The left derides Bush for his "Bring it On" comment. I felt then and still feel to this day that it was the right sentiment. The U.S. military is the most powerful and effective fighting force in history. The U.S. military unlike any other military in the world can fight on any land, in any environment, in the air, on the seas or under the seas. Our military is the best equipped and best trained fighting force EVER.

Given a choice between terrorists engaging the U.S. military or engaging U.S. civilians I think the choice is obvious.

But I like how the left has been saying for several years that our presence in Iraq has been a recruiting poster for terrorists, and yet now that Al-Zarqawi is Al-Kablooie they now say there really aren't that many terrorists in Iraq.

Given a choice between terrorists engaging the U.S. military or engaging U.S. civilians I think the choice is obvious.

It is. But you have to understand the hold that the victimization cult has over the American Left these days. Morally, they believe it is far better to just let the bad guy saw off your head in front of a video camera, than to drop a bomb (or two) on the bad guy to stop him from sawing more people's heads off.

"Let the Generals run the war." That's a comment I heard over the weekend. It is my sentiment also. I do not watch protests/demostrations or Congressmen who profess to know when we should withdraw our troops. I also take issue with those who sit back and wait with glee and anticipation for the next setback in Iraq or the next huricane that will devastate an American city. It is amazing to me how anybody could vote for anybody with this mindset.

Were any of those others killed innocents? ...I don't care.

Yeah, Jay, fight, fuck, or draw your gun. As long as our armies march gloriously onward -- and you don't have to own any of the things that go wrong.

And, no, I don't expect you to get that.

William T. Sherman would know how to fight this war. He knew that in order to stamp out secession, it would be necessary to kill at least 20,000 of the most fanatical secessionists in order to stamp out the flames of secession. (Please note I'm not comparing secession to Islamo-fascism.)

In other words, killing or bringing to a jury trial one or two instigators wouldn't solve a damn thing.

Would nailing Hitler -- and just Hitler, and say, a few of his top henchmen -- in 1942 have stamped out the Nazis? Hardly. While it's true that Adolf was one incredible cult of personality, the core of Nazism ran deep and it had to be beaten out of Germany.

The same is true for Islamo-fascism. We need to keep killing the most nuts among them as a warning to those who are less nuts, and at the same time offer those who are less nuts real alternatives, namely democracy and capitalism, the hallmarks of freedom.

I'm not happy that there is a war in Iraq, Afghanistan - or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.

I AM comforted, however, to know that we HAVE had only the one terrorist attack in this country. It is conceivable that none of us would be sitting here typing away if the Left had been in office on 9/11 and beyond.

I am not comforted to think of what might happen to us all in the next election should things change. Everybody remember the hostages being released as soon as Reagan was elected?

Imagine some "reciprocal of now" (I don't have any caffeine in me yet - let that one go) situation happening if Gore or some other idiot is elected. kaBOOM!

I doubt highly that Jay is uncaring about the innocents who may have been in the house - but sadly, these weaklings surround themselves with innocents in the hopes that our military will cave. The whole thing stinks, alright - but we didnt' start it.

The problem is that our court system is very ill equipped to deal with such situations as the war on terror. Jay

This may be true, but a system of law where man has certain unalienable rights and is entitled to a fair trial is one of the most important pillars of our society. This type of mentality can lead to a very slippery slope and I could put it much simpler: Let's revoke the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and might as well throw in the 2nd so the people can't revolt since we revoked all those others.

and statements like this are just absurd:
Imagine some "reciprocal of now" (I don't have any caffeine in me yet - let that one go) situation happening if Gore or some other idiot is elected. kaBOOM! Candy

Did you ever think that maybe 9/11 would have never happened if Gore were president? He's shown better foresight than most politicians and has gotten proven results. I know people like to belittle him for the "invented the internet" statement, but he had done more than any other politician to bring it to where it is today. He also might have paid attention to the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" pdb instead of cutting brush on a ranch. If not, he might have shown more patience in Afghanistan instead of allowing the Taliban resurgence that we're currently seeing. And he also would have done about a 100X better job in handing Katrina, the biggest disaster to hit the US, so get over you GWB fantasy fest. He's not some sort of superhero the right delusionally thinks he is.

sean, the planning for 9/11 took YEARS. Years while Gore was veep, and "right hand man" to the president. The president who had at least a couple of opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden, and let him go. Do you really think that it would have been suddenly called off because Gore won?

Likewise, do you really think Gore would have suddenly revamped our intelligence and counterterrorism system within 9 months of assuming office? Such a shakeup would be seen as a repudiation and slap in the face of his predecessor...

So, would there have been a 9/11 had Gore been elected? We'll never know for sure. But the odds are extremely likely...

J.

astigafa,

Zarqawi was apparently in this "safe house" with his 15 year old wife and young child. I don't know about you, but if I knew an entire military wanted to find and kill me I wouldn't be sitting in a house with my family. He chose to live by the sword and he died by the sword, unfortunately those who surrounded him shared the same fate.

I AM comforted, however, to know that we HAVE had only the one terrorist attack in this country.

Islamic terrorists set off a truck bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center in February 1993, tried to bomb the LA airport...a truck bomb destroyed the Murrow bulding in Oklahoma City a decade or so ago, killing (I think) 250 people, 30 of them children in the day care...sorry, Candy.

The whole thing stinks, alright - but we didnt' start it.

I forget; just when did Iraq attack the United States? Yeah, I'm being simplistic, but so are you. And I don't think Jay celebrates the death of innocent people either, but it's fun to turn his rhetorical devices back on him.

When Fidel is mirroring your talking points (i.e. should have brought Zarqawi to trial...), that should tell you something. Unfortunately, it goes right over the head of most lefties.

What some on the left don't realize is that there's a significant difference between police action and military action. Police have a duty to protect innocents (the public) in pursuit of violent criminals. For example, police won't risk the lives of hostages by initiating an assault without first trying every other avenue to resolve a situation. However, even in police work, that's not always true. In many areas police continue to pursue fleeing subjects at high speeds even when the chase puts the public in great danger.

The purpose of military action is to defeat the enemy and that often means destroying the infrastructure and killing enemy combatants and their enablers. In an urban setting, more often than not, insurgents use non-combatants as shields or chaff in hopes the U.S. won't attack. If that tactic worked, the insurgents would just bring hostages with them to each battle and watch the U.S. back down. It wouldn't be long before they would be on U.S. soil marching down Pennsylvania avenue surrounded by American hostages.

Iraq has it's own elected government and those fighting against that government are criminals as well as terrorists. When the Iraqi people turn against the terrorists, the conflict will be over in short order, maybe in time for this fall's elections. I'm sure the left realizes they must keep the conflict going until after the elections even if they have to go to Iraq themselves to help the insurgents. Otherwise, all their hard work of undermining support for the war will be for nothing.

Nice post Jay even though it's a very partisan one. At least it's well reasoned.
Now I must take issue with you on some things:
First, we need the legal system in this country, and if I were the left I would never apologize for the legal process and trying to use it to my advantage. The right should be doing the same thing. And believe me, when they are no longer in power, they will. The legal process that right wingers all of a sudden despise, is what has allowed my people to sit at the same lunch counters with you, and to attend government funded schools etc.It has also save many innocent people from suffering from the same fate as some of the Iraqi people who were just, as the hawks like to call them; "collateral damage". So lets not start knocking the legal system just because you don't like how some recent Judges have ruled.

We are a country of laws, and thank God for that. I fear now that with you and your ilk, we are becoming the country we were pre-civil rights. Where the will of the majority ruled no matter where it took us.

astigafa, please show a SHRED of intellectual honesty. I said one attack SINCE 9/11, not BESIDES 9/11.

And Iraq attacked United States aircraft numerous times while we enforced the No-Fly Zones.

Next?

J.

So, would there have been a 9/11 had Gore been elected? We'll never know for sure. But the odds are extremely likely... Jay

It is still very possible (even very likely) that the 9/11 attacks would have still happened. There was a lot that had to be done from Jan to Sept to prevent. But maybe Gore would have listened to the military advisors and counterattacked al Qaeda after the USS Cole bombing instead of dismissing it as "swatting flies" and gotten the intelligence that was needed. Again, who know?

All I'm saying is the right worships at the feet of GWB for reasons which are lost to me and Gore is too easily dismissed even though he has consistently been more than competent at whatever job he has held. The same thing certainly cannot be said about good ol' George.

sean nyc/aa

Did you ever think that maybe 9/11 would have never happened if Gore were president?

Based on what? The attack was long planed and the first attack on the world trade center was done while Gore was VP.

He's shown better foresight than most politicians and has gotten proven results.

Proven results at what?

I know people like to belittle him for the "invented the internet" statement, but he had done more than any other politician to bring it to where it is today.

Which isn't saying much. Funding of DARPA was the key, as it's still the key for many emerging technologies.

He also might have paid attention to the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" pdb instead of cutting brush on a ranch. If not, he might have shown more patience in Afghanistan instead of allowing the Taliban resurgence that we're currently seeing.

And he might have done nothing before or after 9/11.

And he also would have done about a 100X better job in handing Katrina, the biggest disaster to hit the US,

Not likely. The Katrina disaster was years in the making, and much of that time Gore was VP.

so get over you GWB fantasy fest. He's not some sort of superhero the right delusionally thinks he is.

And all you have in Gore is a paper tiger. There's no way to know how events would have played out had Gore actually won in 2000. That's the real fantasy fest.

Great post, Jay. While reading it, I found myself nodding in agreement many times.

Iraq has it's own elected government and those fighting against that government are criminals as well as terrorists Mac Lorry

If only it were that simple. We know that tribal and religious militias are being incorporated into the military and police, so one question is: where does their loyalty lie? We consistently hear that people in police/military uniforms kidnap and execute people. Are they terrorists or actual law enforcement? Nobody knows.

The fight for power is far from over and the desire to be in control of the oil wealth is a strong factor fueling the intra-gov't rivalries. Sunnis don't have a piece of that pie, so they believe they have to fight to have any say. But even in Shiite areas like Basra, greed and power are creating instability. And the Kurds want to essentially form their own mini-state, a proposition which doesn't sit well with anyone but them (this includes Turkey, Iran, and Syria). Not to mention that Sadr still has a strong influence over a significant chunk of the ruling party which complicates things even more, so it's not like the gov't has the best wishes for all the Iraqi people in mind. We're not dealing with just Iraqi gov't vs. terrists.

What can the US do about this? Not much in my opinion, but I'd love to hear the armchair generals' recommendations.

Beautifully said Jay -- as always. I've been neglecting you of late, but its posts like this that keep me coming back.

As far as the innocence of the surrounding civilians is concerned...how innocent are you if you are associating with and harboring a known terrorist? Aiding and abetting a terrorist is a crime and incineration by association is simply natural justice being meted out.

I say godspeed to paradise!

RE: The effectiveness of Vice President Gore
1. Gore was given a commision to improve the security of airline travel during the Clinton Administration (1996). He was chairman of the panel that recommended: (1) improved standards for searches, (2) installation of bomb detection gear for all luggage, and (3) creation of a database to detect patterns in air travel. After the airline industry donated money to the Clinton/Gore campaign and applied sufficient pressure, these recommendations were watered-down or eliminated. Gore went along. (The whole Gore Commission looked like a Clinton shke-down of the airline industry.)
2. Bin Laden issued his declaration against the United States during the Clinton Adminsitration. Gore was never an outspoken critic of Administration policy on terror -- as he was in other areas -- even after Bin Laden openly ridiculed the American weakness. It's hard to believe that he would suddenly change those policies if he was President.
3. After 9/11, several of Gore's closest friends and advisors admitted to the press they they were glad that Gore lost the 2000 election. They know Gore well, and they believed that the Bush Administration would do a better job.

Greorge Orwell: "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

There's no way to know how events would have played out had Gore actually won in 2000. That's the real fantasy fest. Mac Lorry

Yes, I know. I was responding to Candy's statement that electing Gore would have made things go "kaBOOM". That also is speculation, and I was using examples to demonstrate how Bush is not infallible in conducting the war, despite what the right believes. Gore is not perfect either, but there was a lot of room for improvement for GWB the right simply overlooks.

Somebody in power who terrorizes is far more dangerous than somebody who is not in power who terrorizes. Unchecked executive authority is more dangerous to the U.S. Democracy than a bunch of right-wing religious nut jobs in planes. I'm talking about the Muslim nut-jobs, not you right-wing Christian nut-jobs that frequent this site. If you weren't in power, or were being oppressed, you would be in the Muslims' shoes, shouting hatred and "death to [insert prideful and powerful country here]!"

Religion, violence, and oppression of minority rights is exactly what conservatives promote. This is also exactly what caused the problem in the first place.

Are you really all that different? Exporting your own brand of terrorism to kill an overwhelming minority - which you are quickly making into a majority by killing the innocent?

Can't you see that your "proactive" response has been a miserable failure that only fans the flames? You are no longer a friend to the world, you are the enemy of the world. It is an uphill battle you do not have the stamina to win. That's why slow, well-reasoned (even if inefficient) responses are a better idea.

Think about how the U.S. is an enemy to the world some more if you don't agree. How do you "win" if you are hated by the world???

sean nyc/aa

If only it were that simple. We know that tribal and religious militias are being incorporated into the military and police, so one question is: where does their loyalty lie? We consistently hear that people in police/military uniforms kidnap and execute people. Are they terrorists or actual law enforcement? Nobody knows.

Where the loyalties of military and police lie certainly has a real impact on the situation in Iraq. Yet, if they don't lie with the elected government, they are criminals by any civilized law.

The litany of problems in Iraq go away once the Iraqi people accept the idea that they are Iraqis first and Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds second. Until and unless that happens, no elected government can ever succeed. The alternative is to be ruled by a tyrant.

What can the US do about this? Not much in my opinion, but I'd love to hear the armchair generals' recommendations.

Do what the left apparently wants, free Saddam.

astigafa, please show a SHRED of intellectual honesty. I said one attack SINCE 9/11, not BESIDES 9/11.

So you're the Candy I was responding to?

No, astigafa. Candy is a very dear friend of mine, the woman who works for the home-schooling co-op that adopts old computers I fix up and who had a bear eat her chickens a few months ago. She's also an occasional commenter here. If she didn't juggle her job, home-schooling her kids (she has 5), her church, and a zillion other things, I'd bully her into posting at the Bomb Squad.

Here's what happened:
1) I mentioned there had been a single terrorist attack within the US since 9/11.
2) Candy comments on there only having been a single attack.
3) You skip my original mention and deride her for not mentioning all those attacks BEFORE 9/11.
4) I resent my words being twisted to attack MY friend, and restate the facts that you distorted.

Clear enough for you? Or should I draw you a picture?

J.

Idaholawyer:

Your post demonstrates just how demented you real are. I have never read anything so vile in my life. If you realy beleive all that trash you need some serious help.

idaholawyer,

Religion, violence, and oppression of minority rights is exactly what conservatives promote. This is also exactly what caused the problem in the first place

One could just as correctly say the "humanism, violence, and oppression of majority rights is exactly what liberals promote. This is also exactly what caused the problem in the first place.

Are you really all that different? Exporting your own brand of terrorism to kill an overwhelming minority - which you are quickly making into a majority by killing the innocent?

What's an "overwhelming minority"? And by your own logic, once they are a majority, they are fair game.

Can't you see that your "proactive" response has been a miserable failure that only fans the flames?

It's the best approach because if it doesn't work we can always surrender. But if you surrender first, then it's over.

You are no longer a friend to the world, you are the enemy of the world.

Who says? There are lots of women in Iraq and Afghanistan that have hope of being something other than property. The rest of the world either doesn't care or realizes the U.S. will attack if attacked. Those who don't like us because we defend ourselves never were our friends to begin with.

That's why slow, well-reasoned (even if inefficient) responses are a better idea.

Spoken like someone who ignores the history of that approach.

How do you "win" if you are hated by the world???

Do what liberals do, buy their friendship

This reminded me of Ann Coulter's recent book, and one of the points she brings up -- the tendency of the Left to bring in victims to give their political points credence. The 9/11 widows, in Coulter's most prominent example, use their personal loss to add credibility to their arguments. I must have missing something but this column - massive slaughter of innocent civilian Americans-,
and the right constantly remind of us 9/11, to bolster their arguments about the sea change in our attitudes to liberty and authority. The other point which I am rather surprised at, is Jay's drop dead reaction to the death of innocent Iraqi civilains.. Basically 'I don't care'..This type of attitude which used to be personified as that of' the ugly American' strengthen's the impression by many Iraqis as an colonial war, and we are going to to create alot of 'civilan Iraqi martyrs' in our ruthless determination to rid Iraq of the real terrorists, just as the 9/11 terrorists created many unanticipated martyrs when they toppled the twin towers... The attitude of "To hell with them" when Jay refers to the 'collateral damage" casualties in Iraq , or the similar thoughts of Ann Coulter to the 9/11 widows, reminds me of how the Argentine military dismissed the mothers of the missing, marching daily in Maya Square in Argentina, much to their later cost in their 'Dirty War'.

Jay,
Thanks. I have decided not to comment on anything here until I have had at least one cup of coffee. Chivalry is not dead, ladies! Not by a longshot :)

'Think about how the U.S. is an enemy to the world some more if you don't agree. '

O.K. I thought about it some more, and I still disagree. Now what?