88 Responses to:
WHY WE ARE LOSING THE WAR

# 1. 7/28/10 12:13 AM by DaWiz - San Antonio, Texas
Correct a mundo! As long as the military leadership allows politicians to micro-manage how we fight wars this disgusting operation will continue. Maybe we need to hold them criminally responsible.

# 2. 7/28/10 12:39 AM
AMEN and AMEN!!

# 3. 7/28/10 12:46 AM by Jolene
You've got the marbles. Why aren't we using them? If only you were the commander in chief, ( and I'm serious here ) this country would be roller-coaster happy with our successes. We aren't winning anything except bad interviews on cable. Even Nancy Grace isn't on my last nerve anymore. It's the constant senator bashing, obama bashing, oprah loving, Elizabeth from The View hating, Whoopi just plain weird opinions, Lindsay Lohan I don't care how long your stupid ass stays in jail, Glen Beck going to have a stroke right before our eyes world!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# 4. 7/28/10 12:56 AM by Calvin
The US government did a pretty good job of wiping out men, women and children in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

# 5. 7/28/10 2:19 AM by PBT - Lima, NY
AMEN!

# 6. 7/28/10 2:41 AM by Rob Staples - Henrico, VA
You are so right. The sad thing is policy won't change. Policy says, carry the .223 rifle. That's a varmint round. What about the sidearm, 9mm made in Italy. Wrong again, put a .45acp on the table. Thats made in the USA, we have a few company's that make them. Let the military do it's job!

# 7. 7/28/10 2:54 AM by jolene
don't print comment previously written. just read my fortune cookie from dinner....." Stay away from negative energy today."

# 8. 7/28/10 3:07 AM by Macgyver - Rochester, New York
Absolutely correct!! The theory behind war is to remove from the enemy the desire and ability to fight. That means to be aware civilians will be injured and killed during battles but that should not be a reason to avoid firing on the enemy if they are firing on our forces. We need to get the battlefield lawyers and reporters, who are only involved in witch hunts to point the fingers at the soldiers not the atrocities of the enemy, out of the theater(s) of operation.

General George Smith Patton, Jr. (1885-1945), 31 May 1944, "Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Enough said!!

# 9. 7/28/10 3:21 AM by hunter - e. bethany, ny
The Rules of Disengagement help no one but our enemies.

# 10. 7/28/10 6:28 AM by Rick G. - Spencerport, NY
Well, except for one thing - back then, we were the only one with the big bomb and we were the sane ones. That part kind of worries me in 2010.

# 11. 7/28/10 6:38 AM by Liberty Tom - Rochester, NY
Amen. Our tepid manner of conducting a "war" is the main reason that we keep getting involved in these problems overseas. If we truly fought a war the way that it should be done, two things would happen. One, we'd win. Two - we'd see the human carnage created and vow to never again do such a thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've never had a declaration of war from Congress. They showed their normal gutless nature by rolling over and essentially letting Bush do whatever he wanted. And while he got us in there, fearless leader has pulled a JFK and INCREASED the numbers of troops.

And while I'm fuming, where is the anti-war community on Afghanistan? I love their approach. A Republican war is bad...evil....it must be resisted and protested. But a Democrat war ? Hear the crickets? Now that we located a vast tract of minerals in Afghanistan, there'll be no getting out of there for years. And at how many deaths?

We owe it to our military people to either let them fight and win a war....or get them the heck out of there. If our Marxist Leader wants to nation-build, draft an army of police officers and send THEM over.

# 12. 7/28/10 6:43 AM by P. Mulley - Fairport, NY
Finally, you're getting it. The United States has a specific protocol for going to war that was designed to prevent the nonsensical mess were in now.

The Congress formally declares it. The President directs it. It ends. We go on with out lives, and our enemies (how ever many we let live) go on with theirs...hopefully wiser for their encounters with us.

But that's it. It must begin and have an end. Endless war will strip us of all liberties and wealth. Madison said as much. That's why this endless 'War on Terror' as an excuse to dump BORROWED money in 3rd. world hellholes is a farce. What are we to do? Destroy ourselves in order to protect ourselves from every last nutjob who wishes ill upon us?

This is the way an Empire behaves. No, we don't call it that, but a rose by any other name...

Empire is a death wish for fools.

Congress holds the purse strings and can end this lunacy at any time. Remember this when they shrug and throw up their hands and say 'What are we to do?'

# 13. 7/28/10 6:52 AM by Kevin
Sherman had the right idea..If you want to win and end a war, make it absolutley terrible. Anyone who tries to sanitize what happens in war is asking to lose..We've proved that time and again in the past fifty years. Seems to me our enemys did give one rat's azz about 3000 civilians in the Trade Towers. Afghanistan would capitulate in one month if we brought the entire weight of our military to bear on it.

# 14. 7/28/10 7:02 AM by Bob - Webster
Bobby-boy,

Amen.

# 15. 7/28/10 7:03 AM by Andrew the fired up Democrat - Henrietta, NY
What really bothers me more than the rules of engagement is compensating people who's property is damaged and paying the families of innocent bystanders who are killed or wounded. It is put simply paying war guilt. More casualties get blamed on NATO forces because they pay better. One thing is certain in war: people die. Every time war guilt is paid, we admit that the war is somehow our fault. We make believe that casualties can be avoided. We pretend that death and destruction isn't what war is all about. We perpetuate the myth held by many in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere that American bombs are so smart and American soldiers so perfect that no civilians have to die when Americans are fighting a war.

# 16. 7/28/10 7:12 AM
To be frank, I believe that we could be hit with a nuclear weapon and I really don't think the United States of America is truly prepared for it. I do agree with you that this today's administration could not and would not have the balls to drop the A-Bomb if absolutely necessary. All this love and peace !*&!@ can get one into serious trouble when lives our at stake.

# 17. 7/28/10 7:22 AM by ex-pansy
...I really, REALLY want to hate this column...

# 18. 7/28/10 7:29 AM by DD
911 attackers were Iranian, so we attack Iraq and kill Saddam. North Korea continually threatens us, so we attack Afghanistan's local militia (Taliban). It's like responding to a Godzilla attack by punching Homer Simpson in the nose.

Add to this mess a couple of pansy presidents who jail American troops for harming the enemy.

We're dead! That's all there is to it. America cannot survive much more of this insanity.

Editor's Note: the 9-11 attackers were saudis.

# 19. 7/28/10 7:39 AM by alexander - upstate ny usa
as cool as it is to think that drones are stealthily flying around and providing these surgical attacks, it doesn't put enough fear in the enemy to make them back down.

lets bring on the carpet bombings...

# 20. 7/28/10 7:41 AM by Rick C. - Rochester,NY 14610
It looks like The Right Wing War Mongors are out in Full Force today!

# 21. 7/28/10 7:50 AM
Gov. Chrisie from New Jersey for president. Free health insurance for teachers, 4-5% raises every year and now their bitching. The taxpayers are fed up with this !*&!@ and its time to get some balls, and I believe this guy has the balls to make it fair.

# 22. 7/28/10 7:53 AM by Christopher - Rochester, NY
100% correct, Bob.

After I read your column, I just had to go pop in my dvd of the movie "Patton" to watch one of my all time favorite scenes - the opening speech given by actor George C. Scott. What you wrote today is visually summed up by that classic film!

# 23. 7/28/10 7:55 AM
agreed some. what i am starting to really believe is that alot of the effort in iraq and afghanistan is for naught. and my experience in military and war is nothing other than tv or some reading. taliban is stronger than ever? seems logical. we're trying to kill and have killed each other, so what would make "them" lose their hatred and avengefulness towards us? this war (these wars have) has to stop soon.

# 24. 7/28/10 7:57 AM by OldVietVet - Rochester, NY
We have fought, and we've been defeated, but not decisively. The pacifist moon bats did not make the decisions however, strategic or otherwise in 1950. Harry Truman made the decision to use the military to force the Reds back. Lets teach em a lesson right? I dont think Truman was a Pacifist. Rolling Thunder was not the brainchild of any war protestor.Robert S. McNamara made that decision with advice from Curtis LeMay. Johnson concurred-lets teach em a lesson! LeMay must have suspected in'65 though, that the gooks in RVN were not going to play by the 1952 rules,or any other. McNamara didn't get it. And then there is the show of force lesson-the 283 Marines who died in Lebanon hadn't a chance.The sentrys at the gate were "guarding" with unloaded weapons. Where did P.X. Kelly think they were? Heaven? Who made that decision? Your Eagle Street militia would have been better prepared. Lousy political philosophy has made for the squandering of our military might, misuse of our best men,and the rise to rank and prominence of guys like P.X.Kelly, Wm.Westmoreland,and a host of others. Whether its "Containing Communism" in Korea or RVN,"keeping the peace" in Lebanon, or "nation building" in Iraq/Afghan, our fighting men have paid the price.Our military should be used for one purpose only-defense.Teaching lessons is for school teachers.The rag heads, like the gooks 42 years ago, could give a sh#t for our "lessons".We've fought them there-now is the time to fight them here! Because here is where they are. I think most people agree.

# 25. 7/28/10 7:58 AM by jaymor
At least as important as rules of engagement is the underlying question of why we're even in Afghanistan. If it's to deprive terrorism of a natural base for training, the objective overlooks the fact that a number of other countries serve the same purpose. our presence in Afghanistan may reconfigure the origins of terrorism, but it surely doesn't eliminate them. Is it really worth the cost in bloodshed and dollars ?

# 26. 7/28/10 8:00 AM by Carole - Greenwood
YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!!! We should get in there. kick ass and get out. That is war, This is NOT. All we are doing is getting our soldiers killed.

# 27. 7/28/10 8:01 AM by DENNIS - ATTICA NY
WHEN YOU HAVE THEM BY THE BALLS, THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS WILL FOLLOW

Editor's Note: roger that

# 28. 7/28/10 8:08 AM by Vet '72
Exactly, Bob. It is a fact that a country surrenders when the will of it's people to fight any longer is broken. This fact is also a dangerous reality for our country as well. The terrorists know this and will keep plugging away with their IED's, Media Propaganda, etc., until the will of the American people will no longer want to fight. This lack of will to fight has already begun within the majority of our Congress.

# 29. 7/28/10 8:14 AM
Why is it you re always so gung ho about killing people? And so cavalier about the probability that they will be innocent victims?

It truly will not increase the size of your nether regions.

Nor will your personal arsenal.

Grow up.

# 30. 7/28/10 8:20 AM by eh Rod - CANADA`
Sounds like having your little gun didn't give you "comfort and peace" for long (maybe one day). But at least all the chickenhawks have had a chance to sound off so you've made the world a safer place. This ground is plowed every day by right wing blowhards on the radio so we can only assume you're short of column material. Actually, changes in technology have changed war, possibly making it obsolete as a means of settling conflicts. You completely miss the point by advocating the slaughter of more civilians as a way for the U.S. to get a "win". It's sad that the only thing you learned from Vietnam is that you didn't learn anything there. Peace.

# 31. 7/28/10 8:28 AM by gww - rochester, ny
War is such an ill-conceived concept. There is no strategy or tactic that will ever make sense.

Editor's Note: revisit that thought sometime when it's your country being overrun and your daughters being raped and slaughtered.

# 32. 7/28/10 8:30 AM by JKBell
What you say is true. We will not fight but I don't think you got the reason right.

In W.W.2 we were at war with Japan and Germany. We fought and killed Germans and Japs.

Today we are at war with Islam. We are fighting and killing Afghans and Iraqis.

How do we win? Lets say we kill all the people in Iraq, do we win?

In 1945 Japan gave up and signed a peace treaty. We won!

Who is going to sign the peace treaty for Islam?

America is stupid. When the Islamic terrorists brought down the twin towers they were armed with box cutters.

We should have killed all the FAA regulators who insisted we maintained a submissive compliance towards hijackers. It was they who made possible the Islamic attack.

In the last twenty years we have stood idly by while our freedoms have evaporated. We can't visit an airport without going being searched.

We are treated like we are the enemy.

I think we lost the war of 9-11

# 33. 7/28/10 8:38 AM
As Frank Barone on the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond would say, "Holy Crap" I say the same thing with a few words added, "Holy Crap, I agree with Lonsberry"!

What is the reason that we do half-war?

I say it is to prolong it so those who make money off it can snatch more taxpayer money for themselves.

War, with an asterisk, is how American wars should be denoted in the history books. The wars America fought since THE BIG ONE were Happy Meals minus the burger. We did war to keep our enemies people happy. We're doing that in Afghanistan right now. These 13th century people even know we must be nuts to kill their grandma and grandpa with a Predator Drone and expect them to not hate our effing guts. You don't, even accidentally, kill civilians without the whole citizenry turning against you is why killing civilians in war is as necessary as it is awful.

If you kill my daughter and then build a school in her name I'm still going to hate you.

The only mind that can conceive of such lunacy that Americas war machine has shown is that of the corporate board office that doesn't give a rats ass how it looks. They want the big payday and war is a very big payday.

It's not about being nice because it's good to be nice, it's about greedy corporate bastards who want to prolong war and the profits they bring. All of us Vietnam era vets learned that the hard way.

# 34. 7/28/10 8:47 AM by Keith - Queensbury,NY
Editor's Note: revisit that thought sometime when it's your country being overrun and your daughters being raped and slaughtered.

Our country has not been invaded. Iraq and Afghanistan have. If our country was we would fight the invaders any way we could including terrorist methods.

Every innocent civilian we kill in those countries creates more enemies for us. Taken its logical end, your only solution is genocide. Fortunately, "kill em all and let God sort them out" doesn't play well among sane people.

# 35. 7/28/10 8:50 AM by RC - Bloomington
War is hell, but handled correctly it is a short lived hell instead of a full blown nightmare.

# 36. 7/28/10 8:56 AM
I read the comments. It's amazing that there is no connection made to big business profits prolonging these wars by making them so mild-mannered. It's like no one ever heard of the military-industrial complex that Ike Eisenhower seriously warned us about. Industry and the military is a marriage made in heaven. Both gain greatly from each other. Industry makes huge profits and the military boys get to keep playing war---they damn sure ain't fighting these wars.

To OldVietVet: Johnson escalated the Viet Nam war partly due to fearing Republicans calling him a sissy if he didn't push the war.

# 37. 7/28/10 9:00 AM by Big Mc - Sebastian, Fl
Bob - We are kind of caught in the same trap as the Israeli's, Attacked on all fronts, seen as the problem, condemned for the slightest transgression, real or imagined.

# 38. 7/28/10 9:04 AM by Shaun - Provo
Great column and 100% accurate. I do wonder why Obama (or maybe Michelle) keeps reading your column when based on the comments they disagrees with everything you say.

# 39. 7/28/10 9:13 AM by Liam's Dad - Rochester
MEGA - SUPER - UBER - FUBO

ABSO-FUBO-LUTELY

# 40. 7/28/10 9:20 AM
Here's a thought to ponder.

The cultures who we've been fighting in the Mid-East have a long, long history of being warrior cultures going back beyond the time of Jesus and because of this rich history of knowing war inside and out they are masters at war-making, but only until they are being trained by the American military when suddenly they are the most inept, lame and disorganized bunch of nobodys you can find.

How is that possible? The Iraqi's and Afghannies have known war since dirt was created---but if the American military tries to teach them how to fight they do a Sgt Shultz immitation of "I know nothing".

How many more BILLIONS of our dollars did Congress just agree to send these fakers?

# 41. 7/28/10 9:24 AM
re Editor's Note: revisit that thought sometime when it's your country being overrun and your daughters being raped and slaughtered.

I think that's how the Vietnamese felt when they were invaded, overrun, raped, slaughtered....and then abandoned as the last helicopter left the roof from the embassy.

# 42. 7/28/10 9:27 AM
Whoa the demons are active in Bob this morning.

To be a journalist / writer takes more than technical expertise in putting a sentence together. It also takes a vision that speaks and grows in the reader.

Your vision in this column is dead and disgusting. It speaks from the dark side and offers nothing but hate, destruction and a perverted sense of life's purpose and entitlements.

Stick to local / state issues where you bring a vision based on the facts, truth and your talent for investigative reporting, so unwanted, yet needed today.

# 43. 7/28/10 9:33 AM by Rocky - Penfield,N.Y.
AMEN #4!!!!!!!

# 44. 7/28/10 9:36 AM by Ultra Bob - salt lake city Utah
Until a few years ago all wars occurred between distinct nations wherein all the people within the physical bounds of that nation were considered enemy. All we had to do is kill enough of those people to bring victory and an end to the war. War was a highly profitable venture with all the need for tanks, planes and ships.

Unfortunately, There is something new about war. Our enemy is no longer confined to a distinct national location and we find that our weapons are useless and ineffective. Our enemy is spread through out the world and even in our own home neighborhoods. We can’t just kill everyone in the enemies vicinity with our doing great harm to our own cause.

The problem in the present case is that we refuse to recognize the need for new and different weapons because building the old ones is so profitable. Not that our military weapons have not evolved into technical greatness, it’s the enemy that has changed his nature. If WWII were to breakout again, we could win in an instant.

But this is a new and different kind of war and if we don’t catch on pretty quick, our butts are going to get burned.

Editor's Note: the assertion of your first sentence is false. read more history. tribal and clan warfare -- insurgent warfare they call it today -- is the oldest and most constant type. the massed armies of europe of the last four centuries is not the most common in history. there is nothing new under the sun.

# 45. 7/28/10 9:42 AM by What I've seen in my life
I agree with this column but would just like to add that Ron Reagan was a 1 man war. The world leaders knew he meant business.

# 46. 7/28/10 9:47 AM by Jolene
To GWW, #31....tatic is a bit mild a word when bodies became powder on 9/11. We didn't start the "strategy" friend.

# 47. 7/28/10 9:57 AM
So what you're saying is just bomb the shiite out of them?

# 48. 7/28/10 10:04 AM
Failing memory is why we are losing the war.

Editor's Note: well said

# 49. 7/28/10 10:10 AM by Arthur
With all due respect, ummmm: "the country WILL BE hurt." REALLY??? Where have you been the last few decades???

# 50. 7/28/10 10:15 AM by drawlr - slc, ut
Through WWII, the United States had always won whatever war it chose to fight. At the end of WWII, promoters of socialism in America helped to implement a plan to discredit and destroy the United States. This plan involved letting the UN start to control military actions and getting the United States involved in wars like Korea and Vietnam, and prevent them from winning. One of the prime movers of the plan was John Foster Dulles. (If you'd like more information about him and this plan, dig up a copy of The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, 1953-1959 by Alan Stang. It was published in 1968, but available at Amazon.) I assume that this plan, in a modified form, is still being used today.

There is no war on terror; there is a war on America and its founding principles. The war on terror is just one more nail in America's coffin. Such military actions are not reality; they are the smoke and mirrors that hide reality. The sad thing is that our own government is complicit in our downfall. There are among our elected officials those who willingly participate in the destruction; but most of them are simply useful idiots.

The reason that we are losing the "war" is because it was planned that way. It is useless to ask why we are losing the war and to explain what need to be done to win. It was unwinnable to begin with, just another financial drain on the United States. Spending, among other things, killed the USSR; spending is killing us. That is the plan. See how well it is working?

Would you like to:
add your own comment? or send this story to a friend?