My Interview With Colonel Ralph Peters

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters.

I have not met Colonel Peters in real life. The interview was conducted by email. What I can say is that beneath the occasionally tough persona Colonel Peters displays on television and in print, he is a deliberate and thoughtful man that possesses genuine warmth.

In addition to having a distinguished military career, the Fox News military analyst and New York Post columnist is also the author of plenty of books.

On military matters, Colonel Peters holds a place in the recently created Wall Street Journal/Charles Krauthammer Index of Intellectual Titans.

With that, I present the brilliance of Ralph Peters.

1) What is the Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters story?

I’m a coal-miner’s son.  My family had dramatic ups and downs.  I was a wild kid. I joined the Army as an enlisted man in 1976.  The Army straightened me out. I became an officer through OCS. I picked up a couple of degrees along the way and started writing essays and novels while still on active duty.  After serving as a Military Intelligence officer in conventional units, I became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in the dying Soviet Union and the “new” Russia.  I Got tapped as the Army’s global scout and found myself in dozens of different countries, from Bolivia to Burma.  My job wasn’t to pull triggers, but to observe other countries in crisis and report back.  It was a fascinating chance to see just how ugly humanity can get, from refugee camps to roadblocks manned by drunken thugs.

I loved the Army and serving our country, but I chose to retire in 1998, shortly after promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel, since I was outraged by the Clinton administration’s passivity in the face of various threats–not least, terrorism–and wanted to write freely (Serving officers cannot and should not criticize our president, no matter who he or she may be).  On September 11, 2001, I regretted having retired–but we make our choices in life and must live with them.  So I do my best to support our troops and our country by writing my columns and books, and by speaking out.

Oddly, I never thought I’d have anything to do with journalism, beyond a few military articles.  Yet the phone started ringing as soon as I retired.  I think what appeals to editors and readers is that I always turn in clean, clear “copy,” I don’t waffle, and I tell the truth as best I can determine it, no matter the consequences.  This doesn’t mean I’m always right–only God is perfect–but I tell folks that, well, if I’m wrong, at least I’m honestly wrong.  I pay the bills with my pen and don’t take any political or industry back-door funding.

I am happily married, love hiking and Shakespeare (all the Elizabethans and Jacobeans), and the thing that would most surprise people who know me only through my “warpath” public persona is that I’m actually a very happy person who delights in every God-given day.  Despite all of our troubles these days, it’s a wonderful thing to be an American citizen in 2009 (or any year).

2) What can ordinary citizens do, besides donating money and buying your books, to help win the War on Terror? What obligations do we have, and how can we help?

Buying my books won’t help win the War On Terror (my publisher’s grateful, though).  Anyway, it’s fine with me if people get the books from the library–I’d just like them to read them.  I’m especially anxious for folks to read the new novel I have coming out on September 15, THE WAR AFTER ARMAGEDDON.  It’s set after–yes, after–the nuclear destruction of Israel, when a battered US military has to return to the Middle East.  It’s a fast-paced story, thrilling to read, and I chose fiction to drive home the risks Israel faces simply because more people read fiction–and, if you tell an exciting story, you reach them on an emotional level.  Although I’m not Jewish myself (I’d be proud of it, if I were), I feel a deep bond with Israel and am horrified by the Obama administration’s conviction that, somehow, Arab terrorists and Israeli Kindergarten kids are equally guilty for the region’s problems.  Anyway, I do want to scare people–because the reality is terrifying.

What can we all do to help defeat terrorism?  I’ll resort to platitudes, because the platitudes are true:  Support our troops.  Vote.  Fight political correctness.  Tell the truth.  Be a good citizen.  Don’t let the establishment media tyrannize you.  And don’t vote party lines–for either party.  Hold politicians individually responsible.  Love your neighbor, smite the wicked, salute the flag.

3) Many people say they support the troops, but what can and should Americans do to make that more than a slogan? What are the very best ways ordinary citizens can help our soldiers?

One of the best ways to support our troops is just to think for yourself and not let the establishment media sell you a bill of goods.  Freedom of thought and expression is elementary.  The extreme left loves the First Amendment–as long as it only applies to them.  When you believe the media are lying, talk back, write back, fight back.

On a practical level, there are some very good charities that help our gravely wounded soldiers and their families.  I won’t favor any one of them here, but just say “Check before you donate,” of course, because there are always vicious characters who’d steal from anyone.  But some of these soldiers have multiple limb losses, devastating burns, memory loss, blindness…they gave all they could to us.  Let’s help them in their recovery and transition back into our society.  By the way, one of the things I’m proudest of as a journalist is that, with the New York Post team, I was able to raise over a million dollars for a re-integration facility for our veterans in San Antonio.  Oh, and one other thing: When you’re traveling or just out and about…if you see a soldier, walk up and say, “Thank you!”  They appreciate it.

4) With regards to Iraq, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 6 years, and what steps need to be taken to improve the situations that require improvement?

What did we do right?  We deposed Saddam Hussein, a monstrous dictator responsible for over a million-and-a-half deaths, and we gave one vital Arab state a chance to become a rule-of-law democracy.  What did we get wrong?  Trying to do the occupation on the cheap.  In warfare–the most complex of human endeavors–some few things are straightforward.  One clear thing is this ironclad rule:  “He who is unwilling to pay the butcher’s bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end.”  Iraq wasn’t inherently hard.  We made it hard by trying to do it on the cheap and violating fundamental principles.  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, especially, was a disaster.  But, despite the tragic errors, it’s to President Bush’s credit that he didn’t quit.  Today, Iraq looks like it has a chance to succeed–imperfectly, but wonderfully by the standards of the Arab world.  It won’t be Iowa, but it still may be a democratic beacon for its neighbors–and we’ve already seen the Iranians next door out in the streets, crying out for honest democracy.  I believe it was Bush’s tenacity, not Obama’s disgraceful apologia in Cairo, that made the difference.

5) With regards to Afghanistan, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years, and what steps need to be taken to improve the situations that require improvement?

What did we do right?  We promptly struck back, stunning al Qaeda and punishing the Taliban for hosting the terrorists.  What did we get wrong?  We stayed.  Afghanistan wasn’t the problem.  Al Qaeda was.  Afghanistan is a black hole.  Trying to turn Afghan elders into good Americans is a hopeless cause.  We should never tie our troops to “real estate” and feckless nation-building efforts.  We need to concentrate on killing terrorists, not teaching hygiene to Afghan hillbillies.  Let me be perfectly clear: In and of itself, Afghanistan is worthless.  And nobody in Washington can give a convincing rationale for our continued presence.  We don’t have a strategy, just sound bites.  And no American soldier should die for a sound bite.

6) With regards to any other foreign policy hot spots, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years, and what steps need to be taken to improve the situations that require improvement?

We promoted democracy, which was wonderful.  Then we backed away from promoting democracy, which was tragic.  Our foreign-policy principles should be based upon our values and security needs, and they should not bounce back and forth between administrations.  Our face to the world should wear a constant expression of vigilant good intentions.  One terrible mistake, though, that Bush and Obama both share, is the belief that strategic progress is all about personal relationships.  It’s not.  It’s about interests.  It doesn’t help to make nice with Putin or Chavez.  We need sober policies based upon our strategic interests–not on weekend getaways or bear-hugs with dictators.

7) How does the Obama Doctrine differ most consequentially from the Bush Doctrine? What aspects of the Obama Doctrine are an improvement, and what aspects are a regression?

As near as I can tell, the Obama Doctrine is simply “America’s guilty.”  Bush’s corresponding doctrine was “America’s a force for good in the world.”  Take your pick.

8.) Our country is incredibly polarized. Outside of another 9/11, is it even possible to unite Americans? What can be done to help reduce the acrimony among Americans today?

I believe that most Americans are still in the middle.  But middle-of-the-road views don’t make for exciting television or radio shows, or for dramatic headlines.  Extremists–hardcore extremists–on either end of the political spectrum are bad for our democracy.  Unfortunately, the blogosphere does a great deal to empower irresponsible extremists, the really good haters.  Speaking of the blogosphere, my rule is simple: I don’t trust or take seriously anyone who lacks the guts to sign his or her own name.  Now, I’m not talking about people having legitimate fun–I’m talking about the obscenity-laced rants.  “Anonymous” is a synonym for “coward.”

9) Who are your three favorite political leaders of all time, American or worldwide?

Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Oliver Cromwell.

10) Who are your three favorite military leaders of all time, American or worldwide?

Joshua, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

11) What America refers to as 9/11, Israel refers to as every day life. What did America get right and wrong in its relationship with Israel during the George W. Bush administration? What about so far in the Obama administration?

What do Israel and Mexico have in common?  They’re both vital to US security; they were both high on the Bush administration’s agenda on inauguration day; and they were both victims of 9/11.  Despite some fussing about, the Bush administration simply had other priorities than Israel–which wasn’t all bad, since Bush didn’t force any genuinely stupid polices on Israel.  As for the Obama administration, well, I believe our president’s world-view is much farther left than he consciously realizes.  You can’t spend twenty years listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright spew anti-Jewish hatred, or hanging around left-wing activists, and not absorb some of their bigotry by osmosis.  Sad to say, I fear that Obama came to office with a huge anti-Israel chip on his shoulder, along with a lot of phony Third-World free-the-poor-Palestinians b.s.  Well, as I point out to folks, the other Arabs never really cared about the Palestinians, except as a cause, and the Palestinians could have much greater freedom, mobility and prosperity if they stopped murdering Israeli children.  Obama just doesn’t get the fundamental difference between Israel and its enemies: Israel is willing to live in peace, while Israel’s enemies want every Jew dead.  I hope Obama will figure things out, but I worry about him doing great damage to Israel.

12) Can the issue of Iran be resolved through diplomacy, or are we at the point where military strikes are necessary? If strikes are needed, should they come from Israel or America?

No.  Almost.  America.

13) Do you support coercive interrogation techniques? If so, is there a specific example where they have been proven to work?

Generally speaking, violent coercion in interrogations isn’t productive.  But there are always exceptions.  The master interrogators I’ve known much prefer a methodical, non-violent approach that plays to the captive’s ego.  But sometimes you don’t have months.  And–while I do NOT condone torture as normative behavior, if it could keep Americans alive, I’m not sure I’d stop at any means.  I’m ultimately more concerned about the human rights of the innocent than I am about the rights of terrorists (the left takes the opposite view).

14) Should Guantanamo Bay stay open? If not, what should we do with the detainees?

Yes.  Period.

15) Without delving into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about Ralph Peters the person? 100 years from now, what would you want people to remember about you, and what would you hope the history books say about you?

I would just like them to know that I have never knowingly written or said a false word when speaking to the American people.  As I said at the outset, I may be wrong, but, if so, I’m honestly wrong.  I believe that integrity is a fundamental value–and that, if a person has the privilege to speak to his or her fellow Americans through the media, he or she has the obligation to be honest.  No excuses.  As for how I’d like people to remember me 100 years from now, my vanity isn’t that great.  I want to continue to live a good life; thereafter, it’s in God’s hands.  Rather than remembering me, I want future generations to remember that, despite a national crisis of convictions in the early 21st century, Americans came through, made the right decisions, and continued to lead the world toward freedom and human dignity.

I would like to thank Colonel Peters for his time, and more importantly, for his service. He is too humble to say it, so I will say it for him. He is a great man.

I wish Colonel Peters well always, and eagerly await his next analytical report.

The only thing left to say is what all Americans and freedom loving people world wide should say to him.

Thank you Colonel Peters. Thank you, and welcome home.


17 Responses to “My Interview With Colonel Ralph Peters”

  1. Micky 2 says:

    Peters was getting alot of flak for his comments regarding the Taliban capturing Bergdahl. Its amazing how everyone on the left managed to forget completely that his suspicions of foul play on Bergdahls part were always preceeded by and followed by “If and only if ” about ten times.
    He odes have the means and connections to speak with more validation on the subject than most of the moonbats who tore him so fast using high school cherry picking methods.
    I’ve enjoyed listening to Peters for quite sometime. Like Krauthamer, hes almost always spot on with his predictions and analysis

  2. sharisays says:

    Peters deserves a lot of flak for his comments regarding the Taliban and PFC Bowe Bergdahl. His initial statement did not contain “If-then” about ten times. He cautioned against rushing to judgement, and then rushed to judgement.

    The Military does NOT consider PFC Berdahl a deserter. Peters, in his totally unofficial capacity, gave permission for our enemies to execute an American soldier.

    Until Peters apologizes for this, I give him no respect. And I pray for PFC Bergdahl daily.

  3. Micky 2 says:


    He did not “rush to judgement” he repeated what his sources told him
    He first said “we must wai til all the facts are in” and then went on to repeat what he’d heard from his sources which I trust are far greater and more reliable than yours.
    His sources from the base were quoted as saying’
    ‘Abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post and walked off”
    “He abandoned protocol and procedure, he lied about his capture, all infantry men in his job description say that what Bergdahl claims happened, couldnt of happened, doesnt match up with procedure,he would only be considered a deserter “IF” the reports are true.
    I haveny seen the complete video of Bergdahl, have you ? Peters has.

    “IF” was used four times, excuse my exuberance, but Peters still made the exception whereas you without half as many facts will make non at all.

    Whos being contemptuous now ?

  4. sharisays says:

    Yes, I have viewed the video of PFC Bergdahl. I have viewed the video of Peters’ appearance on Fox on July 19, as well as the video of his subsequent appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show.

    My assertion is that IF a soldier left his base unit without permission, WITHOUT the intent of joining with enemy forces, and was subsequently captured by the enemy, it would be encumbent on the military to extract that soldier as safely as possible. And that IF a soldier departed from his unit without permission, and WITH the intent of of joining with the enemy forces, and succeeded in doing so, it would also be encumbent on the military to recover him. It might very well be that the soldier would face military legal action once he was recovered. He is still entitled to that due process, and not summary execution by his captors who are our enemies.

    I do not believe that the best interest of anyone would be served by actions taken by our enemies in order to “save us the legal hassles and the legal bills.”

    Soldiers do take an oath to uphold our Constitution, do they not?

  5. Soldiers also have to take orders and not go AWOL, Sharisays. If this young man did that, then he’s got no one to blame but himself. Afghanistan is a very, very dangerous place. If you walk out on the train tracks, don’t be surprised if you get hit by a train.

    I give Peters a lot of credit for speaking his mind and his maverick personality. However, sometimes he says things that are a little frightening. It’s a little distrubing to think that a man who thinks the way he does was able to rise through the military ranks. There’s more than just a hint of General Jack D. Ripper going on there.

    On the other hand, his honesty is refreshing. Like Pat Buchanan, I may not agree with him about much, but I do appreciate his candor. What he said about Donald Rumsfeld was right in the mark, and his gut feeling about Afghanistan may well be true. On the other other hand, though, he sometimes blatantly contradicts himself. One minute nation-building is a great cause, the next it’s a terrible idea. One minute we must “support the troops,” a phrase that is code-speak for “support the mission,” then he bad-mouths one of their missions. It’s hard to pin this guy down.


  6. Micky 2 says:

    Sharisays, I doubt you’ve seen the portion of the video the video mentioned in the FOX clip that so far no one in the public has been allowed to view because as FOX states, I’ll paraphrase; ‘they dont want to do the Talibans prpagandizing for them’. Also, theres portions not released because authorities are worried over what might get back to his captors that could influence the military’s search and recovery.

    Second of all, if this soldier is complying with the enemy, as Peters suspected only by what hes heard so far, then it really doesnt matter to me how he sees his demise. On the field, he would be shot on sight once hes found to be the enemy and working in compliant means to harm other troops.
    My opinion comes from listening to Peters who has almost always been right on in his analysis and predictions, has never faultered in his view of what we are dealing with. He sees the enemy and many things for what they are from a sense of reality based on experience and simply being much more informed than the average person. He knows the procedures called for in the events leading up to the capture and during. If he thinks something fishy is going on I’m going to take it a lot more seriously than a bunch of those who want simply to use feigned/faux patriotism and respect for the troops as a means to attack the right.

    “Soldiers do take an oath to uphold our Constitution, do they not?”

    And so if they fail are they allowed to be supported by the one thing they pi$$ed on ? Should they be allowed the sanctuary of that constitution if it means nothing to them ?
    Just as with our prisoners in Gitmo. Why are we protecting them with the one thing they want to destroy ? If the constitution is so evil then let then suffer the wrath of its absence.

    But, I withold final judgement on anyone here, Peters or the trooper.
    Unlike you who is willing to convict Peters based only on your political agenda.

    ” Peters, in his totally unofficial capacity, gave permission for our enemies to execute an American soldier. ”

    If his capacity is unofficial then dont worry about it, it wont be that influential. I doubt the Taliban will perform their negotiations based on anything he has to say as opposed to Bergdahls superiors.

    “He cautioned against rushing to judgement, and then rushed to judgement. ”

    I’ll elaborate and reiterate from above
    No, he did not rush to judge anything, he simply stated what his beliefs were based on what hes heard.
    Whereas with you, before knowing in detail half as much as Peters is privy to, have rushed to judgement.
    One minute we must “support the troops,” a phrase that is code-speak for “support the mission,” then he bad-mouths one of their missions. It’s hard to pin this guy down.”

    Theres a difference between the mission as a whole and one seperate operation. And yes, If you support the troops you cant effectively do that unless you support what it is they are risking their life to accomplish.
    I dont want a long back and forth over who supports the troops the best. You have to support their success in what they hope to achieve to truly support them, nit just hope they dont get kiled doing something you dont believe in.
    Thats like me who is pro life supporting an abortionist because hes in uniform

  7. Well, Micky, I personally disagree, but LT COL Peters seems to be having it both ways. Afghanistan is certainly not by any military sense “one seperate operation.” It is an entire front. A war. In fact, this entire insipid “War on Terror” eminated from Afghanistan. So, I think the colonel’s being a little contradictory here. But then I tend to agree with him in that Afghanistan may very well be an impossible cause – a “nation” in name only that will never be a modern, functional, liberal state any time in the foreseeable, even distant, future, no matter what we or anyone else does. Sometimes life is just like that.

    And another thing, if “support the troops” really is “support the mission,” then why don’t you guys just say “support the mission,” or “support the troops and the mission?” Why is it always just “support the troops?” Seems a little disingenuous to me. I “support the troops,” in that I wish them the best and pay my taxes, but I don’t always like what they’re ordered to do. Remember, we have a civilian controlled military. The military doesn’t decide what misssions they’re set on. They are not an autonomous entity. So, when you say that “support the troops” is the same thing as “support the mission,” then you are also saying “support the civilian government’s decisions with respect to the use of military force.” Given that reasoning, if Obama and the congress decided to declare war on Israel, you would have to support that decision. And that’s just stupid.

    Look, I “support the police,” for the same reasons as I “support the troops,” but I don’t like the war on drugs. I “support tax collectors,” again for the same reasons, but I’m not a huge fan of many tax codes. Again, neither the police nor tax collectors decide what constitutes a potential crime to be investigated or what tax is to be collected, they are simply following orders. Our representative government makes those decisions, and the police, the tax collectors, the soldiers simply carry them out. You can support them, as human beings, as government functionaries who’s salaries are paid with our taxes, without supporting the decisions made by elected officials with regards to these functions.

    I find your logic utterly flawed.


  8. Micky 2 says:

    “Well, Micky, I personally disagree, but LT COL Peters seems to be having it both ways. Afghanistan is certainly not by any military sense “one seperate operation.” It is an entire front.”

    You se, this is why I discount our conversations and treat you the way I do.

    “One minute we must “support the troops,” a phrase that is code-speak for “support the mission,” then he bad-mouths one of their missions. It’s hard to pin this guy down.”

    Any fool knows that Peters supports the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror. His reference if its ever deragotory on a mission is to the individual seperate operation taking place within the war.
    Hes not opposed to the “BIG MISSION” but hes perfectly in his right to object to certain exercises or operations in that war that are considered “LITTLE MISSIONS”
    Peters has never argued that we shouldnt do what were doing. We must try. Hes only questioned its lengthyness.

    Stop the games, the pedantic little plays on grammar that you think bolster your argument and I’ll start engaging you more often.

    “Why is it always just “support the troops?” ”

    No, because I support what they’re doing also.
    You guys dont support the effort in Iraq like they do.
    Its like telling your kid ” You’re supposed to be a linebacker, not a gymnist. But I support your efforts at being a gymnist even though I think its stupid”
    That is whats called “disengenuous”
    You have to support the whole reason they put their life on the line. Anything less just makes you full of sh*t.

    “but I don’t always like what they’re ordered to do. ”

    They volunteered to do it. 2 ans 3 times knowing damn well what they were getting in to, big mission, little battle whithin the mission, it doesnt matter. Do you not support what they are willing to risk their life for ? If they succeed do them and other peopole not get longer lives ?

    “Look, I “support the police,” for the same reasons as I “support the troops,” but I don’t like the war on drugs. ”

    Thats bullsh*t.
    The cops have a wide spectrum of goals, drugs being only one of them, and do not fight a foreign enemy, the troops have one main objective and goal.
    You object to their presence alone in Iraq and not just one single faction of it.

    Nice try. man, that was weak.

    Bla bla bla, you’re logic dictates you hide the self contradictions at any cost.
    What of your kid up and decided to volunteer to go to Iraq last year ?
    What would you tell him ? Everything you’ve told me about Bush, what you think were the decisions and motive behind the war ? How stupid a thing it is to do ?
    And then follow it all up with big stinking helping of “BUT, I SUPPORT YOU SON!!!”
    If I were your kid I’d get a headach from looking at you crosseyed and asking you what the hell you’re talking about.
    Like I said with the abortionist. Suppose hes a state funded abortionist whom I pay taxes towards. No one forced him to take that job any more than a soldier was drafted.
    “Hey, I think what you’re doing is wrong. But I support you”

    If I did that, I would be like you….
    a hypocrite

  9. Dav Lev says:

    Douglas Feith wrote the book, “War and Decision”.It’s about our invasion of Aghanistan and Iraq, the events leading up to them and ongoing

    He admits he and others who advised Bush, missed out some of the
    most important failings..the insurgency, looting, politicis within
    both the US and Iraqi governments (intermim).

    6.5 years after our invasion of Iraq, we are still there, albeit
    our troops out of the big cities..and now having a supporting role.

    Those troops who left Iraq, are headed for Afganistan, another
    bottomless pit.

    The general is right. We got rid of Saddam, and should have
    vacated the misererable place.

    We hear constantly that the Muslims want US out, yet need US.

    Our position therefore has been to remain…justfiying our existence
    there with a slow withdrawal..and dispersement of troops.

    I thought Obama campaigned on how he was against the war from the
    get go. Either he is for it, or agin it.

    The M.E. quaqmire continues to fester, with both Jews and Arabs
    concerned over vague messages from the White House.

    Obama says he had nothing to do with Clinton going to No. Korea.
    Nothing? How did he get a passport?

    Folks, the moe I read Eric’s blog site, and the more he describes his
    meetings with prominent people, the more I thank God I saw the writing on the wall…I was a Democrat…am now on the Rublican National Committee. As a Jew, I apologize to the RIGHT for being so naive, so
    gullible. But it sort of comes with the territory.

    We Jews were picked as the chosen people. Yet we have suffered like
    no other people. We vote liberal, yet as Jonah Goldberg writes in his
    book “Liberal Fascism” Hitler was a liberal. Hillary is a liberal, even though
    I would not characterize her like Hitler.

    Over 1 year ago, I spoke to friends in the NYCity area. They were voting
    for Hillary. They couldn’t understand how a Jew could not?

    Well, look what Hillary has done lately. She calls Israel’s posture on
    illegal Arab housing in East Jerusalem, “reckless”. She admonishes
    Israel for building nursery schools in the settlements.

    Yet Arabs build at will in “Jewish” West Jerusalem.

    Something is horribly wrong folks, and it starts with the head.

    Now our policy towards Darfur has shifted, to negotiation and appeasement, while their leader, found guilty of genocide at the World
    Court, continues his abuse.

    And what caused the change, he is allowing humanitarian groups
    to reenter the Sudan..(after being evicted recently over the WC dispute).

    Now the liberal Jews will be in a quandry. Do they support Obamas policies, or the people who want the leader tried and hung?

    In Washington D.C., there will be a conference of left leaning Jews, headed
    by J Street. This organization wants a Palestinian state to the 67 borders.
    More rightest groups believe this is the beginning of the end of the Zionist experiment., which is my belief.

    In the West Bank, Fatah members are meeting, with renewed vigor
    over attempts to radicalize the organization, more like Hamas.

    Yet Israel is pushing Fatah (armed it with US weapons) over Hamas.

    Saudi Arabia thinks both sides should reconcile.

    Oh will we ever learn anything..before we too are marched into
    “resettlement camps”? I doubt it.

    But there is time. To my fellow right thinking Jews and gentiles,
    stop supporting Hillary. Stop sending her money. Think right.

  10. AL says:

    Ralph Peters and I were classmates at OCS. We were not friends – instead we were professional rivals who found little in common socially. If he had never written a published word in his life, I would still consider him a great man and true patriot. Thank you Ralph Peters! He is dead on with the PFC – the first two general orders spell it out…”I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved”… “I will obey my special duties and perform all my duties in a military manner”… Obey these two, and we wouldn’t have this conversation… Eagle 6

  11. Micky, you just don’t understand what I’m talking about. you obviously simply refuse to even try. You completely missed the point with this analogy: “Its like telling your kid “You’re supposed to be a linebacker, not a gymnist. But I support your efforts at being a gymnist even though I think its stupid.” No. Completely wrong. it would be more like, “You’re a linebacker and I support that, but I don’t like the coach’s gameplan.” Are you EVER goning to get that point?

    Now, when it comes to LT COL Peters, Dan Lev helped to clarify things for me when he said, “The general is right. We got rid of Saddam, and should have vacated the misererable place.” If that’s what Peters meant and that’s why he talked about Rumsfeld and Afghanistan the way he did, then I completely understand and almost completely agree. In this context, Peters is not being contradictory at all and I thank Dan Lev for making me understand that. On the other hand, Peters still sounds little too General Jack D. Ripper-sih for my taste.


  12. AL says:

    Case of the old ages: “I will obey my special ORDERS and perform all my duties in a military manner”

  13. AL says:

    Jersey, If he sounds a little “Ripper-ish” to you it’s likely because he is no longer bound by the constraints he fell under as a military officer. He said it himself – one of the reasons he got out (and the inference is not aiming for more rank) is that he disagreed with the then current administration and followed his convictions by getting out. Now out of uniform, he can speak openly without fear of professional repercussions… An a career Military Intelligence Officer, he is more realist than wild-eyed fanatic…and the latter is likely where Infantrymen such as myself would fall!

  14. Micky 2 says:

    ““You’re a linebacker and I support that, but I don’t like the coach’s gameplan.” Are you EVER goning to get that point?”

    Yeah right, except the kid already knows that the coach he puts his faith in is recognized by you as an “idiot, moron, complete and abject failure at everything hes ever done”

    “Gee dad, thanks for having as much faith in my coach(Bush) as I do.
    I answered his call to come off the bench because I believe in the game and the plays as much as he does. I wasnt drafted dad. And I’m on my 3rd tour, so shut up.”

    You cant get out of this one Jersey. Every liberal with any amount of class that I’ve presented that argument to has confessed to me that its a sad state of affairs but true that they dont approve of what their sons (in Iraq) are doing or the reason for it.

    You can 100% support someone if you dont appreciate their motivation for doing it. Anything less is 100% bullsh*t.

    ” But I support your efforts at being a gymnist even though I think its stupid.”

    Soooo… you’d only support the war if your son was fighting in it ?

    How the hell do you get Afghanistan and Iraq into the same argument with Dan ? Even most liberals agree that Afghanistan needed to be done.
    I guess we just should of let Iran take over Iraq and all that oil ? Kill all those Iraqis whos military we destroyed. Sorry, but to of just taken out Saddam and then bail would of been the height of idiocy and barbarity.

  15. blacktygrrrr says:

    Here is his column today. As always, Colonel Peters gets it perfectly.

    eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.