Sometimes You Gotta Have Em
One of the most vivid memories I have of the Reagan years is when, on June 12, 1987, President Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Berlin Wall with cameras from every news source in the world running, and, pointing to the massive wall behind him, said in a measured and clear voice: “Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR… DOWN… THIS… WALL!” Unconcerned about diplomacy, unconcerned about protocol, unconcerned about being “politically correct” he spoke force and with conviction. And he went on to BACK IT UP with military resolve and, later, resolve at the negotiating table (Reykjavik, Iceland) as well. And, remarkably, less than two and a half years later, the wall DID COME DOWN. Reagan had shamed Russia into doing something most pundits felt was impossible. He had pointed out the simple truth that walls built by governments to keep people IN belie any claim they might make as to their superiority or even their equality with the free world. And he held fast in his convictions.
To use a term very much, in the vernacular: Mr. Reagan had balls. Plain English. Although more genteel words like “fortitude” or even “guts” could be used in this context, they don’t really go far enough. All etiquette aside, “balls” is the right word.
And, I hasten to point out, I mean nothing sexist by the use of this term; it’s meant, here, only as strong metaphor. One doesn’t have to be male to have them. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had them. When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands (British territory), she counterattacked and won. When she was attacked at home by leftist provocateurs, she counterattacked, and won. When she was attacked by the labor unions (who, at that time, had nearly paralyzed the U.K.), she counterattacked, and won. Yes, she had “‘em”. And there have been other women who also fit the bill. You might, for example, say that Condeleza Rice has balls. And Nikki Haley. And, for that matter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. And there are many others. So the character trait I’m referring to is something that can be found in either sex.
Let’s look back, for a moment, to a number of some amply endowed leaders. During the early part of World War II, Winston Churchill rallied Great Britain to fight the terror of the ascendant (at the time) Nazi war machine: “We shall fight on the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall NEVER surrender.” And FDR: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” And JFK: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us good or ill, that we shall pay ANY price, bear ANY burden, meet ANY hardship, support any friend, oppose ANY foe, in order to ensure the survival and success of liberty.” Balls. Compare these sentiments to some of our more recent leaders.
Compare them to President Jimmy Carter cowering before Ayatollah Khomeini and later, before O.P.E.C.
Compare them to President Bill Clinton’s decision to let Osama bin Laden (after it was determined that HE was behind the USS Cole and American Embassy bombings) escape assassination by our military. Clinton’s excuse regarding his fear of civilian casualties never held water as there were a number of different types of military operations that could have been carried out while minimizing or eliminating collateral damage.
Compare them to “leading from behind” as advocated by Barack Obama (reported by Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, May 2, 2011). Or to Obama’s timid approach to the terror of ISIS, describing the battle against them as “GENERATIONAL” (reported by Sabrina Siddiqui in the Gaurdian, July 6,2015). Or to Obama’s “STAND DOWN” order while four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Despite Obama and Hillary’s claims to the contrary, three of the survivors (Teigen, Geist and Paronto) have each affirmed that there WAS that order.
Pretty sad comparison, isn’t it. But there are some exceptions.
Recall that in 1990, when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, a US ally and vital economic partner, Bush 41 responded with Dessert Shield: “Saddam was warned over and over again…leave Kuwait or be driven out….we now believe that only force will prevail.”
In 2001, when al-Qaeda attacked us horrifically on September 11, Bush 43 said, famously, that if al-Qaeda thinks they can win by attacking us, then “bring ‘em on.”
And, earlier this year, when North Korea’s Kim Jong-un intimated that he could carry out a nuclear strike against America, President Trump quickly responded that such an action would be met with “fire and fury such that the world has never seen.” And, like Reagan, he went on to back this up with military build up and preparedness for action. Balls.
And, these actions, together with stifling sanctions, MAY have finally caught the attention of Mr. Kim, who had been operating under the assumption, apparently, that America wouldn’t want to “get its hands dirty” with a military action in North Korea, and, as a consequence, he could do pretty much anything he pleased. And, over the past month, for the first time ever, he has taken some steps to dial back the conflict. How far this will go remains to be seen, but this is the first time during Kim Jong-un’s tenure that any de-escalation of any sort has taken place.
Sometimes, you just “gotta have ‘em”.