Foreign Policy - Obama's Failures, A CIA Success (Updated)

The mantra of the left during the Bush years was that he was destroying our relationships with other nations. It was pure bull back then, as after the height of anti-Americanism at the end of the Clinton years, the reality was that our foreign relationships were much improved throughout the Bush years. Nonetheless, one of Obama's many promises was to repair our image abroad.

If repairing our image means snubbing every ally and coddling every authoritarian regime with interests antithetical to our own, Obama is succeeding wildly. This from Robert Kagan at the Washington Post:

. . . [Obama], who ran against "unilateralism" in the 2008 campaign has worse relations overall with American allies than George W. Bush did in his second term.

Israelis shouldn't feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the "special relationship" with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security. Among top E.U. officials there is consternation that neither the president nor even his Cabinet seems to have time for the European Union's new president, Herman Van Rompuy, who, while less than scintillating, is nevertheless the chosen representative of the post-Lisbon Treaty continent. Europeans in general, while still fond of Obama, have concluded that he is not so fond of them -- despite his six trips to Europe -- and is more of an Asian president.

The Asians, however, are not so sure. Relations with Japan are rocky, mostly because of the actions of the new government in Tokyo but partly because of a perception that the United States can't be counted on for the long term. In India, there are worries that the burgeoning strategic partnership forged in the Bush years has been demoted in the interest of better relations with China. Although the Obama administration promised to demonstrate that the United States "is back" in Asia after the alleged neglect of the Bush years, it has not yet convinced allies that they are the focus of American attention.


. . . Yet it isn't that surprising. Who has attracted attention in the Obama administration? The answer, so far, seems to be not America's allies but its competitors, and in some cases its adversaries. If there were a way to measure administration exertion in foreign policy, the meter would show the greatest concentration of energy, beyond the war in Afghanistan, has been devoted to four endeavors: the failed first-year attempt to improve relations with Iran; the ongoing attempt to improve relations with Russia; the stalled effort to improve cooperation with China; and the effort -- fruitless so far -- to prove to the Arab states that the United States is willing to pressure Israel to further the peace process. Add to these the efforts to improve relations with Syria, engage Burma and everything with Af-Pak, and not much has been left for the concerns of our allies. . . .

The president has shown seemingly limitless patience with the Russians as they stall an arms-control deal that could have been done in December. He accepted a year of Iranian insults and refusal to negotiate before hesitantly moving toward sanctions. The administration continues to woo Syria and Burma without much sign of reciprocation in Damascus or Rangoon. Yet Obama angrily orders a near-rupture of relations with Israel for a minor infraction like the recent settlement dispute -- and after the Israeli prime minister publicly apologized.

. . . Obama appears to be departing from a 60-year-old American grand strategy when it comes to allies. The old strategy rested on a global network of formal military and political alliances, mostly though not exclusively with fellow democracies. The idea, Averell Harriman explained in 1947, was to create "a balance of power preponderantly in favor of the free countries." Under Bill Clinton, and the two Bushes, relations with Europe and Japan, and later India, were deepened and strengthened.

This administration pays lip-service to "multilateralism," but it is a multilateralism of accommodating autocratic rivals, not of solidifying relations with longtime democratic allies. Rather than strengthening the democratic foundation of the new "international architecture" -- the G-20 world -- the administration's posture is increasingly one of neutrality, at best, between allies and adversaries, and between democrats and autocrats. Israel is not the only unhappy ally, therefore; it's just the most vulnerable.

All of this, of course, leaves aside the substantive foreign policy issues that loom like the sword of Damoclese over our nation and the free world. These include Iran's march to a nuclear arsenal while their regime is on the brink of revolution, Russia's ham handed resurgence and China's rumblings as they grow into a power that will soon challenge - and likely eclipse - our own in the forseeable future if nothing more is done to change the current trajectories. Obama has proven incompetent at dealing with any of these issues.

That said, the one area where things shined during Obama's first year was in decimating al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan's NWFP with drone attacks. Apparently, the CIA has in fact finally infiltrated al Qaeda. This from Hot Air:

I’ve written before — more than a year ago, in fact — about the unusual surge in effectiveness of American drone strikes on AQ and Taliban targets. More shots fired, more targets hit, and more important jihadis liquidated. Back in September, WaPo quoted U.S. intelligence sources as saying that we’d finally penetrated Al Qaeda with spies, and I believe them. If you’re inclined to doubt, click here and scroll through Bill Roggio’s list of terrorists killed by drones since 2004. Notice anything unusual starting in, say, 2008? Be sure also to compare the number killed in all 12 months of 2009 with the number killed so far through two and half months of 2010. The latest is Sadam Hussein Al Hussami, whose death was announced just today; he too was a big fish, with a presence in both Pakistan and in AQ’s new haven in Yemen, and he was allegedly directly involved in that CIA base bombing in Afghanistan just before New Year’s.

This may be the one saving grace for the Obama administration in the foreign policy sphere. The fact that it comes from the CIA - the far left's favorite whipping boy, warred upon by the Obama Administration and slandered by Pelosi - is all the more ironic.

Update: Charles Krauthammer weighed in on the incident with Israel created by the inexplicable overreaction of the Obama administration to the announcement, during Biden's visit, that Israel was building some more apartments in an area of Jerusalem that is not in dispute. Indeed, the Obama administration tore into Israel while studiously ignoring that the PLO was busy in the West Bank dedicating a town square to a terrorist responsibe for multiple deaths during a strike in Israel. This from Krauthammer:

. . . So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?

Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its ancient, historical and now present capital?

Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel -- at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's First Real Challenge is North Korea (Updated)

North Korea seems determined to push Obama and South Korea as far as they can go. The threat from North Korea has gone from warm to hot - with a potential to get much hotter indeed. North Korea is acting bellicose, talking of a declaration of war. This after North Korea detonated a nuclear device, fired several missiles and reopened its nuclear plant in Yongbyon, all in violation of its treaty obligations. War is not outside the realm of possibility. Is Obama up to the task and what are his options to stop the North Korean nuclear program?

We last fought a declared war in Korea between 1950 and 1953. During one two week period in 1950, as the U.S. fought in the Chosin Resevoir area, we suffered 3,000 killed and 6,000 injured while killing 25,000 of the enemy. If we do go to war again in Korea, major engagements against the 1 million man standing army of North Korea would likely be about as bloody for soldiers but with the addition of countless civilian casualties. Indeed, war in Korea would make Iraq look like little more than a training exercise.

Update: The "Danger Room" at Wired.com posits similar bloodshed in any action defending against or attacking North Korea.

The terrain in Korea is mountainous. Korea is a web of small to medium valleys surrounded by steep and heavily wooded mountains whose apex is invariably a thin ridge. Larger valleys support dense population centers. War in this terrain is the opposite of war in the wide open Middle East. The latter is happy hunting ground for tanks and helicopters - blitzkreig warfare, if you will. South Korea, outside of the Chorwon Valley, is light infantry country where the warfare is slower and far more costly. Seoul, the capital of South Korea with over ten million inhabitants, sits within artillery range of North Korea. The conventional thinking was that it would likely come under heavy bombardment and chemical attack within the opening minutes of war in order to cause chaos and choke the roads to prevent reinforcement from the south. The heavily fortified DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) cuts across the 38th parallel, but the North Koreans have been tunnelling under that for half a century with an eye towards moving entire divisions in behind South Korea's front line defenses when war starts. Add to all of this that any such war has a real chance of going nuclear. It is a war we and the South Koreans would win, but not without tremendous loss. And there is the wild card of China. If war starts in Korea, would they again be sucked in on the side of their client, North Korea, as they were in 1950?

War in Korea has come close to reigniting on several occasions over the past half century, and cross border exchanges of gun fire, if not routine, still today occur with some regularity. Further, there have been deadly naval skirmishes between the two Koreas as late as 2002. Kim Il Sung often spoke of resuming war against South Korea, but his last memory of U.S. and R.O.K. forces up close and personal was getting his tail handed to him up around the Yalu River. His son, Kim Jong Il, the current leader, is a true megalomaniac and without his father's memory of the near calamity of 1950. I long thought Kim Jong Il so unbalanced and mecurial that he would force a war as soon as he took the reins of power. He didn't then, but he might now. China we know has been a large factor in staying North Korea's deadly hand over the years, but Kim Jong Il could always decide to roll the dice, particularly now as he is near the end of his life. The likelihood of this is influenced by how weak Kim Jong Il perceives the Obama administration to be.

Clearly, Kim Jong Il does not seem to impressed at the moment. North Korea, in violation of its treaty obligations, conducted a test fire of an ICBM in April. The response of the Obama administration and the UN was toothless. Thus, it is no surprise that only days ago, North Korea felt secure enough to reopen its nuclear plant in Yongbyon, engage in a test of a nuclear weapon, and launch still more missile tests. South Korea "responded to the nuclear test by joining the Proliferation Security Initiative, a U.S.-led network of nations seeking to stop ships from transporting the materials used in nuclear bombs." North Korea has in turn responded by characterizing South Korea's act as an "act of war," announcing its withdrawal from the 1953 Armistice Agreement that ended the Korean War, and promising a military response if any of its shipping is interdicted for the purpose of searching for nuclear contraband.

As Bloomberg notes, "North Korea routinely issues threats directed at the U.S., South Korea and Japan, warning of military retaliation if they continue to take actions that the country’s leadership characterizes as threats to its security." That said, this is a bit different. Never has, to my knowledge, North Korea repudiated the 1953 Armistice. Never has the U.S. and South Korea threatened to interdict North Korean shipping. And we are now at a point where it is obvious that endless talks and offers of assistance - going on since 1994 - will not sway North Korea from its nuclear ambitions. That said, it has not stopped Sec. of State Clinton from again making calls for North Korea to return to the obviously useless "six party talks."

North Korea holds the potential to do grave damage to us in two ways. One is to sell its nuclear and rocket technology, if not the weaponry itself, on the blackmarket to the highest bidders. We know that this has gone on already, such as in the recently destroyed Syrian nuclear facility. North Korea's second threat is actual war to conquer the South. One, if not both, are virtually assured if Obama does not take action. If his only response is through the UN and a call to resume six party talks, he will have utterly failed his first test and we will all, sooner or later, pay a price for it.

The idea of interdicting North Korean shipping is certainly one option, but I could see that one being not particularly effective and with a real chance of igniting war. China, which supplies North Korea with virtually all of its fuel as well as many other supplies, holds the key to getting North Korea to back down militarily and give up its nuclear ambitions. Under the current circumstance, China has had no motivation to really lean on North Korea other than to stop actual war. All of this leads to Charles Krauthammer's brilliant suggestion yesterday that, in response to the latest provocations, we convince Japan to join the nuclear club.:



That is a bold suggestion, but it is one that makes complete sense. And indeed, I can't see any other real options. This hot potato is now in the hands of Obama and Clinton. Does anyone feel confident that they will rise to the occasion?

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain Lights Into Obama Over Iraq

John McCain responds to Obama's continuing criticism of his "hundred years in Iraq" remark, stating that Obama has no "experience or background" as regards the military and our national security. Its sort of the Clinton's "3 a.m." ad on steroids.








_________________________________________________________

If Obama thinks that he has a bullet with which to attack McCain by claiming he wants, to paraphrase, endless warfare, he is sorely wrong. Besides taking McCain's "hundred years" in Iraq remark out of context, it also highlights the grave weaknesses in the Democrats calls to pull all troops out of Iraq and to do so within a short time frame. And today, McCain has responded appropriately.

“It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it,” McCain said. “(He) either hasn’t read or (doesn’t) understand…the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace–and that’s through military government to government agreements that call for United States presence and mutual defense. Not only in that country itself, but also in the region. Our troops in Japan maintain a military presence in Asia. Our troops in Japan and South Korea maintain stability in Asia. The same thing was true after World War II about our troops in Germany.”

You can read the story and hear McCain's remarks here.

McCain is completely correct on this. The case against the war needed to be made in 2003. Once the decision was made to go in, the only appropriate place for the argument that "the war was wrong" was in the history departments of academia. Once we crossed into Iraq, we had and still have only two options - to win or to lose. Winning, in the long term, means establishing a functioning democracy with a functioning economy that is free from external aggression. This requires a long term committment - as it did with Japan, Germany and Korea. All of those countries, in the end, flourished. That is winning for any on the left still having trouble defining the word as regards Iraq. And on a side note, it took nearly thirty years for Korea to actually develop a functioning democracy.

Obama's argument that we need to leave Iraq now is completely political - and laughably sophomoric. His argument, that the war was wrong at inception and thus we need to leave -wholly ignores all that has occurred since March 20, 2003. It ignores that Iraq has become the main battleground for the Wahhabi extremists of al Qaeda and it ignores the designs the Shia theocracy of Iran - arguably the West's most dangerous enemy today - has upon Iraq. Whatever the situation in 2003, it has no bearing on the reality in 2008. The only things that have not changed since March 20, 2003 are our strategic interest in the Middle East and the existential threats posed by al Qaeda and Iran's theocracy. Obama does not address these arguments.

But history has showed us how to "win" in Iraq, and McCain does a good job of discussing them in thumbnail fashion in the video linked above. The other option, the one being touted by Obama, will clearly lead in another direction. Obama, some time ago, dreamed up the idea of protecting us by relying on some sort of quick reaction force operating out of Kuwait to keep Iraq free of al Qaeda and, I would assume, from Iranian aggression. That is ridiculous on so many levels it is almost impossible to know where to begin.

1. It is taking well over 150,000 of our soldiers in country to try and break al Qaeda's hold on the Sunni areas of Iraq and to limit Iran's deadly meddling. How a QRF of a few thousand combat soldiers could possibly be expected to accomplish a similar mission and how they would gather the intelligence necessary to attack specific targets inside Iraq is simply unimaginable.

2. If we leave Iraq, the likelihood of a real civil war, driven by al Qaeda and Sunni countries on one side and Iran on the other, is palpable, if not probable.

3. If we leave Iraq, under what possible scenario do we think that the Iraqi government will allow the U.S. back in, whether to attack Iraq al Qaeda targets or Iranian targets. It is quite probable that the weak central government would fall under Iranian influence - and I severly doubt Ahmedinejad and his cronies will allow a sattelite government to roll out the red carpet for the U.S.

4. Obama's suggestion is the equivalent of a politician playing general - a scenario that is disastorous the vast majority of the time. Yes, I know he has General McPeak at his side. McPeak is an Air Force officer and, if this was his idea, he is just completely clueless about the reality of ground warfare.

There are two theories. One, Obama is making his pronouncements wholly to feed a far left base that is completely out of touch with reality and only concerned with destroying conservativism in America through a toppling of Bush. Two, Obama really does have no clue about the lessons of history or about the capabilities and limitations of our military. While both are possible, neither one is remotely acceptable. In either case, really, McCain's remarks are dead on point.

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...