...(simple and crued form mind you).."Hey muslim peoples, why dont you stay over there(middle east) and worship your ideals, we will keep our military over here and run our country. Both of us stay out of each others way (we dont try and force american culture on you, you dont go ted kennedy on us again only with planes) and stop bombing the [beeep] out of each other?"
 
Last edited:
The difference is that the N. Vietnamese were not interested in following us home.

AND though we "lost" in Vietnam thanks in no small part to lopsided media reporting .......... Thailand was spared.

Containment worked even in retreat!

Retreating this time will yield a different result.

Three 44s
 
Last edited:
"Are you still buying in to the administrations spin that the occupation of Iraq is part of a war on terror?"

Yes, all the dead Al-Qaeda there is proof of that.



"We went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and helped the Afghan people put his allies the Taliban out of business. After they crossed the border into Pakistan the administration lost interest in them."


While the Pakistanis agreed to "help" us find OBL, they wouldn't allow us to cross their border in pursuit of him. This was the result of Musharraf not wanting to fracture his already fragile support as President. He wouldn't risk being overthrown. Don't like Musharraf? You should see what would replace him- plus they would be armed with nukes.


"Now the idea of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda have been dismissed along with claims of WMDs, visions of the Iraqi people greetings us with flowers and the claim that Iraqi oil would fund the war"

Dismissed by whom? Senate Democrats? Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Durbin and the rest of their ilk had access to the same intel as the President. They voted in favor of the Iraq war, and tried to back out when things didn't go as planned. Now they openly root for the enemy. Saddam had plenty of time to bury or move his WMD's to Syria and Iran while a handful of buffoons from the U.N. stumbled around an area the size of California for a few months. "Aren't Iraq and Iran enemies?" many would ask. In the traditional sense, yes. Overiding their disagreements as to which flavor of Islam is the purest is the concept of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Did some Iraqi's greet us with flowers? Absolutely. Many that didn't still participated in free elections, something previously thought as impossible. Oil revenues? Probably a stretch, but could still happen.


"Their claims about a weapons program in Iran have now come under question and already you see the spin and cover-ups."

Does any sane person not believe Iran has nuclear ambitions? Perhaps they were suspended, but only AFTER they saw we meant business in Iraq. There was some disagreement as to whether Iraq had a nuclear program in the 80's, but Israel settled that arguement. How can anyone think a nuclear Iran is a good thing?


"Someone answer this question for me. If you were president and your daily briefings told you that a particular terrorist wanted to strike at the US, another briefing discussed the use of airplanes as weapons and there were reports of mid-eastern types taking flying lessons; how long would it take you to order the airlines to strengthen cockpit doors and arm the pilots?"



Were there gaps in intelligence? Sure. Clinton gutted our intelligence agencies during his administration. Janet Reno ordered the CIA and FBI not communicate in this area. Clinton viewed the first WTC attack, the U.S.S Cole, and the Khobar Towers attack as law enforcement issues and not acts of war. His anemic responses to these attacks further imboldened the enemy. He refused to take OBL into custody when Sudan offerred him up to us- TWICE!




"Instead of answers we get cover up and spin. Instead of an analysis of the problems we get denial and attacks on the messengers."


One only has to look at those asking the questions and who the messengers are- AND what their agenda is. For Democrats like yourself it's inconvenient to face these facts as it doesn't enable your agenda to be implemented- That agenda being placing the lust for power over this nation's security, even to the point of becoming traitors.
 
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah surrender is a much better option. That projects a real position of strength. The war on Islamic facism (you know, the non-existent "boogeyman") is much broader than Iraq. Afghanistan, the Phillipines, North Africa, and in places we've never heard of the battle is on. We're killing a lot of vicious "boogeymen" all over the world. I guess we should surrender on all those fronts, too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif



When we surrendered in vietnam, did communism take over the world? Nope. So what do you want? Our service men and women to storm the earth and occupy every country and commit genocide on the muslim religion? Or we could try and use diplomacy, like...(simple and crued form mind you).."Hey muslim peoples, why dont you stay over there(middle east) and worship your ideals, we will keep our military over here and run our country. Both of us stay out of each others way (we dont try and force american culture on you, you dont go ted kennedy on us again only with planes) and stop bombing the [beeep] out of each other?"




jwp, your latest round of drivel doesn't deserve a detailed response. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
Ya your right, that whole diplomacy thing is overrated...lets just blow a couple of trillion dollars instead.
 
Quote:
The difference is that the N. Vietnamese were not interested in following us home.
Three 44s


That’s funny, the most repeated comment from supporters of the Vietnam war was “we’re fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here”.
 
Quote:
Saddam had plenty of time to bury or move his WMD's to Syria and Iran while a handful of buffoons from the U.N. stumbled around an area the size of California for a few months. "Aren't Iraq and Iran enemies?" many would ask. In the traditional sense, yes. Overiding their disagreements as to which flavor of Islam is the purest is the concept of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."


You have any proof of this wild claim. The idea that they could have moved the WMDs run directly counter of administration claims that they had these weapons pinpointed.


Quote:
Does any sane person not believe Iran has nuclear ambitions? Perhaps they were suspended, but only AFTER they saw we meant business in Iraq. There was some disagreement as to whether Iraq had a nuclear program in the 80's, but Israel settled that arguement. How can anyone think a nuclear Iran is a good thing?

Within the last month the administration has portrayed the Iranian Weapons program as a immediate danger. While we do need to keep an eye on them they aren’t the danger that they are being made out to be.

Quote:
Were there gaps in intelligence? Sure. Clinton gutted our intelligence agencies during his administration. Janet Reno ordered the CIA and FBI not communicate in this area. Clinton viewed the first WTC attack, the U.S.S Cole, and the Khobar Towers attack as law enforcement issues and not acts of war. His anemic responses to these attacks further imboldened the enemy. He refused to take OBL into custody when Sudan offerred him up to us- TWICE!


The intelligence was there. The current administration didn't act on it and the best you can do is it's Clinton's fault.
Quote:
One only has to look at those asking the questions and who the messengers are- AND what their agenda is. For Democrats like yourself it's inconvenient to face these facts as it doesn't enable your agenda to be implemented- That agenda being placing the lust for power over this nation's security, even to the point of becoming traitors.


again your answer it to shoot the messenger rather than seek the truth
 
So would all of you demoroids rather think that Iran has nuke ambitions and try to stop them and be wrong, or think that they do not and be wrong??? Your first intelligence could be a mushroom cloud over a city near you.

Peace never comes through weakness and retreat, peace comes through strength. The islamic extremists do not respect anything but brute force and strength.

You people never cease to remind me that the Democratic party and common sense are contra-indicated.
 
I would like to see all the ones who want to turn tail & run get out of the way so they don't get shot. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
I've seen a lot of yard signs lately that say "Stop the war & bring the troops home!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angry-smiley-055.gif I'd like to see some that says "Win the war & bring the troops home!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
I also hear a lot about how our troops have to make multiple tours in the war zone. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif What did these people think they were joining, the swim club? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
I greatly admire Dr. Tony Kern's ability to in the after math of the Cumbiya on the Capital steps ........ the gathering of Congress for a photo opp ...... see TO THE LETTER ..... the issue at hand.

Would we have the cahonnies to stand and defend ourselves? ..... or RUN?

Well, the world has been shrinking. A missile takes but scant minutes to arrive at it's target ...... and you don't even have to strap a mullah to one ....... it does it's trick all on it's own!

Dr. Kern:

"This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers."

INDEED!

"These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment."

Sadly, it won't be until some major US Cities lay in rubble we will get this one. I might live in a liberal state .... but fortunately .... a "fly over" section of it! I have more time than the average liberal.

"How committed are we America? And for how long?"

How long? ...... so far ...... only long enough for members of congress to get their photos taken as standing up for America .........

Three 44s
 
Last edited:
Well you see i am a conservative, not a NEOCON. I dont believe in preemptive war, nor do i believe it is right to invade a soveriegn nation without a declaration of war(from congress). The Iraq war went from "Iraq has a nuke(wmd's) and we dont want to wait for a mushroom cloud.." to "Well Iraq was harboring al queda". Now the government is saying Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, the international intelligence is saying that they are not pursuing weapons grade pluetonium. You CANT just go around invading soveriegn nations on a whim. We do not have the money to continue the Iraq war or start another, our actions are only going to create more enimies in the middle east. The problem with the middle east is you cant kill an ideal, there will always be someone willing to carry it on. Espeacially if half of their family was killed(intentional or collateral) by the enemy of that ideal.
 
I believe that if we secured our borders & got rid of the free-loading on our social programs meant for our citizens, from illegal immigrants we could maybe finance the protection of our country a little better.
Whatever, we are at war with an enemy that has & is watching our every move & listening to all the dissention in this country from the surrendercraps.
President Bush told us in the beginning that we are to take the fight to the enemy & not on our, U.S., soil & it would take many years or even generations to finish it. Be it Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines or any place else besides here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
The surrendercraps happen to be the same people who would disarm the populace of this country in the name of, WHAT? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Quote:
I believe that if we secured our borders & got rid of the free-loading on our social programs meant for our citizens, from illegal immigrants we could maybe finance the protection of our country a little better.
Whatever, we are at war with an enemy that has & is watching our every move & listening to all the dissention in this country from the surrendercraps.
President Bush told us in the beginning that we are to take the fight to the enemy & not on our, U.S., soil & it would take many years or even generations to finish it. Be it Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines or any place else besides here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
The surrendercraps happen to be the same people who would disarm the populace of this country in the name of, WHAT? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif



Precisely!

The defense/entitlement budget portions have flipped since JFK was President.

During JFK's tenure ...... defense accounted for 40% and entitlements ...... 20%.

Today .......... defense ..... 20% and entitlements ..... 40%.

And much of those entitlements are to illegal alliens. And our LEO's are submerged ...... SUBMERGED in a "border battle" that rages in most states of the Union. And the prisons are filled with illegal alliens.

The neutering of the CIA and FBI was not done during Bush. It was swung into high gear by Carter ....... Clinton finnished the job!

The seeds sown by that collosal blunder reaped missing Saddam's deception over WMD's ..... that is if there was ever a deception! For I feel Bush is covering for the Russians and that in fact a MAJOR airlift occurred just prior to our invading Iraq in which those WMD's were secreted away to Syria or Russia.

In either case ..... WMD's or not ........ Clinton and Gore both said numerous times that Iraq would have to under go a regime change because of his potential use of WMD's.

John Edwards prior to the Senate vote on "use of force" on Iraq was approached by Senior ex-Clinton officials and told in no uncertain terms THAT SADDAM POSSESSED WMD's.

SADDAM was offering $25,000 to any family of a terrorist responsible for killing Americans.

The UN was IN BED with Saddam Hussein ........ after SEVENTEEN failed resolutions ........ DIPLOMACY was a NON STARTER!

History is repeating itself.

Evil is on the march.

The Middle Eastern terrorists would love nothing better than to play Adolf Hitler's play book all over again.

Hitler told us what the game was to be. So are today's terrorists.

We appeased Hitler ...... we are about to appease the terrorists.

Three 44s
 
I’ve got news for most of you. It’s not just the democrats that see the futility of the Iraq occupation. There are a lot of independents and republicans that see it also. A lot of the people that still support the occupation see it as a bad idea but are concerned about the results of a US withdrawal. Then you have some that are just like GWB in that they just can’t admit to a mistake. They are the kind of people that don’t care what the cost is in lives and tax dollars; they just have to salvage their pride.
 
Wether you like George Bush or not he is the President of the United States & we are the citizens of those same United States & it is our responsibility to support our country in the time of war.
I didn't like Clinton either but if our country was at war I believed it my duty to support that war because it was against me.
If we as a country would stick together no enemy could last very long.
We all can have a differance of opinion on this but we are all Americans & we are all at war.
Lets win. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angry-smiley-055.gif
I shudder to think that the likes of Gore or Kerry came so close to being elected. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
Back
Top