Dec. 7 - Pearl Harbor Day

Today is a day to remember what was, until Sept. 11, 2001, the worst act of war on American soil in our history. On Dec. 7, 1941, a flotilla of ships from the Japanese Navy initiated an attack on our fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, killing thousands and wrecking destruction on our Pacific Fleet. It was, as FDR would later frame it, a "day that will live in infamy."

In the wake of the attack, no newspaper spent inordinate amounts of ink reflecting on why the Japanese attacked. No portion of our nation painted America as somehow responsible for the attack. Michael Moore of the day did not take out a full page ad asking our President to stay out of the war. George Soros did not create a network of front organizations to speak out against taking any action. FDR, who was still actually presiding over an economy in the grip of the Great Depression, did not respond by putting a time limitation on our involvement in the war because we needed to have more domestic spending. It was a different era - one before the toxins of the post modern left took full root in our society. You can read FDR's speech putting our nation on a war footing here.

And as to the men and women who died at the hands of Japan's Imperial Navy on that day of 7 December 1941, we remember your loss. It was not in vain.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Fails His First Test As Commander In Chief [Updated]

We must be set to face a long war. . . . [T]he United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete. . . . [T]he sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken.

- Barack Obama, Speech at West Point, 2009
- FDR, Speech to the Nation, 1941

Obama stood his first real test tonight as a wartime commander in chief. He fell far short of the challenge.

As a threshold matter, I fully support President Obama's decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan. That said, the most important thing to learn from tonight's speech was whether Obama was committed to achieving victory in Afghanistan. Victory in war historically has meant to engage and defeat one's foes, driving them to the point that they no longer have the will and or the ability to continue the fight. Obama charted another course tonight - one that, while not insuring defeat, seems anything but committed to "victory" in Afghanistan.

In one breath, Obama announced that he would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. In his next breath, he announced a strategy of withdrawal beginning in 18 months. General McChrystal said in his August Commander's Assessment that one of the fundamental challenges we face is to convince the populace of Afghanistan to support us as opposed to the insurgents. As McChrystal stated, we have not been successful because of the Afghans' "perception that our resolve is uncertain." After tonight's speech, the Afghans can be certain - the resolve of our President seems limited indeed.

McChrystal asked for 60,000 soldiers to fully resource his plans. He also provided Obama with a medium risk option of only supplying 40,000 additional soldiers and a high risk option of 20,000 soldiers. Obama, for a reason not addressed in his speech. chose to give McChrystal only 30,000 soldiers. Further, Obama limited the time of their operational use, promising to begin a drawdown of our combat soldiers in Afghanistan 18 months from today. Therefore, McChrystal will need to be very aggressive to accomplish his mission, and he will need to do so underresourced. Soldiers will be stretched thin. This inevitably means that much more American blood will be spilled than is necessary and that the chances of our achieving victory in Afghanistan are lessened, perhaps significantly so. For what? What possible reason can Obama have for not fully resourcing our operations?

The total cost of the increase in operations in Afghanistan next year is estimated at $30 billion. What would be an additional $30 billion in order to protect our vital national interests while at the same time giving every soldier deployed in country a better chance of coming home in one piece. In respect to just the stimulus bill alone of $750 billion for every liberal special interest imaginable, that is a drop in the bucket.

Given McChrystal's operational assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, his proposed strategy, and the nuances of the operation, I do not see how it will be possible to achieve victory in Afghanistan in eighteen months before the draw down of troops commences. This does not bode well at all.

Also from Obama's speech:

- "Open Ended commitment"

Having more than a passing familiarity with history, I think it is accurate to say that, never in all of recorded history has there been an instance of a leader committing soldiers to war under the constraint of an arbitrary time limitation. Obama claims that the opposite of such a time limited constraint is an "open-ended" commitment. That is ridiculous. The opposite is staying in a fight until the conditions of victory are achieved. That is an event triggered limitation, not an open ended commitment. The only reason it is not time certain is becasuse the enemy gets a say. You can compare Obama's speech on Afghanistan with FDR's speech on Dec. 9, 1941, here to see the difference. It is striking.

What Obama is doing is an attempt to both honor his campaign rhetoric - that Afghanistan is the "good war" that we "must not lose," while attempting to placate a far left base that lives in permanent Vietnam protest mode. The two cannot be reconciled, but he is willing to bet the lives of our soldiers that they can. Many months ago, I wrote a post, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh & McCain Derangement Syndrome, explaining with historical examples that the greatest danger I saw in electing Obama or Clinton would be that they would make wartime military decisions based on political expediency rather than on internalized values. The travesty of announcing that we are going to go on the offensive for 18 months and then begin withdrawing forces is a textbook case of political expediency. Such decisions are inevitably bad in the long run, both for our soldiers and for our national interests. For a much more in-depth discussion of the negative ramifications of Obama's decision to announce a time limit, see this article from Raplh Peters.

- "Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end."

Obama is not bringing the Iraq war to a "responsible end." Our soldiers won that war and it is an utter obscenity for him to stand at West Point and to imply anything else. It was the ultimate show of disrespect and dishonesty towards our soldiers. The only thing Obama is doing in Iraq is drawing down our occupation forces - though by forcing an early withdrawal of occupation forces, he may well be setting the stage for a return to violence and the return of Iran's mad mullahs. The mullahs would clearly like to renew their efforts to Lebanize Iraq.

- "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars . . ."

In a speech filled with non-sequiturs, this was probably the worst. Obama is trying to justify the political expediency of his decision with post-modern gibberish. Wars end in one of three ways. Victory, stalemate or defeat. If we pick up our marbles and leave before victory (or stalemate if that is the limited goal, such as in Korea) can be achieved, then we accept defeat. There is no other way to spin it. The left's decision to cut and run in Vietnam has had ramifations lasting down to the present day, with the most important being that it emboldened scores of our enemies. Had we "responsibly ended" the war in Iraq when Obama and the far left wanted, the results for our nation, the entire Western World, and Iraq would have been catastrophic. In that light, Obama's statement that we will "show our strength" by how "we end wars" is utterly - and very dangerously - nonsensical.

- "We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy . . . to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them."

Prior to our building a nuclear arsenal, wars in Europe during the first half of the 20th century cost the lives of upwards of 80,000,000 people and completely destroyed whole economies. Since we created a nuclear arsenal, the total number or war deaths in Europe has been not even a fraction of a fraction of that. Perhaps there is a lesson here to be gleaned for our Commander in Chief.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of rational countries subject to deterrence by MADD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has meant 'true security.' Would we have already experienced WWIII against the Soviet Union and China if no country possessed nuclear weapons? Probably. And if so, what would have been the cost? Obama seems to be living in an incredibly dangerous fantasy world. He has little to no grasp of history. Obama would do well to read up on the Pax Romana. Virtually all of written history teaches that security is maintained by the perceived willingness and ability to project superior force. Nuclear weapons clearly enhance one's perception of that ability. Further, is there anyone other than a grade schooler in an ultra-liberal school in San Fran that believes the nuclear genie can be put back in the bottle?

Lastly, as to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, Iran is now about to build ten new nuclear reactors, and every day that Obama dithers, the entire Middle East comes closer to joining in the game of nuclear proliferation. That is the ultimate nightmare scenario. It presents an existential threat to America and the entire West. Yet Obama waffles on about a world without nuclear weapons. The problem is not that some people in the world have nuclear weapons, the problem is that people not deterred by MADD may soon have them. My suggestion, rather than worrying about the world's nukes, how about dealing posthaste with the mad mullahs' march to a nuclear arsenal.

- "And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights . . ."

Nice words, Mr. President, but your deeds directly contradict them. How about directing your words on human rights towards the Green Movement in Iran. Perhaps you haven't kept up on the news out of Iran since you took office, but the Green Movement protesters have been suffering the worst of human rights abuses while waiting to hear from you. Your silence has been both craven and deafening.

- The word count of Obama's speech, courtesy of Instapundit:

"I" - 45; "Afghanistan" - 39; "Victory" - 0

- The things Obama did very well in his speech

The highpoints of Obama's speech were his definition of the threat we face, tying together both al Qaeda and the Taliban, and his articulation of the strategic necessity to defeat those threats. I think his analysis of both was spot in.

Despite the fact that Obama is a far left ideologue, he is governing now. He has to consider the long term implications of his decisions. In that context, Obama has a pragmatic streak that kicks in when he senses the massive dangers of embracing the Michael Moore-Kos plank in toto. Thus did we see Obama keep many of the Bush tools for the war on terror, and thus do we see him now committing more troops to Afghanistan. Given his accurate analysis of the threat, he could not possibly justify ending the war effort now or simply failing to prosecute it any further - at least not after Gen McChrystal's Commander's Summary was leaked. You will recall that McChrystal said in that document that we are losing the war and that we have a 12 month window in which to set the conditions for victory in Afghanistan. What decision Obama would have made today without that leak is anyone's guess.

- Last Thought

The post modern far left is never going to support any war undertaken that is directly in our national interests. Obama has no chance of placating them short of withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thus his target audience should have been that good portion of the rest of America that is war weary but that will rise in support of their country if the President exercises his leadership. Obama needed to make this target audience understand what is at stake on an emotional level and then give a FDR/Churchillesque speech exhorting them to victory as the only option. It was certainly within his oratorical capacity to do so. Yet Obama utterly failed. Indeed, probably the most pointed criticism of his speech in that regard comes from, of all people, a German author, Gabor Steingart, writing in Der Spiegel:

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

This was Obama's first test as a wartime President. He will very likely have another test in the future. When things are going bad in the war, when his political enemies (in this case, his base) are calling for his head, will he have the commitment to victory to continue the fight? Washington passed this test, as did Lincoln, FDR, Truman and Bush. We won the wars they fought because of their will to persevere. Will Obama do the same, or will he, on the day of his next test, weigh his actions on the scales of political expediency. I think that is still very much an open question and one that America's enemies, foreign (and dare I say domestic) will seek to exploit.

End Notes

I realize General McChrystal has come out with a statement saying that the resources Obama proposes will be adequate. That does not detract in any way from my above analysis that underresourcing is going to cost us in blood and effect the chances of success. Two, I also know that Obama nuanced his 18 month time frame with the magic words, "conditions on the ground." The issues of concern are not whether Obama's promise of an 18 month drawdown allows for wiggle room in 18 months (Barack "expiration date" Obama would find wiggle room in 18 months regardless of what he says today), but rather its immediate impact on the Afghani populace and, for that matter, on the strategy of our enemy. As to the latter, I can well imagine that al Qaeda and the Taliban will respond by making the most of this in terms of propaganda and by seeking to create another Harry Reid "this war is lost" moment. Regardless of the degree to which our average cave dwelling foe are formally schooled, I have no doubt that they intrinsicly understand the calculus of political expediency in the far left politics of America today.

Upade: If you haven't seen it, go to Hot Air and watch Jon Stewart's take on the speech. It's long but worth every minute of watching.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Constitution - - The Last Refuge Against A Scoundrel

We have been witness over the past several weeks to White House strong arming of businesses the likes of which have previously been unknown in this country. And now if appears Obama has crossed a threshold that the Constitution forbids.

First there are the TARP loans. The government has refused banks the ability to repay them. Instead, the Obama administration floated a plan, still under consideration, of de facto nationalizing the banks by converting bank TARP loans to common stock. One would think it could not get worse than that, but one would be wrong.

Obama, in proposing to reorganize the auto manufacturers, wants to place his major constituency, big Labour, at the front of the line when it comes to an ownership stake in GM and Chrysler. The end result of such a move is that secured creditors of the two companies would suffer a relative loss far in excess of that which would be suffered by the unions. Not only has the Obama plan been set up to show blatant favortism in contravention of the commercial code, but Obama and his crew were publicly criticizing - and privately threatening - the secured creditors holding out against this plan. Powerline, refering to this as banana republic capitalism, has the whole story. And indeed, there is nothing to distinguish this act of Obama from similar extortions of property by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or . . . well, pick your favorite dictator.

Fortunately, it seems that the creditors are fighting back. At least one attorney, Thomas Lauria, has gone public about the threat to the entities he represents made by the Obama administration - to use the White House Press Corps to destroy them in the eyes of the public. Today, Lauria has filed a brief challenging the proposed acts of Obama based on the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, he cites to a 1935 case, Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, that dealt with a provision of the New Deal that would have acted to strip a secured creditor of the value of his security by government fiat. The Supreme Court held that, regardless of the government's compelling interest in responding to the economic chaos of the depression, such an act violated the 5th Amendment prohibition against taking private property without just compensation. It is a case dead on point. Hot Air has the story.

I will assume, without looking it up, that this case is still good law. It's interesting to note that this case fell two years prior to FDR's "court packing" scheme. FDR was tired of being stymied by a Supreme Court that found much of his "New Deal" legislation unconstitutional. In 1937, FDR proposed to expand the number of Justices on the Supreme Court and pack the Court in his favor. FDR lost the battle and the legislation failed. That said, FDR won the war. The Supreme Court got the message and began regularly defering to FDR's wishes and taking congressional findings at face value.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lieberman's Lament

This from Senator Joe Lieberman writing in the WSJ:

How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.

Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

. . . The [9-11] attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

. . . A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama and Peace In Our Time

For some months, as regards Iran in particular, I've been making the argument that Obama's foreign policy resembles and portends to be every bit as disastrous as Neville Chamberlain's (see here, here, here, here). Indeed, Neville Chamberlain's choice to talk with Germany and seek peace in the late 30's missed the last real opportunity to stop, at then minimal cost in blood and gold, a war that ultimately claimed near 60 million lives and destroyed Europe's economy for decades. As I wrote two weeks ago, Obama needs to be asked "What makes you think your plans to hold talks with Iran under the current circumstances . . . would be any less ill advised, counterproductive and disastrous than the attempts to find a middle ground with Hitler in the 30's?" At any rate, Ed Morrisey and others are now making similar analogies to Chamberlain in the wake of Obama's recent speech in which he claimed his foreign policy was in line with that of FDR, Truman and Kennedy.
_____________________________________________________

This from Ed Morrisey at Hot Air:

. . . On foreign policy, Obama said, it was a recognition that the US should talk to its enemies, in the same manner as FDR, Truman, and Kennedy did. At the time, I noted the strange claim and its complete ignorance of history, and today, Jack Kelly continues the history lesson for a constitutional scholar who clearly skipped 20th-century history:

. . . Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin’s designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman’s response wasn’t to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

Given the importance that Obama places on this approach to foreign policy — he seldom fails to mention it as an example of the “change” he’ll bring to Washington — one wonders why the media hasn’t pressed him on this rationalization. Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.

As I pointed out on Wednesday, even diplomatic contact didn’t help FDR with Japan and Germany. The Japanese used diplomatic negotiations as a stalling maneuver to get its Imperial Navy in place to destroy our Pacific Fleet in 1941. Our diplomatic relations with the Nazis only encouraged America Firsters and Nazi sympathizers like Charles Lindbergh to claim that Hitler had no animus towards the West and that he could be a bulwark against Bolshevism.

Maybe Obama could ask the Czechs how well unconditional talks worked for them during Munich. Neville Chamberlain insisted on holding peace talks to avoid war in Czechoslovakia, which could have defended itself as long as it held the fortifications in the Sudetenland long enough for Britain and France to beat Germany from the rear. Instead, Chamberlain carved up Czechoslovakia without its permission, and six months afterward, Hitler swallowed the rest of it whole. FDR, meanwhile, remained steadfastly neutral diplomatically until 1939, when he began clandestine support for the UK.

Negotiations with tyrants almost always leads to appeasement, which only postpones war until the tyrant is strong enough to wage it most effectively. It results in many more deaths and far more destruction because it gives the initiative and the timing to the tyrants, while building their credibility at home. . . .

That’s what Obama’s “new approach” to foreign policy promises. It’s Neville Chamberlain without the umbrella. It certainly isn’t FDR or Truman.

Read the entire post.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pearl Harbor Day

On the morning of December 7, 1941, elements of the Imperial Navy of Japan conducted a pre-emptive attack on our forces at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Two aerial attack waves, totalling 350 aircraft, were launched from six aircraft carriers with the intent to destroy the United States Pacific Fleet. The attack wrecked two U.S. battleships, one minelayer, and two destroyers beyond repair, and destroyed 188 aircraft; personnel losses were 2,333 killed and 1,139 wounded. And it signalled our entry into a World War that would eventually claim the lives of more than 400,000 Americans, with near twice that number wounded in some fashion. We are enjoying the fruits of their sacrifice. Do we do it justice?

In the dark days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made an address to our nation that everyone should read. It was made on a day when the survival of our nation and the free nations of the West was far from certain. The only thing clear on that day was that we were under attack, and that the blood and determination of our people was the only thing that stood between us and the destruction of our way of life.

Address of FDR over the radio following the declaration of a state of war with the Japanese Empire, December 9, 1941

The sudden criminal attacks perpetrated by the Japanese in the Pacific provide the climax of a decade of international immorality. Powerful and resourceful gangsters have banded together to make war upon the whole human race. Their challenge has now been flung at the United States of America. The Japanese have treacherously violated the long- standing peace between us. Many American soldiers and sailors have been killed by enemy action. American ships have been sunk, American airplanes have been destroyed.

The Congress and the people of the United States have accepted that challenge. Together with other free peoples, we are now fighting to maintain our right to live among our world neighbors in freedom and in common decency, without fear of assault.

I have prepared the full record of our past relations with Japan, and it will be submitted to the Congress. It begins with the visit of Commodore Perry to Japan 88 years ago. It ends with the visit of two Japanese emissaries to the Secretary of State last Sunday, an hour after Japanese forces had loosed their bombs and machine guns against our flag, our forces, and our citizens. I can say with utmost confidence that no Americans today or a thousand years hence, need feel anything but pride in our patience and our efforts through all the years toward achieving a peace in the Pacific which would be fair and honorable to every nation, large or small. And no honest person, today or a thousand years hence, will be able to suppress a sense of indignation and horror at the treachery committed by the military dictators of Japan, under the very shadow of the flag of peace borne by their special envoys in our midst. The course that Japan has followed for the past 10 years in Asia has paralleled the course of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe and Africa. Today, it has become far more than a parallel. It is collaboration so well calculated that all the continents of the world, and all the oceans, are now considered by the Axis strategists as one gigantic battlefield.

In 1931, Japan invaded Manchukuo-without warning.

In 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia-without warning.

In 1938, Hitler occupied Austria-without warning.

In 1939, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia-without warning.

Later in 1939, Hitler invaded Poland-without warning.

In 1940, Hitler invaded Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg-without warning.

In 1940, Italy attacked France and later Greece-without warning.

In 1941, the Axis Powers attacked Jugoslavia and Greece and they dominated the Balkans-without warning.

In 1941, Hitler invaded Russia-without warning.

And now Japan has attacked Malaya and Thailand-and the United States- without warning. It is all of one pattern.

We are now in this war. We are all in it-all the way. Every single man, woman, and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories-the changing fortunes of war.

So far, the news has all been bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized. The casualty lists of these first few days will undoubtedly be large. I deeply feel the anxiety of all families of the men in our armed forces and the relatives of people in cities which have been bombed. I can only give them my solemn promise that they will get news just as quickly as possible.

This Government will put its trust in the stamina of the American people, and will give the facts to the public as soon as two conditions have been fulfilled. First, that the information has been definitely and officially confirmed; and, second, that the release of the information at the time it is received will not prove valuable to the enemy directly or indirectly.

Most earnestly I urge my countrymen to reject all rumors. These ugly little hints of complete disaster fly thick and fast in wartime. They have to be examined and appraised. As an example, I can tell you frankly that until further surveys are made, I have not sufficient information to state the exact damage which has been done to our naval vessels at Pearl Harbor. Admittedly the damage is serious. But no one can say how serious, until we know how much of this damage can be repaired and how quickly the necessary repairs can be made. I cite as another example a statement made on Sunday night that a Japanese carrier had been located and sunk off the Canal Zone.

And when you hear statements that are attributed to what they call "an authoritative source," you can be reasonably sure that under these war circumstances the "authoritative source" was not any person in authority. Many rumors and reports which we now hear originate with enemy sources.

For instance, today the Japanese are claiming that as a result of their one action against Hawaii they have gained naval supremacy in the Pacific. This is an old trick of propaganda which has been used innumerable times by the Nazis. The purposes of such fantastic claims are, of course, to spread fear and confusion among us, and to goad us into revealing military information which our enemies are desperately anxious to obtain. Our Government will not be caught in this obvious trap-and neither will our people.

It must be remembered by each and every one of us that our free and rapid communication must be greatly restricted in wartime. It is not possible to receive full, speedy, accurate reports from distant areas of combat. This is particularly true where naval operations are concerned. For in these days of the marvels of radio it is often impossible for the commanders of various units to report their activities by radio, for the very simple reason that this information would become available to the enemy, and would disclose their position and their plan of defense or attack. Of necessity there will be delays in officially confirming or denying reports of operations but we will not hide facts from the country if we know the facts and if the enemy will not be aided by their disclosure.

To all newspapers and radio stations-all those who reach the eyes and ears of the American people-I say this: You have a most grave responsibility to the Nation now and for the duration of this war. If you feel that your Government is not disclosing enough of the truth, you have very right to say so. But-in the absence of all the facts, as revealed by official sources-you have no right to deal out unconfirmed reports in such a way as to make people believe they are gospel truth. Every citizen, in every walk of life, shares this same responsibility. The lives of our soldiers and sailors-the whole future of this Nation- depend upon the manner in which each and every one of us fulfills his obligation to our country.

Now a word about the recent past-and the future. A year and a half has elapsed since the fall of France, when the whole world first realized the mechanized might which the Axis nations had been building for so many years. America has used that year and a half to great advantage.

Knowing that the attack might reach us in all too short a time, we immediately began greatly to increase our industrial strength and our capacity to meet the demands of modern warfare. Precious months were gained by sending vast quantities of our war materials to the nations of the world still able to resist Axis aggression.

Our policy rested on the fundamental truth that the defense of any country resisting Hitler or Japan was in the long run the defense of our own country. That policy has been justified. It has given us time, invaluable time, to build our American assembly lines of production. Assembly lines are now in operation. Others are being rushed to completion. A steady stream of tanks and planes, of guns and ships, of shells and equipment-that is what these 18 months have given us. But it is all only a beginning of what has to be done.

We must be set to face a long war against crafty and powerful bandits. The attack at Pearl Harbor can be repeated at any one of many points in both oceans and along both our coast lines and against all the rest of the hemisphere. It will not only be a long war, it will be a hard war. That is the basis on which we now lay all our plans. That is the yardstick by which we measure what we shall need and demand-money, materials, doubled and quadrupled production, ever increasing.

The production must be not only for our own Army and Navy and air forces. It must reinforce the other armies and navies and air forces fighting the Nazis and the war lords of Japan throughout the Americas and the world. I have been working today on the subject of production. Your Government has decided on two broad policies. The first is to speed up all existing production by working on a 7-day- week basis in every war industry, including the production of essential raw materials.

The second policy, now being put into form, is to rush additions to the capacity of production by building more new plants, by adding to old plants, and by using the many smaller plants for war needs. Over the hard road of the past months we have at times met obstacles and difficulties, divisions and disputes, indifference and callousness. That is now all past and, I am sure forgotten.

The fact is that the country now has an organization in Washington built around men and women who are recognized experts in their own fields. I think the country knows that the people who are actually responsible in each and every one of these many fields are pulling together with a teamwork that has never before been excelled. On the road ahead there lies hard work-grueling work-day and night, every hour and every minute.

I was about to add that ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us. But it is not correct to use that word. The United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our Nation when the Nation is fighting for its existence and its future life.

It is not a sacrifice for any man, old or young, to be in the Army or the Navy of the United States. Rather is it a privilege.

It is not a sacrifice for the industrialist or the wage earner, the farmer or the shopkeeper, the trainman or the doctor, to pay more taxes, to buy more bonds, to forego extra profits, to work longer or harder at the task for which he is best fitted. Rather is it a privilege.

It is not a sacrifice to do without many things to which we are accustomed if the national defense calls for doing without. A review this morning leads me to the conclusion that at present we shall not have to curtail the normal articles of food. There is enough food for all of us and enough left over to send to those who are fighting on the same side with us. There will be a clear and definite shortage of metals of many kinds for civilian use, for the very good reason that in our increased program we shall need for war purposes more than half of that portion of the principal metals which during the past year have gone into articles for civilian use.

We shall have to give up many things entirely. I am sure that the people in every part of the Nation are prepared in their individual living to win this war. I am sure they will cheerfully help to pay a large part of its financial cost while it goes on I am sure they will cheerfully give up those material things they are asked to give up. I am sure that they will retain all those great spiritual things without which we cannot win through.

I repeat that the United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete. Not only must the shame of Japanese treachery be wiped out, but the sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken.

In my message to the Congress yesterday I said that take very certain that this form of treachery shall never we "will endanger us again." In order to achieve that certainty, we must begin the great task that is before us by abandoning once and for all the illusion that we can ever again isolate ourselves from the rest of humanity.

In these past few years-and, most violently, in the past few days-we have learned a terrible lesson. It is our obligation to our dead-it is our sacred obligation to their children and our children-that we must never forget what we have learned. And what we all have learned is this: There is no such thing as security for any nation-or any individual-in a world ruled by the principles of gangsterism. There is no such thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up in the dark and strike without warning.

We have learned that our ocean-girt hemisphere is not immune from severe attack-that we cannot measure our safety in terms of miles on any map. We may acknowledge that our enemies have performed a brilliant feat of deception, perfectly timed and executed with great skill. It was a thoroughly dishonorable deed, but we must face the fact that modern warfare as conducted in the Nazi manner is a dirty business. We don't like it-we didn't want to get in it-but we are in it and we're going to fight it with everything we've got.

I do not think any American has any doubt of our ability to administer proper punishment to the perpetrators of these crimes. Your Government knows that for weeks Germany has been telling Japan that if Japan did not attack the United States, Japan would not share in dividing the spoils with Germany when peace came. She was promised by Germany that if she came in she would receive the complete and perpetual control of the whole of the Pacific area-and that means not only the Far East, not only all of the islands in the Pacific but also a stranglehold on the west coast of North, Central, and South America.

We also know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations in accordance with a joint plan. . . .

The true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. When we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. We Americans are not destroyers; we are builders. We are now in the midst of a war, not for conquest, not for vengeance, but for a world in which this Nation, and all that this Nation represents, will be safe for our children. We expect to eliminate the danger from Japan, but it would serve us ill if we accomplished that and found that the rest of the world was dominated by Hitler and Mussolini.

We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows. And in the dark hours of this day-and through dark days that may be yet to come-we will know that the vast majority of the members of the human race are on our side. Many of them are fighting with us. All of them are praying for us. For, in representing our cause, we represent theirs as well-our hope and their hope for liberty under God.

Read More...

Summary only...