Once again Barack Obama waded into territory of which he has no knowledge: American history. Not only did he say during a TV interview that he doesn’t want “victory” in Afghanistan -- because victory is apparently too harsh for the losers -- but he used an example from WWII that never even happened to justify his touchy feely ideas on warfare. So will anyone in the Old Media even realize that the president’s historical example was a muff-up of real history? Will the Old Media make fun of him for his obvious lack of knowledge of our own history?
Let’s try a thought experiment, shall we? When I say “victory,” what do you think of? Do you think of winning the World Series? Do you picture that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Time Square as WWII ended? Do you just imagine “winning” at whatever contest is at hand?
It is likely that even if you don’t picture a particular thing, at the very least your initial emotional response is a warm feeling of worthy accomplishment and an assumption of gaining the accolades that accompanies victory.
It is less likely that upon hearing or seeing the word “victory” an American would immediately get a feeling of defeat and humiliation or picture the end of anything. It is even less likely that a loathing would well up inside of the minds of an American when the word is broached.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not like average, patriotic, optimistic Americans. At least we can easily assume this to be the case by what President Obama recently said of our military efforts in Afghanistan.
You see, Barack Obama said on TV this week that “victory” isn’t his “goal” in Afghanistan. Why not?
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
It is telling that when Barack Obama pictures “victory” he doesn’t see in his head that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Times Square on Victory Day. Instead, what is immediately conjured up in Obama’s mind is the bedraggled figure of a beaten Japanese Emperor groveling at the feet of U.S. military might.
Obama’s sympathy seems to be with the Emperor that governed a nation that tried to viciously take over the entire Pacific Rim and enslave many millions of Asian peoples. It is hard to escape the feeling that Obama’s first thought when the word “victory” is broached is of our enemy, his sympathies with them, not us.
But that isn’t even the worst of it. Once again we see another example of Obama’s ignorance of history, even American history. In fact, Emperor Hirohito didn’t even sign the document that finalized the surrender of Japan to General MacArthur. That duty was performed by Japan’s Foreign Minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, and one of its generals, Yoshijir Mumezu.
In fact, we didn’t destroy Japan’s Emperor, rather we allowed him to continue on in a ceremonial role to allow the Japanese to feel as if they hadn’t been entirely crushed and that some of their traditions might live on.
So, once again, Obama garbles history, disrespects his own country, and sets us up to be discounted as a viable force by foreign nations. Obama’s discounting of “victory” in Afghanistan is dangerous news for our troops. It signals a man that will not give our troops the support they need to win the war and come home with our pride and safety intact.
Now, will the Old Media realize this disastrous view of history, warfare and our national security? Or will the Old Media just move on as if nothing happened?