When a regular army such as that of the United States of America
fights a guerrilla army, it cannot score a victory that shows the enemy end the
fight and sign a document specifying the conditions that will be imposed on him
by the victorious army. But what can happen, on the other hand, is that the
regular army is defeated by the guerillas because, unable to continue fighting
in a foreign country, it is forced to evacuate under chaotic conditions such as
happened in Vietnam .
And this says that a commander-in-chief who insists on
fighting against a guerrilla army till a victory he cannot score, is a
commander that is bound to be defeated, and his country humiliated the way that
America was in Vietnam .
And so, the best that a regular army can do to avenge an act of aggression such
as that committed on 9/11, is to go to where the enemy operates, inflict the
appropriate pain on the group that committed the aggression, and get out
quickly.
This is what should have happened in Afghanistan but
did not. In fact, the war there has dragged for nearly 13 years, the longest
that America
has fought. Faced with a situation that was not of his making, President Obama
who is the current commander-in-chief of the American forces has wisely decided
to end that war, and to withdraw the troops in a dignified manner rather than
repeat the humiliating spectacle of Vietnam .
You would think that nobody who cares about America will
object to that; and you are correct. But what about those who live in America,
are extremely influential but do not care about America, and would sacrifice it
to the last drop of American blood and the last borrowed dollar, promoting the
glory of a foreign entity they call Israel? Well, there are such people in America – one
of them being Dennis Prager who expresses his preferences in an article he
wrote under the title: “The Wars Are Not 'Ended'” and the subtitle: “Leaving a
war without victory isn't 'leaving.' It is defeat.” It was published on
February 4, 2014 in national Review Online.
He calls a defeat, the decision that President Obama took to
implement an orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
rather than let them be defeated in a spectacular manner, the way that history
unfolded in Vietnam .
To make his points, Prager quotes the uplifting passages that came in the
President's State of the Union address then writes this: “What Mr. Obama said
is not true.” He went on to explain: “The wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have not
ended … America
has quit.”
It is generally accepted that those who would sacrifice America for the glory of Israel are the
Jews and those they feed with the occasional bone they throw in their direction
when they need to hear them echo-repeat what they say. But things are beginning
to change because while Dennis Prager is a fanatic Jew, Peter Beinart is a
moderate Jew who sees himself as American first. He and people like him are now
able to surface, and make a contribution to the debate whereas in the old days,
they were “watched” by the Jewish organizations of self-appointed Jewish
leaders, and crushed like a bug under the Zionist boot.
Unable to do such a thing anymore – at least not with the
ease they used to do it – Prager finds himself forced to take up the arguments
of Beinart and refute them the way that civilized people do things. And this
goes to show that it is possible to train a fanatic Jew to at least pretend to
behave like civilized. In any case, this is what comes in the Prager article,
and it is there for anyone who wishes to examine the give and take that
unfolded between him and Beinart. There is, however, one detail to which I
would like to point. Speaking of Beinart, Dennis Prager writes this: “he and
the Left are busier fighting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...”
Prager has thus formally established the link which everyone
knew existed between the world view that lurks in the imagination of the Jewish
leaders, and the interests of Israel .
The rest of the article tells you that they see the struggle as an either-or
situation. Either you are with America ,
and you let Israel “die”; or
you are with Israel and you
let America
wither away. Both cannot be good; one must be evil, and the struggle is indeed
between good and evil. You choose who is good and who is evil.
Prager then sums up the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan
as he sees it to conclude that “the only goal of a war is victory … as in Vietnam , if you
leave before securing your ends, you have lost the war.” Clearly then, he
prefers to see the humiliation and defeat of America – Vietnam style – rather
than save America's honor, and risk seeing Israel go to its neighbors and seek
an accommodation with them rather than continue to do what it is doing now,
which is to brag that it can go over the head of the American
commander-in-chief, and get the congressional bimbos to do what it wants them
to do.
And guess what Prager does after that. He writes this: “If America is not
prepared to stay indefinitely … it should never engage in that war.” Hey,
that's what Beinart is saying, and what Prager is trying to refute. Go figure.
Well, at least he thinks he has a reason for saying that:
“Because when the decent leave, the indecent win.” And this makes me wonder how
much of the Vietnam
era, Prager remembers. Those of us who are old enough to remember it know that
decent young men were sent by indecent old men to fight an indecent war. The
young men died and the old men got promoted then retired in luxury. This is not
only indecent; it is outright pornographic. And so is the Dennis Prager
article.