John Glenn's Thoughts: Great White Fleet

Showing posts with label Great White Fleet. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Opuscula

Trump: We’ll destroy
Enemies unless
Changes are forthcoming

TR would be proud

I CAN HEAR ALL MY LEFTIST acquaintances saying “Woe to us, the world is coming to an end because Trump threatened North Korea and Iran.”

PRESIDENT Trump — and like it or not, he IS POTUS — said to the UN what he’s been saying to Americans, and anyone else who cared to listen, that we will not be cowed any longer by rogue nations and nation want-to-be’s (e.g., Daesh, Taliban).

The U.S., once a leader of the “free world,” has for several presidencies fallen from that lofty position to that of, as China’s leaders once opined, a “paper tiger.”

Is President Trump doing something new, unheard of?

Hardly.

If a bully — be the bully be in a school yard or sitting in a seat at the (dis)United Nations — threatens, act to thwart the threat and to convince the bully that threats bring retribution.

The Republican Roosevelt (Theodore) sent the Great White Fleet¹ around the globe from December, 1907, to February, 1909, to impress others of America’s power. It never fired a shot in anger, but it did convince other nations that the U.S. was serious about protecting its shores. Unfortunately, it did not prevent Germany and Austria-Hungry from attacking Serbia in 1914, kicking off World War 1.². After the war, American President Woodrow Wilson managed to convince a number of nations to form the League of Nations, an unsuccessful forerunner to the (equally unsuccessful) United Nations.

No credit given

President Trump’s version of the “Great White Fleet” is a mix of sea and air power and land-based ICBMs; the president’s threat that the U.S. can “totally destroy” North Korea to the “missile man” (Kim) is well within America’s capability.

HOWEVER, at the same time, the president, in his maiden UN appearance, commended China and Russia for attempting to convince Kim to tone down his rhetoric and belligerent behavior. President Trump did NOT tell the UN assembly that the U.S. would “totally destroy” North Korea; only that it could. One letter (“w” vs. “c”) makes a major difference.

The president’s exact words, according to the Washington Post³, no particular friend of POTUS, were: ”“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” Trump added, “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.”

Hopefully, Kim will take the president seriously and, finding a way to save face (the [pick-an-ally] made me do it), rejoin the society of nations. He has, after all, proven North Korea can make bombs and that North Korea can build delivery platforms. Iran is in a similar situation and needs to consider that the U.S. could “totally destroy” it, too. Again, it’s allies — primarily Russia — can greatly influence the ayatollahs and imams to take a more civilized position.)

Nations the U.S. has saved — some several times — have been thumbing their noses at America’s do nothing presidents. Unfortunately for President Trump, he may have to make good on his word regarding North Korea (or Iran, which ever comes first). Also “unfortunately,” President Trump has said — promised — some things he has been unable to deliver, e.g., a better-than-Obamacare health plan than has support across the aisle, the stop infiltrators fence at Mexico’s northern border (ex-president Obama already paid for a wall across Mexico’s southern border — no help for the U.S. and another hit on the U.S. taxpayers’ pocket). To be fair, the decline in American prestige began long before Obama (Bush 1 and his incomplete Iraq incursion and Bush 2 with his “we have won in Iraq” foot-in-mouth fiasco quickly come to mind).

The problem, and there always is a problem, is that there is a reasonable certainty that not everyone in North Korea — or Iran — is behind their self-proclaimed glorious leaders. Destroying either country would cause the deaths of many who want regime change. Unless the U.S. has a popular leader to fill the void left by Kim’s or the ayatollah’s demise — and their sycophants who cling to their leaders’ skirts, nothing will be gained as proven in Iraq. This has been a frequent failure for American governments (the Bushs’ Iraq, Obama’s “Arab Spring” are cases in point.)

During World War 2, the Japanese considered their emperor a god; Japan’s population suffered greatly and many willingly died for him, but it wasn’t until the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which thousands of civilians died or were injured, that Japan sued for peace.

The question: Will Kim and the ayatollah sacrifice their people for their personal glory?

Granted, “collateral damage” is a consequence of any war, particularly a war fought remotely (with missiles fired from ships or planes). If nuclear weapons are involved, and both Kim and the ayatollah assure the world they WILL use their nukes — the former on America and the latter on all “infidels,” starting with Israel, will the U.S. (and Israel) respond in kind?

There is no guarantee that attacking North Korea won’t cause Iran to fire its missiles at anything within range — including nearby U.S. ships.

President Trump may have been less than “politically correct” in telling Kim and the ayatollah that the U.S. will not be bullied.

A word about his “America First” statement. The full statement reveals that he said he believes in America First, and that the leaders of ALL the nations represented at the UN also should put their countries first; it’s a leader’ obligation to put his or her country’s interests above those of other nations. It does NOT mean brow-beating other nations; it does NOT mean ignoring other nation’s plights, but it DOES means that the incumbent will consider America’s needs — including freedom from fear of North Korean or Iran nukes — ahead of trying to appease megalomaniacs.

Perhaps my leftist acquaintances are uneasy with his speech, but they at least can rest easy that any threat from North Korea or Iran will be dealt with harshly so they can continue to try to undermine the elected government.

For a leftist “take” on Trump’s appearance at the UN, read The New York Times⁴ “editorial as news” article.

1. Great White Fleet: http://tinyurl.com/nrvgo7a

2. Start of WW1: http://tinyurl.com/q93c37x

3. Trump at UN: http://tinyurl.com/y7hydtln

4. NYTimes “newsatorital”: http://tinyurl.com/yaopkpta

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Comments on Destroy Enemy

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Opuscula

Dear TR, Petty
Tyrant unafraid
Of the Big Stick

THOSE OF US OLD ENOUGH to have read history in school know the story of Theo. (Teddy) Roosevelt and his Great White Fleet. (Lest anyone be offended, the ships were painted white; ergo “The Great White Fleet.” See http://tinyurl.com/bpwybcu)

Battleship USS Maine

Teddy — “TR” — sent the battle group around the globe to impress other’s with America’s naval might. The journey lasted a little more than a year. This was long before air power, Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, America’s military might failed to discourage Austria-Hungary from decaling war against Serbia (July 28, 1914) and Germany following by declaring war against Russia (August 1, 1914), France (August 3, 1914), and Belgium (August 4, 1914) to start World War 1, the “war to end war.” (See http://tinyurl.com/y88765m7)

A BIT MORE THAN A CENTURY LATER, Kim Jung-on, South Korea’s dictator, following in his father’s footsteps, is starving his people in order to develop ICBMs that, armed with mini-nuclear warheads, threaten the U.S. and its interests (e.g., Guam).

In the so-called “Cold War” era, when the U.S. and the then Soviet Union threatened “mutual destruction” on each other — and not a few countries in the way — both government’s leadership knew it was better to pick up a “red phone” connecting D.C. to the Kremlin than to push the red button that could destroy much of mankind. Sanity prevailed.

Now, dealing with North Korea’s megalomaniac Kim, sanity has become a thing of the past. Unfortunately for Kim, he is not dealing with a weak Obama but a man who insists on “putting America first.” Fortunately, so far — and inspite of of Kim’s missile tests and photo ops with a sphere said to be a mini-nuclear bomb, the only war is a war of words.

While Varvel’s cartoon portrays Trump and Kim and as two little boys in a sandbox, it pays to remember that words too frequently turn into unacceptable actions, e.g., war.

The problem for the U.S. is China.

During the UN’s Korean “policing action” — not a “war,” understand, although thousands of Americans died — Gen. Douglas MacArthur wanted to invade China which was providing troops and materials to the North Koreans. The then Soviet Union ostensibly controlled North Korea.

President Harry S Truman, not prepared for World War 3, told MacArthur to cancel invasion plans. MacArthur insisted on going ahead and Truman recalled, and fired, MacArthur. Right decision? Wrong decision? Either way, Americans were tired of war. (The U.S. has been in some level of combat almost consistently since the end of World War 2, regardless of political party in power.)

China has, since World War 2, developed a modern military force on land, sea, and air. It has a global presence. Moreover, the U.S. is indebted to China; it holds billions of dollars of U.S. IOUs.

China is North Korea’s backer — possibly it’s only political friend.

If the U.S. attacks North Korea in a preventive strike — surely justified based on Kim’s rhetoric and actions— even if as surgically precise as Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the question is: “How will China react?”

Unlike the Soviet era, and now the Russian Federation era, Kim’s actions, and the inaction of the Chinese to reign him in, indicate that a threat of “mutual destruction” a non-issue.

Realistically, what can the U.S. do to temper Kim’s bellicose behavior? Sanctions are in place — with UN (including China) support — but what impact will they have on Kim. By most accounts, his people already are starving. Kim, on the other hand, looks well fed and clothed. Sanctions? They only will hurt his people.

Will China really join in the sanctions? Time will tell.

Will the UN-approved sanctions be observed by other nations and the EU? Even before Obama backed off sanctions on Iran, some EU countries already were trading with the ayatollah. North Korea, not surprisingly, was trading nuclear information with Iran as if sanctions did not exist.

Who is crazier: the ayatollah or Kim? They both are cut from the same cloth?

President Trump’s blustering may — or may not — be appropriate. Certainly it is not “presidential” in the eyes of the leftists in the U.S. and around the world. But how else could Trump respond to Kim?

A pre-emptive strike?

Or be like Franklin D. Roosevelt (TR’s cousin) and ignore the threat until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and thousands of American’s died, or behave, as Trump’s predecessor did with Iran, and pretend it will all go away?

With Kim, the U.S. is “between a rock and a hard place.” No action is not an option; sanctions don’t directly impact Kim so they are of little value.

China holds the answer. It has it within its power to prevent a disaster for not just North Korea and the U.S. but the world — nuclear fall-out respects no borders.

Trump’s blustering may only be for show while diplomatic language is used with China’s leadership.

If the links fail to work, see http://tinyurl.com/y82lye4d to learn how to find/access them. It's a Google problem.

Comments on Big Stick

Finsert

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Opuscula

Trump is new
Teddy Roosevelt?

U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump vowed on Friday that any Iranian vessels that harass the U.S. Navy in the Gulf would be "shot out of the water" if he is elected on Nov. 8, according to numerous sources, including Reuters. (Other sources cited at end of blog.)

In his effort to “Make America Great Again,” presidential candidate Donald Trump told supporter in swing-state Florida that if Iranian boats continue to threaten U.S. warships, he will authorize the Navy to, paraphrasing U.S. Navy pilot Donald Francis Mason, “sighted ship, sank same.”

During his tenure as president, Theo. (Teddy) Roosevelt ordered the Navy to assemble a fleet of 16 battleships with various escorts to show the flag around the world, making certain the “world” knew that the U.S. was prepared to take its place as a world power. Roosevelt’s fleet sailed around the world from 1907 to 1909. This followed the Spanish-American War (1898).

The Spanish-American War was one of the several times the U.S. intervened in Cuba to provide Cubans with a U.S. type freedom.

While air power eventually overtook sea power to dominate combat, TR made his point.

I’m not sure giving a finger to sailors on a U.S. warship constitutes a threat, getting close enough to that U.S. ship should be considered a threat, especially keeping the USS Cole in mind.

The decline in respect for America is not new.

In 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, both the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed. A total of 259 Americans were murdered, along with 104 Lebanese and French citizens. The group Islamic Jihad, affiliated with Hezbollah and ultimately Iran, claimed responsibility for both attacks. (Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403300454.html)

The attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the deaths of "only" four Americans came as the result of the “Arab Spring” supported by the Obama administration, with candidate Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

America’s enemies believe that they can attack America (this is keyed on 9/11/2016, 15 years after the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, victims of Islamists) and Americans with impunity.

After the bombing of the Cole, then-president Wm. Clinton (ibid.) promised that justice would be done. “To those who attacked them we say: You will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail.” It didn’t.

Mashur Abdallah Ahmed al Sabri, one of the members of the USS Cole cell, already has been released by Barack Obama from Guantanamo Bay despite being “rated as a high risk terrorist who is ‘is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies‘.”

The question is: Will U.S. ships fire on threats, a “stand your ground” situation if you will, and will U.S. military aircraft be allowed to defend themselves if other nations’ planes threaten them by flying dangerously close (e.g.,China and Russia). Indeed, if Trump is elected, will Russian pilots stop playing “tag” with U.S. aircraft due to the alleged Putin-Trump “friendship”?

The bottom line: Can Trump, if elected, make America great again in the eyes of other nations? If he can accomplish that, perhaps he can make America great again at home.