"In war there is no substitute for victory."
General Douglas MacArthur – Speech to a Joint Session of Congress, 1951 

In June of 1950, when the North launched its attack against South Korea, President Harry Truman responded by sending American troops to fight with the South.  All looked lost when the North’s forces surrounded the Americans and South Koreans on three sides with their backs to the sea centered around southeastern port city of Pusan.  General Douglas MacArthur, the World War II hero and newly named commander, conceived a plan to conduct a bold amphibious landing further up the peninsula behind the North Korean lines, thereby placing the enemy forces in a pincer between Allied units in both directions.  The plan worked masterfully, causing the North Korean forces to fall into full retreat.  The Allies managed to push what was left of the Korean Army north of the original border and kept on rolling. The goal was no longer to leave the Korean peninsula divided, as it had been prior to the conflict, but united as one country.   

China did not approve of this plan and responded by sending a force of over 1 million soldiers to the aid of the North Koreans.  They pushed the Allies back below the previous border between North and South.  In order to fight this new war MacArthur requested permission to: 1) bomb the Chinese Army’s staging areas north of the Korean border; 2) implement a naval blockade of China’s coast; and 3) allow the millions of exiled Chinese, living in present day Taiwan, to join on the Allied side.  President Truman, not wanting to widen the war, refused all three requests.  MacArthur came to quickly realize there was going to be no way for complete victory in the Korean War if all means of denying the enemy reinforcements and supplies were not going to be used.  In frustration, MacArthur began to publicly state what he believed was necessary to win and those pronouncements stood in direct opposition to President Truman’s plans to limit the fighting to the Korean peninsula.  When MacArthur persisted, Truman relieved him of his command. 

MacArthur returned to the United States to a hero's welcome with massive tickertape parades, as well as a request to speak to a joint session of Congress. The General took the occasion to warn the members of Congress and the country of the perils of not fighting the Korean War to win it.  He said, "There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace.” The examples of the truce ending World War I, where 15 million died begetting another war with Germany leading to three times that number dying and, in more recent times, the Gulf Wars I and II bear out the General’s observation. MacArthur added leaving the aggressor in power ultimately, “Like blackmail…lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative.”

 

The President and the Congress did not follow General MacArthur’s advice in 1951. The Korean War ended in 1953 with an armistice leaving the aggressor Kim Song-il’s father, the dictator Kim Il-Jong, in power.  North Korea and China signed the truce, but the underlying issue leading to the war (the North's intention to make the entire peninsula a communist state) was never resolved.  As MacArthur predicted, the aggressor nation has employed blackmail tactics throughout the years to tune of tens of billions of dollars in aid being paid by South Korea, Japan and the United States. Despite all of it, the North has issued its most provocative threats to date, and conducted unsanctioned nuclear bomb and missile tests, which if allowed to continue, will place Hawaii, Alaska and the West Coast in peril very soon. China appears content to wait on the sidelines and let crisis play out. The use of U.S. military strikes is rapidly becoming our only alternative. 

 

Fifty-eight years have passed since General MacArthur predicted the cost of leaving the North Korean regime in place. Short of some radical change in policy, North Korea will have to be opposed by force. We are left to pray that somehow history’s lesson can be circumvented and a full-scale war will not result.   

---------------------------------------------------------------

Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history. 

     

 

Most Americans probably have at least a passing knowledge of the perils faced by the Pilgrims, especially during the first year. The difficult passage over the seas with the contrary winds, which delayed their arrival by months.  How they landed hundreds of miles north of their intended destination right at the beginning of a New England winter. How they went through a difficult winter with severe shortages of food, so that half their number died of malnutrition and disease. How the Indians helped them plant their first cornfields in the spring, and the subsequent celebration of their first Thanksgiving the following fall. What is less known is that the Pilgrims nearly starved again two years later. Their experiment in what Karl Marx would later describe as the communist goal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” failed miserably. While Barack Obama is not calling for the creation of a communist system in the United States, many of the same mal-effects of taking peoples’ hard-earned wealth and giving it to others will come into play.  

If ever there was a place and a people on earth where the Marxian ideal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” could have succeeded, it was in Plymouth colony. These were probably among the most idealistic people to be found; the crème-de-la-crème of the England’s Pilgrim sect, willing to risk it all and go across the seas to start a new life in an unsettled world. They’d put their lives in each other’s hands, confronting death through want and, at times, hostile neighboring native populations. Few live through this sort of bonding experience. Even with these bonds, the Pilgrims still possessed basic human nature, which, over time, has the unction to strive and to create and to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labor. Conversely this same human nature doesn’t like to see one’s hard work go to the benefit of another, unless it’s freely given, and especially to those who are capable of working for themselves. 

This basic aspect of human nature came into clear view in the Pilgrim's initial farming scheme. During their first year in Plymouth, they farmed as a community. Given the exigencies of their situation, with their survival in doubt, everybody pitched in and they enjoyed a good fall harvest. In effect their labor in the fields was being 100% taxed by the government, who then in turn shared the resources as it determined best: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” With the arrival of new immigrants, who had not shared the first settlers' perils or worked in the planting and harvesting and with the passing of the sense of urgency, human nature kicked in. Young, single men, for example, complained that they were having to work hard for other men’s wives and children and married woman complained about having to clean clothes and do other household work for those outside of their families. The fields were not planted and cared for at nearly the level required to support their population. Food had to be severely rationed, much as it had during their first winter. 

Randy DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths, which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence, throughout our nation's history. 

 

Atheist groups loved this ruling, because it would have the likely effect of forcing the removal of all monuments with religious content. The atheists would be able to achieve coming in the back door, what they had failed to coming in the front. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, against atheists demanding that the state of Texas remove a Ten Commandments monument donated by a private organization from its state house grounds, which is almost identical to the ones in question in Utah. (See picture above).  The Court pointed out in that case that The Ten Commandments are a part of the nation’s religious heritage and legal tradition have been vital in shaping United States culture; therefore, the state was within its purview to include the monument on its state house grounds. 

The Supreme Court, in Summum, has now added to its 2005 Texas state house ruling providing that not only can governments display The Ten Commandments and other monuments with religious content, they can choose which displays will go on public property and which will not--as they always have. This power does not impinge on peoples’ First Amendment free speech rights: they are free to say and write about what they want, and assemble and advocate and protest in public places including city parks, they just don’t have the power to force governments to accept permanent displays. The Court noted that elected officials also have a free speech right at stake.  If citizens do not like the messages being sent by their elected officials, including in the monuments they choose to display, citizens can always vote them out of office. The Court added, if the government literally had to accept and accomodate all viewpoints as being equal, it would cease to be able to function.   

In my book, We Hold These Truths, I point out that the Founders certainly didn’t consider all beliefs to be equal and based the founding of the nation, in substantial part, on the faith that there are God-given inalienable rights that no government can justly deny. They argued in the Declaration of Independence that based on the “laws of nature and Nature’s God”, the British government had become a tyranny because it was failing to secure those inalienable rights endowed by the “Creator.” The laws of nature are those observable in nature, while the laws of Nature’s God (according to the most prominent legal treaties of the time including Blackstone’s Commentaries) are those recorded in scripture (the Bible) and include The Ten Commandments. These laws create corresponding rights. “Thou shalt not murder”: the right to life; “Thou shalt not steal”: the right to own property; “Thou shalt not bear false witness”: the right not to be falsely accused of a crime; “Honor thy father and thy mother”: the right to have a family. The Founders encapsulated these rights as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and taken together they provide a bulwark against tyranny by one's government and against the unlawful intrusion of one’s fellow man.  They provide the framework to be all one was created to be.       

The belief in God’s overarching laws and the corresponding rights they create has been a vital part of the American political experience, and it should continue to be recognized by the government. Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and many others appealed to this bedrock of American faith to point out the injustice of slavery. Franklin Roosevelt used these laws to weigh the lying, thieving totalitarian regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Imperial Japan in the balance and find them wanting. Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights Movement, exposed the nation’s failure to live up to God’s divine laws and called upon it to truly rise up to the nation’s founding vision. 

John Kennedy succinctly restated this nation’s founding vision shortly into his Inaugural Address saying, “For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago. The world is very different now…[a]nd yet the same revolutionary belief for which our forebears fought is still at issue around the globe, the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.” The Supreme Court’s ruling in Summum enables governments to continue to help us remember these foundational beliefs without having to give equal space and status on public lands to those who want to erect monuments saying there is no God, or truth, or rights endowed by a Creator. That’s something worthy of celebrating with thanksgiving to God!      

I met and interviewed Prince at his home in Seattle in the late 90's while I was doing research for my book and for a movie script.  Well, Miramax scooped my movie idea (see below), but I was so inspired by the story and Prince that I would call him every year on the anniversary of the Raid, and we'd talk.  I met his wife, Barbara, when I visited their home, and January 31 was their wedding anniversary (which was the date the Rangers made it back to American lines with the freed POW's).  They married in January of 1942, before he headed off to war, so Prince had two reasons to celebrate 31st each year.  Barbara passed on about 5 years ago, and she would usually come up in our conversations. 

I always knew this day would come, but today when I called Prince's home in Washington, his son answered.  He happened to be at his father's place, so we talked and he told me his dad had died on January 1 at 89 years old.  Cpt. Prince and I last spoke this past summer.  I had sent him a copy of my book, which he really enjoyed.   

For the first time since 1994, the Democrats will control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Such control by a single party has been a rarity in American political life during the last 40 years. For the Democrats, it has happened only twice: 1977-80 and 1993-94 and each time ended with a radical reversal of their political fortunes. Lest the Republicans get too boastful, they’ve only held all the reigns for the same length of six years. The only difference was that theirs ran all together: 2001-06, and we all know how that stint ended. If history is instructive, the Democrats should not become too comfortable with their current position of dominance because it will likely pass quicker than they would hope.

Barack Obama, during his Inaugural Address yesterday, gave a strong indication what he plans to do with this latest iteration of Democratic rule.  After laying out a series of new spending programs for infrastructure, education and research he said, "Now there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest our system cannot tolerate big plans....The question is not whether our government is too big or small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."  Given that the current federal deficit is projected to be over $1 trillion, the question of whether government is too big seems extremely relevant.

Obama's statement stands in sharp contrast to President Reagan's prescription in 1981 when the country was also experiencing stark economic times: unemployment on the rise at 7.5% on its way to 10.8% (currently 7.2%), and inflation at 12% (currently under 4%).  President Reagan famously said in his Inaugural Address, (video) "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  He later added, "From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Reagan went on to observe that there is of course a rightful place for government.  He, for example, supported monetary policies by the Federal Reserve that helped stamp out inflation.  Certainly guarding against and prosecuting white collar crime on Wall Street is another proper function of government.  Micheal Milken, the infamous "Junk Bond King" of the 1980's, learned this lesson first hand, when brought to justice for fraud at the close of the decade.  Reagan's most fundamental belief however was in the American people: if not burdened by heavy taxes, they could and would right the economy.  What resulted was the longest sustained period of economic growth since World War II and the Gross Domestic Product growing an entire third larger.  Unemployment fell to 5%, inflation to 4.8%, the poverty rate shrank and real incomes rose across the board.  The unprecedented peacetime expansion proved that lower taxes and less government in people’s lives was the way of the future. 

The economy experienced a minor recession in 1990-91 under the first President Bush (economies have cycles), which helped usher in the last time Democrats held all the reigns.  Bill Clinton came to office in 1992 running as a "New Democrat." In other words, he was not an old liberal Democrat who believed in the tax and spend policies of the past as the answer for our nation’s ills.  Clinton promised to fix the economy and govern from the center.  Enough people were ready for something new after 12 years of Republican Presidential rule that Clinton won by a sizeable Electoral College vote of 370 to 168 against President Bush. Interestingly Barack Obama, running against the current President Bush’s record on a theme of “Change,” defeated McCain 365-173: not quite as good as Clinton, though Obama had no third party candidate like Ross Perot siphoning off votes from his opponent, as Clinton did. The break down in Congress in this year’s election was almost exactly as they were in 1992.  Then the Democrats controlled the Senate 56 to 44, and the House 258 to 176. This go around left them ahead 58 or 9 to 42 or 1 and in the House 257 to 178, nearly identical. 

Despite President Clinton’s assurances that he would govern from the center, in his first months in office he pursued three very liberal policies: universal health care, raising taxes particularly on the “rich,” and ending the ban which prevented those living as openly gay from serving in the military. He managed to raise the top tax bracket to 39.6% (up from the 28% under Reagan), but his other two initiatives failed miserably and in a publicly embarrassing fashion.  The country did not respond favorably to the Democratic liberal agrenda and what followed was the midterm election of 1994.  In a stunning reversal, Democrats lost both houses of Congress going from controlling the Senate 56-44 to being in the minority 48-52 and in the House from 258-176 to 204-230. The Republicans maintained control of both houses throughout the remainder of Clinton’s time in office and during most of President Bush’s.  Following his rebuke in 1994, President Clinton tacked back towards the political center-right supporting measures more associated with Republicans like welfare reform and cutting the capital gains tax rate.  The economy flourished and Clinton left office with high approval ratings.

President-elect Barack Obama has promised to take on the very same three liberal issues that President Clinton found such minefields in 1993: universal health care, raising taxes on the “rich” and ending the ban on openly gay citizens from serving in the military.  The country still is not liberal, but center-right on most issues, as exemplified by the victory of all the initiatives upholding the traditional definition of marriage during this last election, even as Democrats experienced their gains. The nation also appears to be growing leery of ever-mounting government spending and debt even as the Democrats make plans to tack on additional trillion dollars to a deficit.  The deficit is already projected to be over a trillion this year, twice as large as any in American history. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll found 60% of Americans are concerned the new Congress will spend too much trying to boost the economy. Liberal tax and spend policies are still discredited in many circles.

During these past eight years, there have been four major crises, any of which could have made up that one sentence description one thinks of when describing a particular Presidency (e.g. Lincoln-The Civil War; FDR-The Great Depression, WWII; Reagan-The Cold War, reviving the economy, Carter-The Camp David Agreement, The Iran Hostage Crisis). The four major crises during President Bush’s were: 9-11, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown. Any evaluation of the Bush Presidency at a bare minimum must deal with these four issues.  

More than any other event, the Bush Presidency will be remembered for 9-11. It was so sudden and unexpected and has rightly been compared to Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination, both in terms of its shocking nature and because of how completely it changed the nation’s course. Despite some uncertainty in the early hours following the attacks (when the fog of war is often thickest), President Bush proved himself a strong leader in a time of crisis.   

Few will likely forget the words and images of the time: President Bush from the Oval Office that night, “Today our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature, and we responded with the best of America.” From Ground Zero, President Bush speaking through a bullhorn. A fireman calls out, “We can’t hear you.” Bush responds, “I can hear you; the rest of the world hears you; the people who knocked these buildings will hear all of us soon!” Firemen begin chanting “USA, USA, USA…!!!”   Addressing Congress, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”

In that address to Congress, President Bush named Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the likely perpetrators of 9-11 and called on Afghanistan’s Taliban government, who was harboring the key leaders from the terrorist group, to turn them over or face the consequences. When the Taliban refused, the United States deployed air power and Special Forces Units to the area in October.   Siding with the Northern Alliance (a name that sounds right out of Star Wars), the United States brought down the Taliban government and put Al Qaeda on the run. These years later Osama has not been killed or captured, but many who worked for him have including the mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed; further the United States has not been attacked again, a scenario few would have thought likely on 9-11 as we saw the Twin Towers and the Pentagon burning on our television screens. On the whole, not bad. President Bush enjoyed the wide support of the public (in fact his job approval ratings were in the 90's, making him the highest rated President since such statistics were kept) and the nation itself was on the mend. 

Next came Iraq. President Bush believed and argued that the United States needed to not only deal with terrorist threats, but also to promote liberty in the region. Liberty, based on solid principles, was the surest antidote to the hopelessness and ignorance that breeds terrorism. His strategy came to be known as the Freedom Agenda. Bush also argued in the Age of Terror, threats could not be allowed to reach full bloom: the stakes were too high. Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his military and was paying terrorist bombers to attack Israel.  Further, he had thrown the U.N weapons inspectors out of Iraq and fired on U.S. and other allied planes seeking to enforce the “No-fly” zone.  In almost every way, Saddam was not complying with the U.N. resolutions ending the First Gulf War. Bush pointed out to do nothing in the face of his defiance only invited the contempt of our enemies and allowed Saddam more time to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  Most in the Congress believed President Bush’s assessment was correct.  The Senate voted 77 to 23 for the Iraq War Resolution and the House voted 297-133.  Among those who voted for the Resolution were Senators Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton.  
 

As if conducting two overseas wars as part of an overall global war on terror was not enough, in the late summer of 2005 the United States experienced the largest natural disaster in its history with the landfall of Hurricane Katrina.  At a total cost of nearly $90 billion, Katrina dwarfed the next most costly storm, Andrew, by over half.  It required the evacuation of the entire city of New Orleans with its population of over 1 million people.  Further, more than 1800 people died as a result of the storm, versus the 65 that died during Andrew.  Somehow President Bush received the bulk of the negative press regarding how the government responded to the crisis.    

Traditionally, the state and local government are the first responders following such natural disasters, with the federal government available as a back up. While the federal government fulfilled its normal role as backup in Mississippi and parts of Louisiana during and after Katrina, in New Orleans the scope of the disaster was so immense, with the flooding of almost the entire city, and there was also almost a complete break down in state and local government, forcing the federal government to stand in the gap as best it could on short notice. Throughout the entire region and especially in New Orleans, the U.S. Coast Guard performed the largest number of rescues in its 100 year history: over 33,000 throughout the region involving approximately 5000 Coast Guard personnel in the effort.  Meanwhile, the United State Army--the first elements of Task Force Katrina under General Russel Honore--rolled in New Orleans the Wednesday, following the breaching of the city’s levees that Monday and restored order. Task Force Katrina became 71,000 strong consisting of members from all the branches of service.  It was the largest military response to a natural disaster in the history of the country.          

Despite all the federal government had done in jumping into this unexpected role of being the primary first-responders in New Orleans and literally saving the day, Democratic leaders in Congress, then House Minority Leader Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Reid, saw political hay to be made by thrashing President Bush and the federal government’s efforts. Pelosi called President Bush, “Oblivious, in denial, dangerous”: this observation came only days after the federal government had restored order to New Orleans and helped in the evacuation of all its citizens. Not surprisingly little if any mention was made of the colossal failures of the Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana (who did not have the temerity to stand for re-election after Katrina-Republican Bobby Jindal won the job last year) and the Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans.  President Bush, as a leader actually having to deal with the situation on the ground, chose not to return fire by pointing out where the state and local governments had failed, but to work with Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin to help those affected by the storm. Nagin in turn said, “Now, I will tell you this, and I give the president some credit on this — he sent one John Wayne dude down here that can get some stuff done, and his name is Gen. Honore." 

Was President Bush really "Oblivious, in denial, dangerous" as Pelosi charged as he was deploying the largest federal response to a natural disaster in U.S. history?  Some could argue he was slow at the switch; however, the entire situation regarding the Katrina governmental response can be likened to that of how a family functions. Those closest to and primarily responsible for meeting the needs of the family are the parents: analogous to the state and local governments. If for some reason the parents become incapacitated or unavailable, the grandparents or aunts and uncles can and should step in, but depending on how quickly the need develops, the transition may not always be smooth. While all may have wished the Army could have rolled into New Orleans the day after the city flooded and spared the people suffering without water at the Super Dome (query why the Mayor directed people there without at least a day’s worth of water), the truth is the Army was not on site (but assembling in Mississippi) and took on a new mission pretty well, given such short notice. While a lot of the PR surrounding Katrina was bad for President Bush, in reality the federal government performed admirably in very difficult circumstances. 

Finally, in the closing months of his time in office, President Bush has been given one last (hopefully) major crisis in which to respond: the financial meltdown and recession of the last several months.  Approximately two million jobs were lost in 2008 with unemployment jumping from under 5 to over 7%, while the stock market experienced its largest percentage drop since the heart of the Great Depression in 1931: 34%-4000 points.   Again, there are some who would blame President Bush as the primary cause for the nation's current economic woes.  Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all said that it was the Bush Administration’s hands off approach when it came to dealing with the business community that led us to this point.  The left-leaning New York Times fleshed out this argument in a lengthy article. 

Also almost non-existent in the Times article was mention that the big push for low-income minority housing actually began in earnest under President Clinton in the late 90’s.  The same paper reported in the 1990's that the Clinton Administration was pressuring Fannie to expand mortgage loans to “people with less than stellar credit.”  Further that Administration threatened banks with stiff fines of up to $500,000 per violation for failing to meet quotas to lend to these groups.  Banks in turn dumped these risky loans on Fannie and Freddie and the makings of our current meltdown were all in place.

As was the case in Katrina, the Bush Administration was forced to respond to a crisis mostly not of its making, yet receiving the lion’s share of the blame from Democrats and many in the media.  The Administration acted vigorously to prevent the failure of major banking institutions and thus a complete collapse of the financial sector upon which all else depends.  These institutions appear to have stabilized following an unprecedented bailout running over $1 trillion.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average, a good indicator of future economic conditions, appears to have stabilized as well.  The trend in recent trading has been mostly flat or up: the free fall appears to be over and the major part of the crisis past.

Of course history will be the final judge of the Bush Presidency, but as it draws to a close, when measured against the enormity of the crises with which it had to contend, it fairs pretty well.  The achievement that ranks above all others is that the United States has not been attacked again on its own soil since 9-11.  Iraq appears on its way to being a stable democracy.  New Orleans is rebuilding and its levees survived another major hurricane passing through the area this fall.  The state and local governments played their role in helping respond effectively to the threat.  As far as the economy, President Obama will inherit a recession, as President Bush did, but economies have cycles, and if Obama follows Bush’s examples of cutting taxes and allowing the American people to do what they do best, free from the heavy hand of government, with greater fiscal constraint, all should turn out right.  The ship of state has been through a battering eight years, but with President Bush at the helm, we’ve made it through, and in far better fashion than current popular sentiment would have us believe.