WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED This is the true memoir of one US Air Force navigator’s journey from the schoolhouses of Air Training Command to the nuclear alerts of the Cold War to combat in a 35-year-old anachronism called the B-52. It is a first-hand account of life during the last days of Strategic Air Command, the early days of Air Combat Command and the ensuing military drawdown of the 1990s. From peacetime training exercises across the globe to combat operations in Desert Storm, Jim Clonts takes the reader inside the cockpit where life and death are seconds apart. Often comical, sometimes heart-pounding, other times tragic, WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED takes you into the world of military aviation, a crucible where warriors learn the true nature of character, conscience and mortality.

Don’t Fight Unless We Mean to Win
by Jim Clonts, 2006

ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT MILITARY.COM, November 10, 2006

President Washington warned us not to get involved in foreign entanglements, but today we share an increasingly shrinking world, with an increasingly interconnected world economy. Global trade, the Internet and the media have taken down many of the barriers between civilizations and today republics sit alongside dictators at the United Nations.

President Kennedy summed up our national conscience when he said: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

So where does that leave us? What does the last Superpower stand for today? Do we avoid foreign entanglements or assure the survival and the success of liberty? As a nation we have to decide the answer to this question and answer it soon. By flip-flopping on this issue from administration to administration, we send confusing messages to our potential allies as well as enemies. America needs to decide once and for all a comprehensive policy for dealing with tyranny. How do we deal with tyrants? Are there repressive, tyrannical governments we can live with? Trade with? Accept?

We obviously cannot go to war against every nation led by a dictator or a regime which suppresses human liberties, but maybe we shouldn’t be trading with them either. Maybe we shouldn’t be buying those six packs of tube socks for three dollars made by slave labor in China. Currently, hundreds of billions of US consumer dollars flow across borders separating the home of the free from the slave. Are cheap consumer goods worth propping up oppressive regimes which deny basic human rights?

I asked a high school class this question once and was surprised to find they had no problem trading with oppressive governments. I asked if we should actively try to liberate the oppressed people in those countries, break off relations with those countries or simply continue to trade with them. I half expected them to say no to war, but also no to trade. They surprised me. They wanted the cheap goods and they weren’t interested in liberating anyone. Judging by our shopping patterns it seems most Americans share this feeling. Maybe we have a national policy after all.

When dealing with dictators and despots, the United States has to make hard choices, choices that more often than not backfire. Often we offer support and trade with the governments in power, only to find ourselves despised following a bloody revolution. Sometimes we give tacit support to the wrong revolutionary, such as Fidel Castro, who we assumed would institute a populist republic in Cuba. Much to our surprise, Castro did not want to be a simple elected official answering to a disgruntled public. He recognized the power and the lure of a communist revolution, a revolutionary wave he could ride into office and keep alive for decades. He knew, if allied with the US, Washington would pressure him to institute democratic reforms, but the Soviet Union would be a willing ally and Cuba would be his. The Bay of Pigs fiasco that followed is a perfect example of half-baked US foreign policy, intervention without dedication or motivation.

Many in this country want us dealing directly with North Korea. The last administration negotiated in this fashion. We gave them food, fuel and nuclear technology and Kim Jong Il reneged on the agreement to abandon his nuclear weapons program. Many want us to return to the table for a repeat performance, but suppose there is a revolution in North Korea? Suppose Kim is overthrown some time in the next ten years and we are viewed by the North Koreans as the ones who fed and fueled Kim’s army? As the ones who kept Kim’s corrupt Communist economy afloat while he starved his people?

In Iraq we have overthrown the despot of the day. Ridding the world of Saddam was a good and noble thing, but Saddam wasn't the only ruthless, power-hungry man in Iraq and now others are scrambling to fill the void. Their rallying points will be Islamic religious fervor and mistrust of the fledgling democracy, viewed as just another puppet government installed by the United States, even though the people of Iraq provided the candidates and the votes.

Given the prevailing American impatience with the insurgency in Iraq, as demonstrated on election day, I’m not sure America has the resolve required to assure the survival and the success of liberty. Defeating oppression and tyranny cannot be accomplished on a timetable and, if one is required, we guarantee our failure before we begin. If the battle cannot be won cleanly in minimum time, Americans are just not willing to fight. This being the case, we have no business ever attempting a “war of liberation” again. It’s not fair to our troops, our allies or those whom we liberate. Too many times we’ve gone to edge for an ally only to pull back and withdraw, leaving them in the lurch. We keep defeating ourselves.

It is fortunate the American character was somewhat different when our boys fought Hitler, Mussolini and Imperial Japan. Americans had the character at one time to fight long term battles. Once, we could stomach massive losses in tank battles against Rommel’s Afrika Corps, huge casualties on the shores of Normandy and Iwo Jima and thousands of bombers shot down during raids into Germany. Americans learned from these losses, picked themselves up and fought their way to victory. No one called for President Roosevelt’s impeachment when Pearl Harbor was attacked, or when thousands died on D-Day. Americans knew it was German bullets that killed men at Omaha Beach, not inadequate planning on Roosevelt’s part.

Today we have pledged support to some key allies around the world, but does anyone really believe we will come to the aid of Taiwan, or South Korea or even Kuwait again? Should we even try? If the battle isn’t quick and easy, we’re probably better off leaving them to fend for themselves rather than fill them with false hope. If they know they cannot count on us, perhaps they can plan better for their own defense.

The irony is the American Warrior is not the problem. The problem lies with the American public, our impatience, our lack of understanding and our perceptions of right and wrong. The men and women of our armed forces are by far better equipped, educated and dedicated than any military force in history. They are willing and able to defend this country and liberate any oppressed peoples on earth, but they don’t control the Congress or the media and they cannot reach final victory without funding and the support of the opinion-makers. We win on the battlefield, but lose in the newspapers. This is why we must never again risk our military forces if we are not willing to let them finish their job. It will be interesting and telling to see how a Democratic-controlled Congress handles this new responsibility.

Welcome to: JimClonts.Com E-mail: b52radar@jimclonts.com