I'll go along with the nomination, if we broaden it to include political and moral persistence.

The lack of which is our cardinal weakness.

Those of you still serving, you better have it wrapped up by next January.

Mule-headedness does not equal persistence.

Slavish, lick-spittle obeisance that owes more to partisanship than strategic vision does not equal persistence.

The surplus of which is our cardinal weakness.

Hmm, Prof Hollywood,

If you're ad hominem-ing here, see below link;

http://free-our-fobbits.blogspot.com

If you're talking about the military, you know absolutely nothing about it.

If you're talking about America...I'd say we have been having a pretty spirited debate, for about the last 300 or so years.

You may be proof of our surplus of partisanship.

No, I was actually not "ad hominem-ing" -- I was flat out accusing you of rank partisanship, since the totality of your post was that "our cardinal weakness" is the "political and moral persistence" that Democrats, presumably, lack, since it'd better be "wrapped up" by January when, as everyone but Senator McCain seems to understand, Barack Obama will become president.

You're right that I know "absolutely nothing about" the military. I only spent 20 years in it, including a year in OIF. Hardly enough time to learn much at all.

As for America, I wasn't aware that the country was 300 years old. Obviously I'll have to chuck that shelf full of history books that seem to have got it so completely wrong.

The notion, as McCain advanced in his War College thesis, that a lack of "moral persistence" in civil society produces military losses is appalling in the extreme. Civil society neither has nor doesn't have "persistence," in the strategic sense that the term is used in the essay.

Society rationally updates its preferences in response to events and, though probably less importantly, to acts by political leaders. It isn't civil society or a dastardly media that undermines victory, foolhardy proponents of the Dolschstoss meme to the contrary notwithstanding. It is incompetence in leadership that undermines victory.

And one is hard-pressed to come up with a leadership as incompetent as the Bush administration at any point in the last 300 years of America's history.

Prof Hollywood said, "And one is hard-pressed to come up with a leadership as incompetent as the Bush administration at any point in the last 300 years of America's history."

No it's not.

John Kennedy was incompetent. I was at the Naval Academy when he tried to start WWIII. Not too good with a PT Boat either.

Lyndon Baines Johnson micromanaged the peak years of the Vietnam War from the White House basement. I was an F4E WSO at DaNang during Operation Linebacker.

Gerald Ford let the democrat congress get away with the Case-Church Amendment, a direct violation of the Constitution. Abandoning the Vietnamese cost over 3 million lives - 2 million Cambodians.

Bill Clinton ran away from service during Vietnam War. As president he let terrorists take over large portions of the Middle East and responded to acts of war with cruise missiles.

The worst was Jimmy Carter, who caved on Iran and cut funding to every pro-American regime with an insurgency - Southwest Africa, Central America, Asia and the Middle East. In the face of massive Soviet military buildup, he slashed military spending and completely hollowed out our armed forces.

Obama will need to try hard to be less competent than Carter, but I'm afraid he's up to the task.

President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed Al Qaeda's leadership and presided over the longest sustained period of economic growth in this country's history. Did i mention that the US has not been hit by terrorists since 911? I'll take Bush anytime.

Prof Hollywood,

Rank partisanship? I didn't mention either party. I have been quite critical of Bush.

Lick spittle obedience?
I guess you didn't spend 5 seconds at my blog.
Not many who knew me in the service would have thought that of me. Nor anyone who goes to the last post in that blog.

Thank you for your service. Sorry if I misjudged you (the lick spittle thing threw me off).

The 300 year time frame: America as a people began before 1776. Some people might make it 400, or roughly when the Pilgrims landed. I was working roughly from the end of King Philips War (1676), plus or minus a couple of decades. I had stated America, not the United States of America, for a reason.

McCain's thesis: that's interesting. I was not aware of it, nor had I read it. Guess us lick spittle, mule-headed (don't those two contradict) slaves think alike.

We are being stabbed in the back, it just hasn't killed us yet.

Have a nice day. You may want to consider changing VA counselors. Or staying away from politics. Seems to get you overwrought.

Peace out.

"President Bush has liberated two countries"

Are you kidding me ?!

- Bush has created 2 hard-core anti-US fronts. Ask people who serve in the region to see what would happen if you walk on ANY street in these 2 countries with a star&stripes cap on.

- Buttered Iran's bread, allowing it full influence over the future of Iraq.

- Dropped the ball on Russia.

- Failed consolidation of x-Warsaw Pact and x-Soviet states under NATO or Western Friendly pacts. Endangered if not destroyed their independence efforts.

- Energized Al-Qaida recruitment AND funding.

- Activated large numbers of educated passive fence-sitters against US interest.

- Increased local pressure on the other regional US-friendly Arab kingdoms.

- Alienated key regional NATO ally Turkey

- Alienated ALL of the world public opinion completely destroying the world-wide goodwill and support for the US after 9/11.

And just wait until the tug of war with Russia results in US birds falling from the sky in Afghanistan reminiscent of the Russian invasion of the said land.

Bush Jr is one of the 2 worst US presidents of all time, all that remains for historians to argue is whether he takes gold or silver...