Kerry Fails the Global Pop Quiz
I watched the debate last night with some of the Atlanta Protest Warriors. We loved how President Bush nailed Kerry on the "Global Test" thing. I thought this analogy by Kerry was a little odd:
The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.
First, I don't think we had tens of thousands of troops stationed to keep an eye on Mexico during WWII. I certainly know that Mexico was not trying to actively shoot down our airplanes.
More to the point, Kerry's comment betrays a certain lack of knowledge about WWII. True, we were attacked by the Japanese and that led to our entry into the war. Subsequently, Adolph Hitler declared war on the United States.
President Roosevelt made the decision to concentrate our efforts on the defeat of Germany, to the detriment of our effort to avenge Pearl Harbor. The de-prioritization of the Pacific theater also led to some of our worst defeats of the war. Troops that could have been used to defend the Philippines were diverted to the European theater. Ships, airplanes, and Marines were on their way to assist with the defense of Wake Island . They were turned around and Wake was lost, despite the valor of the American troops on the island.
So while it is true that we did not avenge Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico, we did respond by invading North Africa. And Sicily. And Italy. And France.
President Roosevelt realized that we were fighting a global war to make the world safe for the United States of America. That being the case, we had to fight the war not just in a passionate way, but also in a smart way. We had to be able to engage against several enemies at once to achieve the final victory. We did.
President Bush has the same type of global vision. He knows that the war will not end when Osama Bin Lauden is caught (assuming that UBL is still alive). Bush knows the only way to a final victory is to not only confront terrorists, but to call those nations who assist with terror to account:
And not only will we find the terrorists, we will enforce the doctrine that says if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, if you fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist.
John Kerry's argument seems to be that he is upset that the President did what he said he was going to do. I can see how the President not advocating the expedient thing would confuse John Kerry, master of the politically expedient.
There is another two things that Kerry said that demonstrated his lack of understanding of the military. In the first case, Kerry was complaining that we used indigenous troops to attack Tora Bora. In the second, Kerry said he was going to increase the number of Special Forces troops.
It is obvious that Kerry does not understand that one of the major roles of Special Forces is to command indigenous troops. This was done to brilliant effect in our effort in Afghanistan. To quote from "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks:
"Tiger 02, the Special Forces team supporting General Abdul Rashid Dostum (a Northern Alliance commander) - led by a young captain, a seasoned master sergeant, and a lanky sergeant first class, whose noms de guerre were Mark, Paul, and Mike - fought one of the most tactically skillful and courageous small-unit actions in American military history. Facing determined enemy resistance, terrible weather, and mounting casualties among their indigenous troops, these Green Berets used maneuver and air power to destroy an army the Soviets had failed to dislodge with more than half a million men."
You caught the right?
The number of Soviet Troops required to fight an army in Afghanistan and lose: 500,000.
The number of American troops required to fight an army in Afghanistan and win: 3.
The cost of the ignorance of John Kerry on military matters outside the environs of a little boat: Not a price we can afford.
