Once battle is engaged accommodating an adversary is playing their game on their terms. How has every war since Vietnam worked out for us? When an adversary defines the place, time and matter of engagement, they usually win in the long run. History is very clear on this. This is true in combat and war fighting and especially true in politics.
Wars are won, as Rush says, “By killing people and breaking things.” The more viscous and violent war is the less we have of it. Quick and violent always trumps slow and cultured. This applies to combat arms and the war between political ideologies.
Conservatism is at war with progressivism. The stakes are the soul of the United States. Failure to view the struggle as one for the heart and soul of the nation will lead to a loss. We didn’t lose Vietnam because we didn’t whip their butts. We lost because they had more will to do whatever it took, no matter how long, to win. Look it up.
Progressives are the North Vietnamese for the sake of my point. They will use every tool to win and since they have been at this for more than 100 years, they are dedicated to the fight if nothing else. So why does conservatism grant any premise of progressivism? For example, why did Texas Republican Barton have to apologize for an apology?
Barton WAS NOT apologizing for BP being hauled before Congress. He was not being a toady for business as the progressive’s try to portray it. He was using the apology as a tool to both expose Obama’s strong arming of BP to put up the $20 Billion trust fund and to enter that allegation into the Congressional Record. Barton was using a tool of prose to highlight the incident and make his words part of US history. So why then did dumbassed Republican politicos demand he apologize? Because the Republican’s allowed progressives to frame the debate.
When progressives acted outraged by Barton’s effort, it was pure political theater. Don’t Republican’s see that the progressive outrage is a gambit to pretend Barton’s effort was one of big business sycophancy? His effort was nothing of the sort and if one honestly believes it was they are too politically naive to bother lending any credence to.
One of the primary elements of modern warfare is intelligence and counter-intelligence. The progressives are honestly masters at counter-intel – they really are and I honestly admire that aspect of their efforts. They know few bounds in creating false impressions to convince the largely naive and disinterested. They know if they can paint Republican’s as being on BP’s side they will sway some number of naive to their side.
Instead of granting them their premise and playing their game the Republican’s should highlight the efforts of progressives by calling them out; by being very specific in defending Barton; by being very specific is recalling what Barton was doing and WHY he did it – to expose the illegal and thuggish activities of the Obama Administration!
Bush started this insanity with not strictly legal action when the first TARP popped up and his Treasury Secretary Paulson told banks they WOULD accept the government’s money, essentially making the government one of if not the primary holder’s of the company’s stock, therefore having an input into bank policy. Obama repeated it when he told companies “I am all that stands between you and the public,” (paraphrased) and if that’s not a threat I don’t know what one is. It was an effort to appear altruistic on the surface, but it was actually the same thuggery Paulson engaged in. It is Mafia protection racket talk.
We must not allow the ideological enemy to decide how we fight them and when and where we do. Wars ARE NOT won like that. The entire point is to fight the enemy on YOUR TERMS, NOT HIS. You fight an adversary in whatever manner gives you the advantage.
Progressives will defame this effort. They feign shock that I call it war. They will intimate I am an animal. They will try and make it appear as if they are just waging a sweet little ideological struggle, but that conservatives like me are brutish, uncultured and best of all for them, a violent person. Hell, I’m a Tea-Bagger, right folks? Proof positive Tea Parties are violent. See how it works?
I’s like when your brother hit ya really hard in the arm and just as you turned to punch him back he screams “Mom, he’s hitting me again!” See? Petulant and childish. They goad you with their actions and then feign innocence. They play it off like their acts are entirely innocent when the fact is they are doing all they can to get a leg up in the struggle. I’ll bet they’d even love to represent my points as falsely characterizing their motives.
It’s kinda like the Taliban hiding behind civilians and shooting at ya and then daring ya to shoot back. While Republican intelligentsia may play by their rules I do not. I will play by the rules they do. Honesty and total candor will be respected by me and I will wage the struggle strictly in ideological terms. Make it personal and I’ll give as good as I get. If they wanna sucker-punch somebody, I’ll play. I have a devastating uppercut and I do not know anyone who wants to be the receiver of one.
If we allow them to play however they see fit but also allow them to define our response and the parameters of such, we will tote an ass whuppin’ – believe it. They do not fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules, so they should not be allowed to even opine, much less actually define, the rules by which we must counter them. That is a losing proposition from the get go.
Street fighters will often whip opponents because the opponent is unwilling to bite off an ear to win, so to speak. But if they will bite off my ear to win, shouldn’t I have the same luxury? For the purposes of demonstration, who are the Afghan people more afraid of – the US or the Taliban? The US has weapons and capabilities that should make everyone quake in fear, yet because we fight the war on the terms of the Taliban, they will win.
The Taliban will hang an 8 year old kid from a tree for his Grandfather being a village elder who spoke to US forces. The Viet Cong cut off the arms of little kids the US medics would inoculate. And who is it the Afghan civilians and the Vietnamese civilian’s feared? The Taliban and the Viet Cong, no?
And NO asses, I am not at all advocating cutting off anyone’s arms or hanging 8 year olds from trees. I am making a clear point. That those who fight with NO RULES usually win. Wanna wins hearts and minds? Make the SOB’s live in mortal fear and you’ll win. If ya instead fight on the enemies’ terms and they have no rules at all, you will lose every time. Can anyone point out a single example of this NOT being the case? Just one will do. And not WWII. By today’s standard, even we fought WWII with few rules. Oddly, it was the last was we won too.
Failure to view the ideological struggle in the US at present as anything less dangerous than total war is foolish. The stakes are not control of Congress or 1600. Nope – this is about power in perpetuity. This is Cloward & Piven implemented to drive the US to financial collapse and the hope that they, progressives, are sitting in power when it happens. Imagine that emergency! A starving public, 20% unemployment and a crashing dollar will see people beg for relief and if it comes in the form of illegal, anti-Constitutional and decidedly un-American actions, well, gee whiz, hungry people often look right past that don’t they? See my points here?
Connections? Gee, why don’t ya put on your little thinking caps and ponder it for a minute or two.