Still in adolescence, I found myself embarking aboard a naval vessel, sailing-off to enforce the soverienty of Bank of America over some carribean island capital. I was to be a uniformed bag man for Uncle Sam.

Embarking on his Middle East trip, our president amazed me with his adolescent ideals and enforcing his outlook in his speech.

There being a certain amount of down time for Marines aboard a ship in transit, and the prevailing thought of the day being, idle minds are the devils work shop, it had been observed that my young mind qualified as a mid-size factory in that regard.

Our current occupant in the White House seems to have a mind that is in perpetual idle with no focus on clear thought.

My unit's leadership felt something was needed to keep me constructively stimulated and I was therefore assigned to work for the ship's chief boatswain's mate of the deck.

America's chief executive seems to lack any kind of constructive stimulation and leads me to believe he has no consciousness of reality.

The chief bos'un, a salty individual, who when he spoke, one could visualize the tide moving in and out as his lips moved, began his rhetoric and had convinced me if we did it his way; it would get done; and done right..

This nation's highest office holder certainly didn't convince me with his rhetoric, nor do I suspect, did he convince those in the audience either, that it would get done - - period.

The first thing the chief told me was, everything is in the details. He further taught me a simple overhand knot did not equal a bowline, which he went on to explain was a very secure anchoring knot. He further stated how overhand knots could unravel and collapse under stress.

The president seems to use a grand strategy of simplification where concrete details are left out, which has caused great stress these past 7-1/2 years, as events have unraveled.

Is this what Mr. Kaplan is conveying? It certainly parallels my early experience, except I got everything tied-up right.

Is easier to say that he should be in a retarded home than going through such rhetoric.

This disappoints me.

Ah, come-on RANGER 82, an old soldier has to take his pack off once an awhile!

Let's you and I sit down, and I'll send my radio operator to get me a nice cold beer and a cup of hot tea for you. While we are drinking our beverages, we'll call a spade a shovel.

We both know the commander in chief has been less then a good steward of the Armed Forces, to say nothing of his poor diplomacy (read: jingoism), as a president, and left you folks, in uniform, holding the bag.

I admire loyalty, Genral Powell displayed it when he was SecState, during the run-up to our adventure into the Middle East. He knew better.

You know better also : - )

I believe that we fight our enemies. Was Europe first the right choice? Does it matter now?

Was the invasion of Iraq the right choice? Will it matter ten years from now? We have to engage (not dialogue with) Islamic fascism.

RANGER 82, I heard your class on field dressing a rabbit went well. Nothing like sharing some hare on a stick with your men!

Were I in your place today, I'd care less about who, what, or where - - - only that I was employed properly and within my designed capabilities. I did so love practicing my craft.

However, I'm not, and I, as well as the rest of your country are not at war. You are, and many of us don't feel you were employed wisely or properly.

I personally am not sure my fellow citizens can afford to watch their fortunes diminish while pouring tax money into a money pit, with no end in sight.

I am seeing some better generalship in Iraq as of late, and I am also seeing some better results from the Iraqi army. Although I remain, less then optimistic, I do see some progress.

Most of us are civilians, or in my case, in mufti, we look at things differantly.

Also, your question: was Europe first the right choice, interested me. One could make the case if you were wading ashore on Betio Atoll - - - Tarawa, you might think not : - o

If you talk to the vast majority of us that are the point of the spear, you ewill find a posirtive attitude about the entire process. A soldier/marine wants to defend the nation, not march in inaugural dress parades. Resolve is measured in numerous ways. Dialogue is not one of them.

Thats why Marines get things done while other "talk". I thank God for the dedication and resolve to defend our country, and to maintain a realization and positive attitude that this is the best place on Earth.

Iraq has never ever had anything to do with defending our nation.

And I'm sure you knew this already, but it bears repeating; war is a continuation of politics. It must support well-formulated policy or it is meaningless, no matter how many tactical victories you win. Your strategy (assuming you actually have one) will still fail. Without a strong diplomatic and economic presence, there is no amount of military might that will ever do you any good; nor will it survive long in any event. You seem to think that talking equates to defeat. You could not be more wrong. Remember that Rome conquered and held its territory with language, aqueducts and roads as much as it did with its legions. There would never have been a Roman Empire if they’d followed your logic. Rome would have been a marauding collection of scattered tribes, quickly swallowed by history and forgotten. But Rome knew better, and so did we not very long ago.

Diplomatic and economic strategies are entirely missing from our foreign policy and that is a very bad thing. They aren't the antithesis of military strength, they are its source and compliment. They make your military infinitely more effective. All parts of a nation must operate together the same way your brain, heart and lungs have to all be working all the time if you’re going to be an effective human being. We’ve learned this lesson in the past very painfully. Apparently we need a refresher. I suspect we'll get one. The laws we're ignoring are as old as civilization and are not known for showing mercy.

Hello quillsinister. The Roman empire was certainly built by the sword. But, as you say, what held the empire together was its infrastructure such as roads, bridges, etc.

However, we must not be too easy on Rome, afterall quill, they were a nation first and last of soldiers!

A passage which has stayed with me, from when I was first introduced to the Seven Military Classics from China, is from the T'ai Kung. In part he says, "What is too strong will certainly break; what is too extended must have deficiencies."

And deficiences Rome had - - - break Rome did.

Will the United States break? Probably only in breaking the bank, which "may" cause us to pull back to our shores again. The Saudis certainly feel this way. They, and others, see a declining influence by America in the region, which is one reason they snubbed our president recently.

My premise is: America knows how to project force and has the capability to project it world wide.

Our problem seems to be: knowing when to project that force, and when to use our diplomatic tools.

Just an anecdotle comment: I thought it was illegal to send 17 year olds off to war? What was a 17 year old doing helling about the streets of Santo Domingo : - >

And the facts that support your oinion are what? DNC talking points do not count. When was the last terrorist attack on the USA? That is just coincidence? I see.

RANGER 82. Did you know the word patrol is derived from the French word patrouiller? Meaning to paddle in, or stomp in the mud.

Sometimes I think your responses are a little muddy. A case in point: if we would have had direct dialogue with Iran (it goes on now with surrogates). This would have been a counter weight to Saudi Arabia marginalizing us. They've always worried about Iran's influence throughout the Gulf (Arab Gulf or Persian Gulf?).

Thus, when our lame duck president had gone to King Abdulla, he'd would have had more in his hand then just his hat.

He would have been in a postion of strength to barter - - - - it's called diplomacy : - o

I wasn't saying that they were perfect, or that we needed to embrace everything they did. But Rome was a nation of both soldiers and statesmen. They didn’t think the two arts mutually exclusive at all (I'm sure they learned it from the Greeks). Remember what Virgil said about the Romans' forte? The Greeks might make statues that breathe but the skill of the Roman was, first and foremost, to govern; to bring order and law to savage regions. And their influence is still felt long after their swords have turned to rust precisely because they were so good at it. Everything dies in the end, but Rome had incredible longevity as civilizations go. This is not due entirely to their legions. They’re a textbook case of spreading influence by all available means. One trick of theirs that I particularly admire was to build temples dedicated to the gods of the nations they conquered within the city of Rome, to help establish their new tributaries as full members of the Empire and significantly lower the possibility of rebellion at the same time. There was a time that Isis had more worshippers in Rome than she did in Egypt. That is strategic brilliance, on a vast scale and across two millennia (three if you count Byzantium). One of these days, we may learn to think in those oblique terms. But not now. Our star is fading after less than three centuries. We can still turn it around, but not the way we’re going. Geography protects us very well, so once we pull back (as you predict) we probably don’t need to fear any modern Visigoths following us home.

You nailed it towards the end. We don’t know when to use which tool. “He will triumph who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” Of course you know that, and probably recognize the quote. I might draw a parallel to fencing. One of the things you notice about novice fencers is that they expend a great deal of unnecessary energy hopping about attacking wildly, and usually missing the target. An experienced fencer is calm, deliberate and conserves his energy until he’s crafted the ideal position for his attack. Then, with a seemingly effortless movement he strikes, and usually hits. One of my current fencing partners on the little island paradise that I currently call home is more than twice my age, and he defeats me about eight out of ten times simply by illustrating the principle of knowing when to fight and when not to fight. When he’s not using the sword directly, he employs deception, psychology and maneuver to position me to be skewered. I’m learning more from him than I ever did from my coach in college back when I was callow and spry. And these lessons apply, usually without a great deal of adaptation, to politics. (Of course, I think everything applies to politics, so no surprise there.) :-)

I’m not sure what seventeen year old you’re referring to. Another consequence of my current assignment is that I’m largely out of touch with the rest of the world. It is a cross I bear. ;-)

Ah. I was going to reply to this next, but your response is much better than what I was going to say. Merci, Efharisto, Arigato. :-)

A thoughtful reply back. Thank Jupiter, you didn't sign-in as Horus, quillsinister!

Sometimes I'm looking for something, I appreciate you pickin-up on it.

Incidentally, the initial post by me, that this thread derives from, centers around an adolecent, embarked aboard ship, circa. 1965. Work with me quill - - - who might that have been : - }