"Don't attack America. Don't underestimate America. Ever. "

[TrainTrac]

Just read this. It was a great way to start my Tuesday, so I thought I'd share it. Enjoy!:supercool:

In Praise of American Persistence



By Austin Bay

5/3/2011



Osama Bin Laden's death is the result of American persistence and American military professionalism.



For at least a century, America's enemies and their propagandists have portrayed the United States as lacking the will to engage in an extended struggle. The roots of this myth actually extend into the 18th century, but with the 20th century and the global proof of America's economic, political and cultural success, the accusations of spinelessness and fecklessness became more elaborate and insistent.



America can be blamed for giving its critics a basis for their argument. On a daily basis, an open society with freedom of expression offers domestic and international observers diverse, multifarious and totally contradictory images. The libertine and decadent are real enough. Jazz Age drunks in speakeasies morph to '50s beatniks, '60s hippies, then '90s dot-com zillionaires on skateboards.



If your current vision of America is shaped by TV programs like "The View" or "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit," it would be reasonable to conclude that America is an utterly decayed nation of sexually frustrated gossips and sado-maschists -- in other words, an easy enemy that will cower and capitulate.



However, if your vision of America is shaped by the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, the building of the Panama Canal, the Battle of Belleau Wood, the Battle of Okinawa, the Manhattan Project, the Apollo program, the Internet and similar endeavors, a nation of genius, courage and persistence emerges -- a nation to emulate, not injure and anger.



An interpretation of Vietnam informed Saddam Hussein's February 1990 speech in Amman, Jordan, in which he sketched his vision of recent history. After World War II, France and Britain "declined." Two superpowers arose, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Suddenly, the Cold War ended. Saddam then proceeded with a rambling proposition that America was "fatigued" and would fade, but "throughout the next five years," the U.S. would be unrestricted.



He implied defeating the U.S. entailed exploiting the scar of Vietnam and threatening massive U.S. casualties. "Fatigue" and domestic self-recrimination would stall U.S. power.



Saddam miscalculated. America responded to his invasion of Kuwait with Desert Storm. Bin Laden's America as a "weak horse" metaphor echoed Saddam. Bin Laden focused on America's hasty withdrawal from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down fiasco.



Both men ignored the more telling lesson of Nov. 9, 1989, the day the Berlin Wall cracked. From 1947 until 1989 -- despite the inconclusiveness of the Korean War, despite the existence of Cuba as a Soviet satellite 90 miles from Florida, despite draft dodgers and Weathermen terrorists, despite the American retreat from Vietnam, despite the Watts riots of 1964, despite Watergate, despite the humiliating 1979 occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran -- the U.S. successfully contained and defeated the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War's long and tedious struggle.



That took extraordinary persistence. It took resilient, adaptable, creative and able American military and security services. Most of all, it took the basic, consistent support of the American people, the ones who go to work, pay the bills, wear the police and military uniforms, and, to paraphrase John Kennedy, will "bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty."



As the Cold War ended, another twilight struggle began, one America didn't notice and didn't want. Al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. Al-Qaida operatives attacked U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The attack on the USS Cole was an al-Qaida operation.



America, however, did not ignore the horror of 9-11. Another long struggle for the terms of modernity had begun, one that would pit multifarious America and its radical experiment in liberty against murderous religious fanatics whose vision of the future linked 21st century technologies with 12th century feudalism, 20th century dictatorships and tribal misogyny.



The religious fanatics bet on their will to win, their will to persist.



The U.S. special operations team that killed bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was the tip of a very long spear made of intelligence agencies, military services and police departments. It is a spear wielded by the American people.



The bottom line to bin Laden's death is this: Don't attack America. The line above the bottom line? Don't underestimate America.



Ever.

 

[Bud Williams]

:supercool:

 

[H D]

Good article. Thanks.

 

[Jerry Gerner 2]

Good read. It's not over by far though, just because we took out Bin Laden don't think for a second there isn't 100 other Terrorist wanting to avenge his death and make an even bigger name for himself/ herself. This is a great thing that he is dead but it isn't the time to boast and put our guard down. JMHO..

 

[Bill V]

Good read, fun read--but it does make some questionable claims in the name of pandering to the current patriotic swell.



Wasn't the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the Soviet Union due not so much to "the U.S. successfully containing and defeating the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War's long and tedious struggle", but more to inherent flaws in the Soviet and East German systems that caused them to collapse upon themselves?

 

[TrainTrac]

"the U.S. successfully containing and defeating the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War's long and tedious struggle", but more to inherent flaws in the Soviet and East German systems that caused them to collapse upon themselves?

If I'm not mistaken, one of the ways that we did this was to engage them in an arms race until they spent themselves into oblivion. By spending $$$ in an attempt to keep up with the US militarily, the inherent flaws in Communism were what resulted in the economies and gov'ts of the USSR and GDR to collapse.

 

[Les]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the ways that we did this was to engage them in an arms race until they spent themselves into oblivion.

Seems we didn't learn from their experience.

 

[Kevin Lang]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the ways that we did this was to engage them in an arms race until they spent themselves into oblivion.

Seems we didn't learn from their experience.

Are you saying that we're spending too much on our defense budget? I hope not, as too much US defense spending isn't the problem. From the quote you're springboarding from, it sounds like that is what you're saying though.

 

[Les]

KL, it's interesting the term "defense spending" is always used. We are engaged in two and half wars, are these defensive? If we stop playing the world's police, spending would be cut. As for actual defense spending, it is necessary.

 

[Johnny O]

Good thing this happened under a Democrat President though, or Congress and the MSM would be gathering a lynch mob for the military. F'n hypocrites.

 

[H D]

George Bush sent troops into Pakistan? I can't believe it! We have no right to be there.



Oh, nevermind...



Thanks be to our military men and women.

 

[Kevin Lang]

If we stop playing the world's police, spending would be cut.

Perhaps, but for how long? And by how much?



We have to keep pace with China, whose "defense" spending is gaining them a rather formidable military force. We also have to deal with Russia; it may just be bravado, but the Russians, in their claims over the Northeast Passage, did buzz one of our ships with an attack helicopter. In response to the swelling Russian bravado, even the Norwegians are stepping up their military endeavors.



Besides, a weak America isn't America. I remember how disgusted I felt when one of the heads of the Brazilian government was interviewed on 60 Minutes right after the news of the discovery of the (now forgotten) Brazilian oil motherlode. He said that Brazil had no interest in world politics, no interest in superfluous & petty installations such as a military, that Brazilians were all laid back and would rather make love on the beach than war. (Why not both? :banana



I fear that starting to decrease the US' military strength will lead us down the slippery slope to being like Costa Rica. I fear that more than pouring trillions into a burgeoning & "self-serving military-industrial conspiracy", as they say. It's only a matter of time before Costa Rica is devoured by other countries.



Si vis pacem, para bellum

 

[Rick Kent]

The Brazilian take is interesting. When you have nothing of interest to your "enemies" I guess you can take that position.



Now that they have thriving ethanol industry and found large oil reserves, they have something worth taking....

 

[Richard L]

I agree that we could cut our spending by a large margin if we stopped being the World's Police, unfortuantely we put ourselves in that role and I don't forsee us making any changes, any time soon.



I do think we should be a lot more pickier about who we give so much of our foreigh aide money to.



Pakistan would be one of the first countries that I would have some serious reservations about giving them any more of our money. I can accept to a slight degree that they may not have known that bin Laden was hiding out there for the past 6-7 years, but I think someone in their goverment or military were aware of it, and may have been paid, or threatened to be quiet about it. I don' tlike the fact that the Pakistan government is not complaining that we made an unauthorized incursion into their country to conduct the raid without their approval...when everytime we have told them some of our intelligence info, the Al Qaida suspects were tipped off and got away. Now Pakistan will not allow our interrogators talk with the 3 wives of bin Laden that they have in custody. I would just cut off their money supply and see how they like that.



I am convinced that the Pakistani's need us more than we need them. The problem is that if Pakistan gets any weaker, they will be ripe to being taken over by the Taliban and Al Qaida, and Pakistan will become the next Afgahnastan. And it will probably be more expensive to go in and kick them out than it will be to prop up the Pakistan government.



...Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

I don' tlike the fact that the Pakistan government is not complaining that we made an unauthorized incursion into their country to conduct the raid without their approval...when everytime we have told them some of our intelligence info, the Al Qaida suspects were tipped off and got away

Pakistan is complaining about our "incursion" though?



On foreign aid, I agree that we should curtail it. I see how it is necessary to have paid allies to do our deeds in our stead for us--we don't have the money, manpower, or public support (most important) to do all of the military tasks we deem necessary ourselves. This is the same position the Romans found themselves in ages ago; hopefully we can can pull the "puppet strings" better than they could.



At heart, despite realizing that vast expenditures on foreign aid are necessary, I'd rather we used the money to fund our own, direct efforts.

And it will probably be more expensive to go in and kick them out than it will be to prop up the Pakistan government.

To continue my above sentiment, yes it is certainly cheaper to pay them to be cordial to our cause, but it would be more satisfying to go "over there".



Though I wonder if Pakistan could be taken over openly by the Taliban without much foreign fuss as Afghanistan was. Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, is more prominent in the world. It also has non-Taliban, non-Arab/Muslem neighbors. One of those neighbors it is technically at war with.



More importantly, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

My typo. I did not mean to put "Not" in that sentence. Of course Pakistan has been complaining obout the bin Laden raid, as well as previous incursions into their country by the US.



I don't know if the Taliban hav the strength to take over Pakistan. However, in the past, when there is political turmoil in a country they become easier targets for the Taliban and al Qaida. Even now, the Pakistani's are protesting and want their president and military leaders to resign for allowing the US military to enter their country and take out bin Laden??



I also heard on the news today that Pakistan had made an under the table agreement that the US could make incurrsions into Pakistan to attack al Qaida and Taliban, but that Pakistan would publicly protest all of these attacks. It sounds like Pakistan may be willing to help but do not want to piss off their people who may sympathize with radical Muslims causes.



Again, we may never know all of the truth and all of the details of what went on behind close doors.



...Rich