Yielding the High Ground is for Losers

In war attacking an enemy who is occupying the high ground is a daunting exercise.  Because all other things being equal, attacking the enemy is literally an uphill battle.  Gravity is your opponent’s friend and your foe.  Line of sight works for him and against you.  Almost every possible advantage is given to the force occupying the higher ground.

Now, the only thing worse than starting out at the bottom of the hill is starting out on the higher ground and then giving it up to the enemy for no reason.  That is the sign of a blithering idiot.  Case in point is the Battle of Gettysburg.  The Confederate forces routed the Union on the first day of battle but through the incompetence of one of the generals did not then occupy the high points and deny the Union the strategic advantage that eventually won them the battle, and consequently thereafter, the war.

One of the hallmarks of both Bush presidencies was the way these men allowed the press to pummel them at every turn.  And among the most memorable occasions for this mayhem were the Presidential Debates.  On these occasions, especially for Dubyah, a unanimous chorus of Leftist Journalists would lopsidedly pound the snot out of the poor old doofus at every turn, while his Democrat opponents would be treated to love taps when their turn came to answer questions.  In fact, most of the time, the questions given to Gore or Kerry consisted of Democrat talking points to use as segues into a new attack on poor old George.  And of course the Bushes were just the worst case of this syndrome.  McCain and Romney were both treated to a similar roasting when their turns came up for the debate demolition derby.

Knowing that the press is almost 100% leftist it is no surprise that the Commission on Presidential Debates is irremediably hostile to Republican candidates and if a Republican is running for a first term, unless he is in a very strong position vis-a-vis the Democrat incumbent, he probably has no choice but to submit himself to the uphill battle that the debate commission will engineer.  But if you are an incumbent President with a good record or even a fair record why would you give up the high ground and allow your enemies to sit back in comfort and pour artillery fire down on you while you have to slog up the hill through it?

That is why it’s especially satisfying to read that President Trump is not satisfied with walking into the typical ambush.  Several times now he has stated that if the panel and the rules don’t seem unbiased he’ll forego the whole thing.  And he can do it.  After all that is the advantage of the incumbency, your opponent needs to show that he is better than you.  If the incumbent has a good track record then it’s an uphill battle for him to attack you.  He wants the debate to provide the chance for a lucky knockout punch.  To extend the boxing metaphor, if you are going to fight him at least do it in your ring and with at least a neutral referee, not one of his henchmen who’ll allow your opponent to put some lead in his glove.

When considering who I would want as a debate moderator the first name that came to mind was Tucker Carlson.  Carlson would inject a right-wing perspective to a presidential debate that as far as I can remember has never been tried before.  Watching Bernie or Crazy Uncle Joe trying to answer any really hard questions about their nonsensical positions or actions would be a true revelation for the American voting audience.  Watching them try to answer honestly how the Green New Deal would impact the cost of heating a home and owning an automobile would be hilarious.  And can you imagine Joe Biden explaining how his half-wit son made millions of dollars as an energy company director when he can barely keep himself out of a crack cocaine halfway house from month to month.  That would be amazing to watch.

But we don’t have to restrict the idea to just Tucker.  Brit Hume, Sharyl Attkisson, Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh would all bring various skills and viewpoints that would balance out the typical leftist positions represented by someone like Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, Anderson Cooper or Chris Wallace.

So, here’s hoping that President Trump cuts a really good deal and holds the high ground or just foregoes the whole biased process and let’s the American people judge him and his opponent on the merits of what each has accomplished.  That would be another way to make his opponent fight an uphill battle.

First al Baghdadi, Now Soleimani

President Trump seems to understand effective use of military assets.  Apparently, he is leveraging intelligence capabilities, possibly Israeli, to surgically remove key actors that pose the greatest threat to our interests in the Middle East.  Qasem Soleimani was known to be the operational brains behind the Iranian proxy strategy that allowed them to sow chaos and control large swaths of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq without the necessity of sending significant numbers of Iranian fighters into those areas.

Knowing precisely where and when to send a drone weapon requires real time eyes on the target.  I would be surprised if it was an American agent that provided this intel.  Maybe it was an Iranian or an Iraqi but it is surprising to think we have that network in place there.

Regardless of the source of the intel.  President Trump has demonstrated that, militarily, he is very careful about engaging in military operations but he isn’t averse to using them when the reward is extremely valuable.  Killing fifty or even several hundred street fighters in Baghdad or Syria is relatively counterproductive.  The reduction in the number of hostile gunmen is negligible and the ill will it produces significant.  But killing Soleimani represents a force multiplier of several orders of magnitude above killing even a few hundred gunmen.  His strategic and tactical value is hard to overemphasize.  Soleimani’s network of personal connections and his power within the Iranian regime will not be quickly replaced.  While some other agent will be placed in his spot it is not likely that the same level of effectiveness will be realized soon or even over the long haul.  Good generals are relatively rare and ones who can work cooperatively with far-flung and dissimilar groups even less common.  Good.

This willingness to use military capability is surprising to me.  There are so many possibilities for disaster that I am surprised that President Trump has ventured to perform these missions.  But maybe I underestimate just how critical was the need to eliminate Soleimani.  We still have untold thousands of servicemen in the Mid-East.  It’s possible that the Iranians have been ramping up the violence of their proxies in order to embarrass President Trump who has proven to be much tougher on them than the groveling Obama.  Or maybe I have underestimated President Trump’s military abilities.  I won’t anymore.

It is painful to think that if someone like President Trump had been in the White House after 9/11 that the United States might have achieved all the strategic aims called for by that tragedy without the disastrous cost in American lives and the other unanticipated consequences of George W. Bush’s inept wartime command.  Handled differently, all the weapons programs of Iraq and Iran might have been confiscated and all the middle eastern immigrants that now clog Europe and America might still be where the belonged at home.  And all of this could have been achieved without any significant cost in military lives.  Well, that’s in the past now.

There is a certain amount of doubt about the fallout from an action such as this.  It may be that the Iranians will do something large and disturbing.  There is always that outside possibility.  But based on the shaky domestic situation in Iran itself, with the population openly hostile to the regime, I don’t think there will be much downside.  In fact, maybe this will give the Iranians pause and bring them to the negotiating table.  Time will tell.  My guess is that this elimination will end up improving the overall middle eastern condition both for us and our allies.  Good work, President Trump.

What a Difference Two Years Makes

No objective observer could possibly say that the world has become less chaotic.  The news is steeped in a constant bath of leftist rage and character assassination directed at President Trump and everyone in his administration.  Every day we hear that the House of Representatives is howling for Speaker Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings.  CNN, despite their abysmal viewership ratings, continues on with the imbecilic droning of accusations against the President and calls for a do-over on the Mueller investigation.  The myriad of Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential primary have been howling and gibbering against the President like some collection of minor squid dragons, mushroom lobsters and frogmen out of a second-rate H. P. Lovecraft story.  The headlines from the New York Times and Washington Post scream about obstruction of injustice and trumpet the low approval ratings of the President.

But if you carefully compare the underlying situation now and back in 2017 a clear distinction appears.

In 2017 Jeff Sessions was the Attorney General and based on fake evidence he allowed the corrupt Justice Department to appoint Robert Mueller as Witch-Hunter in Chief and unleashed a two-year drum beat of prosecutions and false rumors of collusion.

In 2019 William Barr is Attorney General and he doesn’t give a damn about fake evidence.  In fact, he’s investigating the fake evidence and appears determined to prosecute those that used the fake evidence.  Now the rumors are the ones filling the nightmares of Comey, Brennan and Clapper as they squirm to blame each other for their crimes.

In 2017 the economy had a growth rate of about 1% and the unemployment rate was in double digits.  Manufacturing jobs were as rare as unicorns and government managing the middle-class decline was the consensus opinion of the Cloud People.

In 2019 the economy is roaring along at around 3% growth rate and unemployment is only for those who just plain don’t want to work.  President Trump has used tariffs and the threat of tariffs to level the playing field for American business and workers.  Manufacturing has rebounded and there is the hope of even greater concessions from China.

In 2017 even the Republicans in Congress refused to even consider immigration reform and the Wall was an abomination that Speaker Ryan wouldn’t even discuss.

In 2019 President Trump has used executive orders and an emergency declaration on the southern border to allocate funds to start building the Wall.  And now the President has finally declared that he will begin the deportations of the millions of illegal aliens already in the country.

In 2017 Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham cravenly refused to back the President’s agenda out of calculation that he wouldn’t last out the year under the Mueller investigation.

In 2019 McConnell and Graham are charter members of the Trump fan club.  Now granted, McConnell will still quail if he thinks something will anger his corporate paymasters but he has certainly done the right thing for the Supreme Court and other judicial appointments.  And the President’s popularity is the reason.  These curs follow the alpha wolf.

In 2017 Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg at the Weekly Standard and the National Review respectively were Republican opinion leaders.  These NeverTrumpers spent gallons of digital ink mocking the President and predicting his failure and eventual demise.

In 2019 the Weekly Standard is gone and Jonah Goldberg is leaving the National Review to continue his anti-Trump career at some new start-up that has found Left Wing funding.  And the NeverTrumpers have reached such heights of lunacy that they are now indistinguishable from Leftists (e.g., Max Boot).  And most of the NeverTrumpers have returned to the fold and now sing President Trump’s praises as if they were always with him.

In 2017 the newspapers, television stations and the leading internet pundits attacked President Trump with accusations of collusion and predicted impeachment was around the corner.  And the public believed them.

In 2019 it isn’t even necessary any longer for the President to say “fake news.”  We say it for him and more importantly, even the Left knows it’s true.  They know that the collusion was on their side of the fence and William Barr is coming for them.  If the pollsters tell us that President Trump is losing to Creepy Uncle Joe Biden or Granny Warren, we can just look at Biden giving a rally in front of a crowd of less than a hundred bored ringers while the President hosts a gathering of over a hundred thousand cheering fans.  Do we have to even bother saying the poll is fake?

So, to sum it up, the only thing that hasn’t changed is the Left’s tactic.  Attack, attack, attack.  But the result has changed.  We don’t believe them anymore, we’re not afraid of them and President Trump’s accomplishments now speak for themselves.

When President Trump wins the 2020 election in a landslide, I think we’ll finally see even the likes of CNN throw in the towel and try something new.  Maybe even the truth?  Doubtful, but miracles can happen.

 

After you’ve read enough sexbot articles on Drudge maybe switch to something interesting