AMERICA ANSWERS THE CALL, “911, PLEASE HOLD!”

There’s an interesting historical fact regarding America’s military prowess of which few have really taken notice.  While we consider World War II to have been a single global conflict, it was actually two complete wars, one in Europe and the other in the Pacific.  That’s why we celebrate “VE Day”, the date of Germany’s surrender, on May 8^th and “VJ Day”, when Japan tossed in the towel, on the 14^th of August.  We were not only fighting in both theaters, but were sending goods, equipment, and armament to our allies as well.

In a sense, it was America that made it possible for defeating the Axis powers, and winning two wars at the same time was something no other nation had ever done or accomplished since.  While there were shades of anti-war sentiment, our Presidents at that time committed us to winning the conflict and bringing everyone home in victorious peace.  America became not only the land of the free and home of the brave, but also the protector of freedom throughout the world.

Today … not so much!

In this post-Korea\post-Viet Nam era, we’re not into “winning” wars, as much as negotiating them.  We’ve lost that edge, and because of it, our allies have suffered from our wavering inability to commit ourselves to victory.  Much of this is due to the ebb and flow of election cycles, and here we are today, embroiled in world conflicts with a seeming dove at the helm.

Recently President Obama was criticized for holding a Styrofoam cup in his hand while trying to salute the Marines attending his helicopter.  His distain and disrespect for the military is well documented.  He’s also been under fire for the delay in the Bengasi, his impotence in dealing with Putin, North Korea’s missiles, Iran’s rampant centrifuged aggression, and a total loss of control in the Middle East.   Add to this the growing concern that his “lead from behind” approach to the crisis of ISIS will actually lead to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and what begins to emerge is a growing concern that our Commander-In-Chief is frankly either not capable or not concerned.

There’s no question that his guiding principle in world affairs is to avoid war at all costs.  Even when faced with direct threats to the U.S. by gun toting thugs in Iraq, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into directing air attacks on a clear enemy.  And how does he expect to meet this present danger?  He has vowed to throw bombs from above, but has no intention of sending in ground forces to support an invasion to clean out the rats nest.  Of course, world events often override philosophical desires, and we not only have committed ground troops, but will add more to the mix over time.  It’s the only way historically to defeat an enemy … that is, if the nation’s Commander-in-Chief is willing to admit there’s a problem.  Sadly ours holds a philosophy of which the likes of Wilson and Chamberlain would overflow with admiration.

One has to ask why he’s following this path, and the easy answer is that he’s a pacifist who finds even the concept of war distasteful … unless it’s in Libya, I suppose.  But the truth may be even more insidious than just a slight philosophical bend.  Let’s get right down to the meat of the issue … he’s a liberal with a capital “L”!

So there you have it, the real concern is with liberalism in general.  But why?  Aren’t liberals nice enough people?  I mean, all they want is for the world to get along.

Basically, it’s a utopian concept where all the world’s people are essentially good and just want better lives for themselves.  Isn’t that why we should get rid of the borders, so that all the poor huddled masses can come to our shores and live fulfilling lives … scrubbing toilets and picking vegetables of course?  I mean, no ordinary American would want those jobs anyway, and we are, after all, the land of opportunity.  And the only reason those poor Middle Eastern peoples hate us is because we’re meddling in their affair of trying to exterminate each other while eliminating Israel.  Who are we to tell them who to, or not to, car bomb or rocket attack?  Heaven’s, dictatorship may not be fun, but freedom’s far too messy to leave to the masses to decide for themselves.  In the liberal eye, we’re the aggressor; we’re the threat to universal peace.  If only we would be more tolerant.

The problem is, people don’t generally act in a utopic manner.  And while the liberal longs to usher in an era of gentle harmony into the waiting world, it’s just not something to which many more aggressive national leaders will agree.  Oh, and let’s not forget about religious tolerance, where the growing militant Islamic tide has vowed their lives to world domination.  These are the truths that underpin our present condition, and their acts of aggression are presently more effective than that of which we stand accused.  They hate us because of our freedom and tolerance toward others; thus, the very things that progressives want to extend toward them in friendship are the same aspects for which they are beheading journalists as of late.

Remember, my liberal friends, “Utopia” was a work of fiction!

Traditionally, in the last century, we took on the job of world policeman.  We didn’t do it because of nationalistic imperialism; we did so out of self-preservation.  We have both the industrial and military might to overpower aggressors, and we have used that to ensure that we and our allies have remained free.  That is, until we started counting the cost.  It’s an expensive proposition to lend our supplies and youthful American blood for countless years to struggling peoples in faraway lands.  And since The Big Bang is more important to the electorate than exploding Russian missiles, nobody seems to be noticing that the world is slowly devolving into the pit of totalitarianism; either socialist, communist, or Islamic.

And who’s to stop them?

It used to be us, and like it or not, that’s our place in international relations.  We are the big dog in the yard; we are the one factor that keeps peace amongst nations because we wield the biggest nuclear-tipped stick and aren’t, or at least weren’t, afraid to threaten using it to enforce good.  We kept the peace by threatening those who sought to disturb it with a whole lot of military hardware and personnel.

But that’s dwindling too.  There have been massive drawdowns to the point where our arsenal and troop levels are lower than they were prior to the Second World War.  Our generals have been hamstrung to only using air power, which any military strategist will tell you is incapable of succeeding, and our only weapon has been sanctions, which Cuba alone has proven is feeble at best.  And because of all of this, our allies have grown to distrust us.  More than once in recent years, we’ve committed to their protection, only to walk away before that security is secured.

And it’s all due to the leftist philosophy that “Might doesn’t make right!”

In truth, however, being the dominant nation is not wrong.  It’s actually rather necessary if you look at things from the standpoint of balancing power.  Granted, this nation started in the imperialist wave of the early 1800’s, but that ended long before our entry into WWI.  Throughout the 20^th, and now into the 21^st, Century of all of the land we’ve conquered, we’ve given back, save enough to give us that strategic advantage that keeps Teddy’s “big stick” in our benevolent hands.

But being a progressive means you can’t make that jump in logic.  Any violence is bad, and war is hell even without the bumper stickers.  “We’ve won the war, and now we must win the peace,” they tell us, and our government is boldly dedicated to not going boldly anywhere we might make waves.  And so, by dropping that stick, the world is now in disarray, and those with nefarious intent have availed themselves of the golden opportunity to wreak havoc across the globe.  There is far greater conflict on the planet, with much higher stakes, than has been since the 1940’s.  Back then, it was just Germany, Italy, and Japan.  Now, it’s Russia, North Korea, Libya, Bengasi, Yemen, Palestine, Iran, and anywhere you can find Al-Qaeda, ISIL, Hamas, or any of the Islamic Brotherhood.

So what will we do?  Whether we ran for sheriff or not, we are the world’s policeman and we can slow the tide of growing aggression if we’re willing to put off the throws of pacifism.  Yes, it will take another generation of our young fighting men and women to make that change.  But because we are reluctant to ascend to the role, things have been left to rot to the point where there’s now no easy fix for this situation.  So the question resounds, are we willing to step up to the office or not?

And that means more than just forcing the hand of the Dove-In Chief.  It means electing leaders who understand the nature of world conflict and are willing to respond as necessary to abate it.  That’s where the issue truly lies, as congress has had plenty of opportunity to make the appropriate declarations and address these thugs by either threatening or using good ole’ fashioned American might.  This is the year of the mid-terms, and there are those who do understand this reality who are running for office and must be given the chance to set the nation in its proper place; that of walking our beat and holding the “bad guys” at bay.  And that means closing our own borders to the most recent illegal – yes, they’re not just “undocumented” – invasion.

As you enter the ballot box month after next, it’s time to ask yourself how much longer will it be before our own national security is lost in the process of appeasement, avoidance and political correctness?  Personally, I believe it’s already in jeopardy!  And that’s just in the matter of national defense.  Throw in the rest of the leftist agenda, and how much longer before we’ve lost our very soul?  There are at least a few dozen school shooting victims and one and a quarter million extinguished fetal voices that can answer that question easily enough.