We’re not ready for what we’re facing

Jihad Watch has, as you would expect, the proper take on the Pentagon’s firing of Stephen Coughlin.

3 Responses to “We’re not ready for what we’re facing”

  1. Mr. Dings Says:

    Having attended a United States military academy in 1968 and undergone a portion of their indoctrination, I have long contended that, as long as there are professional military acadamies grinding out professional officers skilled in the art of warfare, there will be war. They have to have something to do with their robotic training. Wind them up and point their guns mentalities in the right direction. Thank God we have a civilian Commander in Chief here and a Congress that he/she (God forbid, I know) is beholden to.

    A huge reason for our failures during the occupation following our recent shock and awe in the Iraq theater is, simply, a failure to communicate. And it has cost us dearly.

    Since you have damned the State Department, along with the United Nations, largely, eventually, our current Commander in Chief, those who are not with you as freedom haters and even me as unpatriotic, I doubt whether you will put much stock in this GAO report:

    Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06894.pdf

    State’s foreign language gaps may negatively impact posts’ operations.
    According to the Assistant Secretaries of State for Education and Cultural
    Affairs and Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, deficits in foreign
    language education negatively affect our national security, diplomacy, law
    enforcement, intelligence gathering efforts, and cultural understanding by
    preventing effective communication in foreign media environments,
    impeding counter-terrorism efforts, and limiting our capacity to work with
    people and governments in post conflict zones. We found examples of this
    negative impact involving a variety of officers and specialists serving in
    language-designated positions without the required foreign language skills.

    In other words, after we cut their balls off, we gotta understand their wagging tongues.

  2. Bentnotesmanhisself Says:

    Oh, I’m sure that is a problem for our State department to one degree or another, but getting up to speed with its foreign-language needs is not going to solve its basic ill - a policy orientation of endless talks and appeasement measures with America’s enemies.

  3. Mr. Dings Says:

    OK, Generalissimo. After the fiasco in the sand that was supposed to shock and awe the world you are going to have a hard time convincing Congress to go out and kick butt all over the world next time. It is a serious problem in Iraq with the occupation and nobody on our side is able to talk to these people after we liberated them. We can’t just keep dropping bombs all over the world and expect to fix things that way. Sure, we can talk tough, and of course can back it up, but we might be getting a stretched a bit thin with troops. Troops are necessary for occupations. I say keep talking. Not capitulating, but talking. And building coalitions against the radicals on all sides, including ours and Israel’s. I know that does not wash with you. I know that is reasonable gentleman’s syndrome and all that. We’ll just have to see which way the wind is blowing and I think it’s in directions other than those we went after 9/11.

Leave a Reply