Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read.  No doubt my thoughts expressed here will be unpopular in some circles, but this old Marine believes they need to be said.  And last check I still have freedom of speech.  Quoting General Lewis W. Walt, USMC (one of my favorite Generals) - I know I'm dating myself - "I think the future of our country boils down to this simple proposition:  either we as individual Americans will assume the responsibilities of citizenship or our nation, as the land of the free, will be destroyed (page 98, The Eleventh Hour).  Responsibility includes speaking out, especially when we see that the fate of our nation is involved.  It is good to remember that our individual welfare and fate are NOT separate and distinct from that of our nation.

I grew up at a time when war was considered "hell on earth" and I agree with this well-written article.  I never have followed the concept of "Lets have a war, the worst you can do is break even -- want to play?"  At the top of the news today is the story about, "[...] The media, legislators and some brass [...] scolding McChrystal and calling for his resignation. He’s been humbled, has apologized, but is now bound for a stint in the woodshed."

We are engaged in a war that will likely last for my lifetime and beyond in the Middle East, I'm not always sure for what, but we have no objection if the global Islamist jihadist enemy brings the fight to us through subversion, infiltration, or by some other coalition. 

There are four long forgotten principles of war - old, but still valid -- that I believe must guide our continued efforts at bringing this war to a close.  Sorry, Mr. Obama, it does NOT include a public withdrawal date of our fighting forces now engaged with the enemy.  To do so puts you directly responsible for the ensuing deaths of our loved ones from the time of the announcement.  And yes, you will answer -- if not at the next election -- certainly in the eternities to follow.

General Curtis E. LeMay (USAF) is the source of these valid principles and they are found generally expressed in U.S. News and World Report, October 10, 1966.

First -- War is serious and dangerous business and it does not lessen its seriousness -- especially for those who are on the front line or otherwise engaged in combat -- by calling it a "police action" or a "limited" war.  War, any war, should have objectives that are both clear and worthy of sacrifice of human life. As stated by Theodore Roosevelt, 1917 - "The only proper rule is never to fight at all if you can honorably avoid it, but never under any circumstances to fight in a half-hearted way.  When peace come, it must be the peace of complete victory."

Second - Even small wars are cruel and must be fought in such a way as to win them as quickly as possible.  Under no circumstances do so-called political considerations justify prolonging the slaughter when it is possible to have victory.

Third -- In his own words, I can still hear General LeMay say, "Never to point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to shoot him dead.  A bluff in warfare should never be attempted unless one fully intends to back it up, if need be."

Fourth -- "The popular philosophy that we can, by cautious and timid military tactics, keep the war from escalating into a larger conflict is the ultimate in military blindness.  The only way to win a war is to escalate it in one way or another above what the enemy can take.  If we feel that we can't win without unacceptable risk, we have no business fighting in the first place .... Thus, when-ever we commit our young men to mortal combat, we should be equally prepared to commit our leaders, our cities, our families and civilians -- our own or the enemy's.  Modern war is that serious, and we should not forget it."  

I agree with the author that General McChrystal:

"[...] did romance Afghan civilians whose culture he admires, whose safety he put above that of our soldiers, whose homes he protected and whose "peaceful" religion was treated with overweening sensitivity.  In sixty six pages where he outlined his war strategy, his only mention of Islam was the tired old cliché that the Taliban was guilty of hijacking the noble principles of the Koran. He remains blind to the mounting evidence that the local civilians actually prefer the Taliban to the Western infidel soldiers.

 

In fact, Gen. McChrystal owes a public apology to the armed forces and to their dependants and loved ones for the Rules of Engagement (ROE) described by Diana West in 2009 as “criminally irresponsible” [...]

Considering our son's and daughters who "[...] choose to enlist in defense of our nation. Yet here are just some of the Rules of Engagement" [...]  that contribute to their mounting casualties as listed [...]  by John Bernard of http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/: 

• “If there are or may be civilians in the area, and you are under attack, disengage;

 

• if an (insurgent) has dropped his weapon, you can’t fire on him even if he was firing at you;

 

• if you see an (insurgent) walking away from an IED, you can’t engage him;

 

• no surprise night searches of homes;

 

• no searches of homes without Afghan police or Afghan Army present to conduct the search;

 

• even when fired upon do not fire indiscriminately;

 

• do not tear down the homes of insurgents.

 

• And, never, ever use words like Jihad or call the terrorists anything but ‘insurgents’.”

"[...] Exactly whom are we protecting? What sane nation risks its blood and treasure to capture the hearts and minds of barbarians who hide among civilians and who are propelled by a blood lust to destroy the West and all its civilizing Judeo-Christian values?

The more I consider the words this lady has written, the more I like them.  I'm not even going to try and summarize them.  They need to be considered just as they are.

"[...] Even though McChrystal has departed, the overriding strategy of constraint formulated by General David Petraeus will continue. General Petraeus whose chest sports a plethora of insignia and medals and oak leaf clusters must treasure the “Humanitarian Service Medal’ and probably the “Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm” and “United Nations Mission in Haiti Medal” because they are for good deeds. His entire Counterinsurgency strategy is focused, like McChrystal’s, on winning the war by showing mercy to the enemy.

 

"Petraeus, who replaces him, clearly shares General McChrystal’s stated mantra: “It’s not how many you kill, it’s how many you convince.” And he also shares the commitment to the notion that the overriding concern must be the protection of civilians whose hearts and minds he seeks to change through dialogue and respect.  Along the way, that becomes “It’s not how many of us are killed but how many of them are spared.”

 

"[...] That is a perversion of a General’s role and a perversion of the concept of mercy.