Notable Quote – Lt. Col Ralph Peters (ret.)

by Skip

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (ret.)

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (ret.)

On a piece titled “Here’s how to take out North Korea’s nukes“, this caught my eye.  I believe it to be true (emphasis mine):

I fear we’ve forgotten what war means. That fear reached a peak a decade ago when American generals blithely repeated the indefensible claim that “counterinsurgency is warfare at the graduate-school level.” No. Counterinsurgency is Kindergarten (complete with political correctness nowadays). D-Day was a doctoral dissertation and the bombing campaign over Germany the preceding master’s thesis.


For all of our spectacular technologies, I’m not convinced our leaders, civilian or military, are psychologically or morally prepared for a real war. We have taught our troops to break things, but to go to absurd lengths to spare all lives. Yet in warfare there’s no substitute for killing your enemy and all those who support him. And you keep on killing until the enemy quits unconditionally or lies there dead and rotting.

So how would an effective campaign against North Korea unfold and what would it take?

– Lt. Col Ralph Peters (ret.)

We failed to do this in the First Gulf War which required a second.  We also, to return to the piece, in fighting to a stalemate in Korea – and that war, technically, has never ended.  We did do it twice in WW II – the Germans and the Japanese. We failed to do it in Viet Nam and again in Iraq.  It goes back to the old phrase “If you are going to kill the King, KILL THE KING”.  Else, why bother?

(H/T: New York Post)

Leave a Comment

  • Bruce Currie

    Re: “We failed to do this in the First Gulf War which required a second.” Nonsense. GHWBush was smart to stop and leave when he did. Our invasion of Iraq under Shrub was folly: it was a war of choice aimed at a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and that had ended its efforts to build nuclear weapons–exactly what the U.N. arms inspectors said BEFORE our invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq. The destruction of Iraq under the guise of bringing “free markets” and democracy to the region began the destabilization of the entire region. As for Korea and Vietnam, what would it have taken to “win” either war? Korea’s outcome–partition and stalemate was likely the best one possible, short of using the nuclear option. As for Vietnam, it likely would have required nukes to “win” a war that was a mistake–unnecessary, misguided, and criminal in its conduct under both Johnson and Nixon.

Previous post:

Next post: