Can America ever win another war?

Can America ever win another war?

Can America ever win another war?

Wars are not won on the battlefield. They are won or lost by the will and resolve of the people of the countries who fight them. Unfortunately the U.S. has been so manipulated by the leftist media and by communist organizations, such as International ANSWER and Code Pink, that it has lost its will and resolve to defend itself, and to win wars.

American has a 60 year record of failing to prevail against strategically significant enemies. Our last victory was World War II.

In 1951 we went to Korea to stop the spread of communism. We left after three years because we lost interest and our will to win. We entered into a truce that today has possible nuclear consequences for this country.

10 years later we went to Vietnam for the same cause – stop the advance of communism, only to withdraw unbeaten, but certainly unvictorious, after 10 years. America simply lost the will to prevail. Millions of innocent Vietnamese were killed in the carnage that followed our exit.

We did vigorously rebound and we demonstrated renewed prowess in the First Gulf War, however, we did not have a decisive victory.

As we now see that Congress is ready to give up once again, it is not unreasonable to ask: Are Americans capable of winning real wars?

Some moderate successes, like Grenada and Panama have been offset by frustration in Kosovo and Somalia. Each conflict was similar. Despite superior materiel, tactics and supplies, we did not have the emotional will to endure battle. War is an unpleasant business.

It wasn’t always so. The Revolutionary War lasted 8 years (1775-1783). George Washington lost every battle except for the last one, yet the Revolutionaries continued the battle, with the support of the colonists, until they won. The will and strength of the American armed forces in the first World War are legendary, as is the unified support of the American people for their men in uniform during both World Wars.

The American Army spent December 1944 resisting a surprise German thrust into its lines – The Battle of the Bulge. Hundreds of thousands of American GI’s spent weeks of freezing nights in a Belgian forest, sleeping in foxholes dug in the snow. Cut off from their supply lines, many lacked coats and even socks. But, knowing that the Nazis were just yards away, most were satisfied with cold, watery soup as long as they got bullets for their rifles. These American soldiers, our “greatest generation,” held on tenaciously, despite suffering 19,000 lives in that battle. They went on to save millions in concentration camps despite enduring much worse conditions in the field than our forces in Iraq today.

What changed in America? Why don’t we have the “stomach” for a fight? This lack of commitment is evidenced in the resistance to an obvious need for a greater force in Iraq. It is displayed in the congressional games that focus on appeasement, surrender and withdrawal for political reasons regardless of the cost to America and the West. It is reflected in citizens of the U.S. who find three deaths per day repulsive, while ignorant that the freedoms they enjoy were won in battles with casualty reports that rounded off daily deaths to the nearest thousand.

That may be the problem. Americans, who have forgotten the pain and shock of 9-11, have also forgotten that once there was no America, and that its birth came at a price. And that the preservation of America and all that it stands for has also come at a price.

General Douglas MacArthur made this profound statement to the cadets at West Point, “Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed.”

Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

We have to strengthen and re-toughen the calluses that our ancestors developed while building this nation. We have to not succumb to the requests for surrender and appeasement that the media, and the Left, want us to accept.

Our enemies are ruthless and committed. If we don’t learn how to fight – and win, we will soon be reminded of that.


What real war looks like.

What real war looks like.

What Real War Looks Like

By Elan Journo

The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, “engage” the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we’ve already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington’s campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense.

What does such a war look like?

America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.

Those who say this is a “new kind of conflict” against a “faceless enemy” are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls “terrorism” is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism. It seeks to subjugate the West under a totalitarian Islamic regime by means of terrorism, negotiation, war–anything that will win its jihad. The movement’s inspiration, its first triumph, its standard-bearer, is the theocracy of Iran. Iran’s regime has, for decades, used terrorist proxies to attack America. It openly seeks nuclear weapons and zealously sponsors and harbors jihadists. Without Iran’s support, legions of holy warriors would be untrained, unarmed, unmotivated, impotent.

Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran’s ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.

We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war.

Consider what Washington has done. The Islamist regime in Iran remains untouched, fomenting terrorism. (And now our leaders hope to “engage” Iran diplomatically.)

We went to battle not with theocratic Iran, but with the secular dictatorship of Iraq. And the campaign there was not aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein’s regime posed to us. “Shock and awe” bombing never materialized. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets such as power plants and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers–a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission.

U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers,” putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington’s self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.)

Bush did all this to bring Iraqis the vote. Any objective assessment of the Middle East would have told one who would win elections, given the widespread popular support for Islamic totalitarianism. Iraqis swept to power a pro-Islamist leadership intimately tied to Iran. The most influential figure in Iraqi politics is now Moktadr al-Sadr, an Islamist warlord lusting after theocratic rule and American blood. When asked whether he would accept just such an outcome from the elections, Bush said that of course he would, because “democracy is democracy.”

No war that ushers Islamists into political office has U.S. self-defense as its goal.

This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever–even as it has drained Americans’ will to fight. Washington’s feeble campaign demonstrates the ruinous effects of refusing to assert our self-interest and defend our freedom. It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers–and let them go to war.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute ( in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand–author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” Contact the writer at


Victory means winning no matter what it takes

Victory means winning no matter what it takes


This war will either be won by those who shout “Death to America” or won by those who fight for our survival and the survival of civilization as we know it. Too bad, but there is no room for the politically-correct. To win in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or wherever the jihadists may take us, we must fight a politically incorrect war as we did in World War II in which world opinion and winning hearts and minds were not issues until after victory was achieved. Today, the politically-correct ask, “Ahhh, but what is victory?” Weird question. Victory means winning no matter what it takes. Otherwise, in this case, all is lost. All.