Counter-Terrorism Committee.
READ MORE>>
Coalition Members, Fellow Veterans,
American Patriots:
"The timid civilized world has found nothing
with which to oppose the onslaught of the sudden revival of barbarity
other than smiles and concessions."
- Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The following article is written by Thomas D. Segel and his message
is worthy of reporting here:
Warfare and the Will to Win
Harlingen, Texas, September 26, 2009: Another five American servicemen
were killed in Afghanistan yesterday. This was the same day the
White House announced our president might get around to reading
the report from General Stanley McChrystal seeking thousands of
new troops for that combat theater. It has now been languishing
in governmental “pending” files for almost a month.
At the same time, with each passing day our forces find themselves
waging warfare under untenable conditions, instead of positions
of strength.
If one is to search for a definition of “war”, it will
be noted the term is sometimes defined as “An interaction
in which two or more opposing forces have a struggle of wills.”
This is a fitting explanation for what is now taking place in Afghanistan.
There are opposing struggles of will…and the Taliban has far
more will to emerge the victor than a large segment of the American
population and their cowardly lackeys in Congress.
If we ever have enough courage to truthfully examine the actions
of Americans during times of war, the case can easily be made that
our failures and losses in combat can all be traced back to congressional
actions, or non-actions that resulted in the American forces defeat.
Anyone who fought in Korea knows that war story well. We were inserted
into combat following a period after World War II when Congress
reduced our military strength and equipment to a level even lower
than pre-war manning levels. Still, the war in Korea could have
been brought to a successful conclusion if our forces had been given
the political will, manpower and equipment needed to eliminate North
Korean forces and convince China to withdraw behind its own borders.
Instead, on a worldwide stage, our politicians negotiated for weeks
on the proposed shape of the table around which they would confer,
then talked us into a so-called “cease-fire”. After
23,615 Americans were killed in action and another 7,600 of our
brave youth died of wounds or were declared dead, we departed the
battlefield battered and without a victory.
Our ill-fated war in Vietnam is perhaps the premiere example of
political cowardice and mismanagement. Restrictive political regulations
stopped the pursuit of the enemy. More political restrictions on
everything from combat actions to attacking known safe havens and
the political snake dance our Washington “leadership”
undertook with corrupt South Vietnamese officials placed America
in a position where we won every battle and lost the war. 40,934
American KIA, another 6,300 declared dead or lost to fatal wounds
and that final scene of people screaming and hanging on to the skids
as the last USA helicopter lifted off the roof of the American Embassy
was the ultimate portrait of defeat…and it was painted by
the anti-war crowd and Washington D. C.
Our actions in Afghanistan seem to mean we have very limited objectives.
If the goal is to contain everything in its current configuration,
then our restrictive proportionality of force will accomplish that
objective. It will also assure there are many more American casualties.
If the objective is to have a decisive victory, our Cowardly Lions
in Washington need to grow a backbone and subscribe to the philosophy
of overwhelming force. From Disraeli in the 19th Century to Powell
in the 20th Century the established principle has been that the
use of concentrated overwhelming force is the key to victory.
During World War I Frederick W. Lanchester formulated Lancaster’s
Law that calculated “combat power of a military force is the
square of the number of members of that unit so that the advantage
a larger force has is the difference of the squares of the two forces.”
In simple terms this means a two to one advantage will quadruple
the firepower and inflict four times the punishment. A three to
one advantage in strength will have nine times the combat effect,
etc. In a final analysis, the more superiority one side has over
the other, the greater damage he can inflict on the other side and
the smaller the cost to himself. This was the view of Disraeli,
Lanchester, Powell and most military strategists. This is also the
view of this former Mud Marine and combat scribe.
From this vantage point we cannot hope to match the military expertise
of a weekend warrior and rear echelon hero such as John Murtha with
his paper-cut Purple Heart, or the fine tuned insight of a three
month, medal winning veteran such as John Kerry, who was so valorous
in the waters off Vietnam. Nobody outside of Washington has the
knowledge of those great military minds that fill the halls of Congress
and the Executive Office. They know just how to come up with a winning
hand. After all they have a blueprint right in front of them that
dates back all the way to 1951.
Semper Fidelis
Thomas D. Segel
John J . Molloy
Chairman
"The
original Purple Heart award was instituted by George Washington
in 1782 to reward troops for "unusual gallantry" and
"extraordinary fidelity and essential service." The
award was a purple cloth heart edged in silver braid, and was
to be worn over the left breast of the uniform."