« Our Brave Soldiers Did Not Die Just To Mitigate Defeat | Main | Not Everyone Has Fallen For Saint Jimmah's New Improved Version of History »

Will We Ever Win Another War?

That is what Ben Shapiro is asking and it is a darn good question.

Popular consensus has it that we are losing the war in Iraq. Robert Gates, the White House nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, stated on Tuesday that the United States was categorically not winning in Iraq. "What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said. Popular consensus also has it that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. "[B]ecause of the Bush administration's inattention and mismanagement," wrote The New York Times editorial board on Tuesday, "even the good war is going wrong."

America has not "won" a major "hot" war since World War II. The Gulf War cannot be considered a full-fledged victory; it returned the situation in the Middle East to the status quo. The aggressor in that war, Saddam Hussein, would remain in power for another dozen years. The Vietnam War was surely a devastating loss. The Korean War ended in stalemate; North Korea, the aggressor in that war, remains militant and dangerous 50 years later.

It has been six decades since we emerged fully victorious from a major "hot" war. This is because the very definition of war has changed. Each modern war is now more of a battle than a war. Tearing out the enemy's motivating ideology by the roots is no longer a nation-centric task. Nazism was located in Germany and Shintoism in Japan. We could defeat both countries and win the war. Fundamentalist Islam, however, spans the globe. Even if we disestablish fundamentalist Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq, we still have not won the war. Afghanistan and Iraq are the equivalents of Okinawa and Utah Beach. Super-national ideologies mean that war is not a local affair, but a global one.

So how do we win a global war? We won the Cold War by waiting out our communist opponents. We could lose the war in Vietnam and still win the broader Cold War. We could stalemate in Korea without losing the fight against communism. Communist ideology was bankrupt, and if we denied them resources (as we did by funding anti-communist forces around the globe and rolling back communism under President Reagan), we would be successful in the long run.

That strategy will not work with fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is not an ideology that will crumble from within. It demands total religious obeisance of its practitioners, regardless of material hardships incurred. And anything but total replacement of fundamentalist Islam by another, friendlier ideology is seen as a victory by the fundamentalists. The Gulf War was not merely a victory squandered; it was a defeat. Denying Iraq oil may have hurt Saddam Hussein, but failing to depose Hussein hurt Western credibility and emboldened Muslims the world over.

Shapiro makes some good suggestions about what it will take for America to ever win another war. I have a much quicker way in mind -- just put a Democrat president in office, then the media will declare victory and we can live in blissful igorance emboldening our enemies for a decade or two more until another 9/11 type event awakens the country to harsh reality. Shapiro's suggestions are preferable, but unfortunately mine may be the more likely scenario.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will We Ever Win Another War?:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Gates: U.S. not winning the war in Iraq

» ReidBlog linked with 'It is over'

Comments (90)

#1 Suggestion, elect compet... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

#1 Suggestion, elect competent leadership that will not push our country to war because Jesus told him to.

Ship Barney and his 'brothe... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Ship Barney and his 'brothers and sisters' to a remote island somewhere, and let them cumbaya eachother to death.

Lorie, the only problem wit... (Below threshold)
ted:

Lorie, the only problem with your conclusion is that the "9/11 type event" to awaken the country to harsh realty, unfortunately, will NOT be a 9/11 type event, IT WILL BE AN EVENT OR SERIES OF EVENTS FAR MORE DISASTROUS than 9/11. So to characterize it as a future 9/11 type event drastically understates the stakes here.

This is inevitable, Lorie. ... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

This is inevitable, Lorie. It happened with the Romans, it will happen with us in America. It cannot be avoided. We live in our air conditioned comfortable homes, we watch our television shows at night, we work a few hours a week and call it hard, we eat whenever we are hungry and drink when we thirst, and we grow fat and lazy the entire time.

This is the human condition and one might as well be upset that gravity exists.

As we grow more and more comfortable in our easy lives, it becomes more difficult to stir us from our positions of comfort. Our enemies on the other hand do not have it so easy and are willing to die for what they believe. They are willing to die because they believe that this life isn't as good as the next one, while the West believes this is as good as it gets.

And so eventually, we will be conquered by our own amoral proclivities and our enemies will waltz in and destroy us.

There is no way around it, it will happen one day, but the Lord always saves a remnant.

Baggi, what's your timeline... (Below threshold)
ted:

Baggi, what's your timeline for this?

Barney, you're such an ass.... (Below threshold)
moo:

Barney, you're such an ass. Jesus never told Bush to invade Iraq, you jackass.

We stopped winning wars whe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

We stopped winning wars when we stopped fighting total wars. We stopped fighting total wars because nuclear weapons made that option too dangerous to entertain. The next technology that has a high potential to change the face of war again is nanotechnology. Asymmetric warfare is only possible because the weaker side can hide, but nanotechnology has the potential to eliminate any foe's ability to hide. Can you imagine what would happen in Iraq or Afghanistan if trillions of nanomachines the size of sand grains were relaying information to some mega computer. IED's would be a thing of the past and few people could hide from our forces for long. Getting wars started and finished in two years is still within the comfort zone of most American voters.

Care to back that up with a... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Care to back that up with a link, Barney? Or are you just being irrelevant again?

Umm, Shapiro didn't actuall... (Below threshold)
disgusted:

Umm, Shapiro didn't actually suggest anything, unless you think supplanting Islam within the minds of a billion people is a suggestion and not merely a throw-away wet-dream of his. And I assume that racializing immigration and law enforcement isn't an implication to be taken seriously, right?

What's YOUR suggestion, Lorie, once 9/11 x 1,000 happens? Kill everybody who doesn't agree with America? Seriously, some ideas would be nice, because as such your post is worthless.

And, of course, no one will attempt to offer any substantive rebuttal to Baggi. The world of ideas will keep turning, with Wizbang only half a rotation behind.

Good point, Ted. You are m... (Below threshold)
Lorie:

Good point, Ted. You are most probably right about that. The next big thing might not be a single "event" at all, but rather waking up to find that we have been infiltrated and then start seeing the constant, widespread violence Israel has had to endure.

And you don't have to go ba... (Below threshold)
robert:

And you don't have to go back to the Roman Empire either; there is a more recent example from that country.

As I have written before, the third-rate journalist Mussolini enlisted the aid of his brothers in the press, radio and films for a campaign of misinformation and demagoguery that created widespread fear and dissatisfaction and brought him to power.

And the thing was that the press "knew" they were in the right to back him. To throw their power behind him was a noble thing. It was more important to be on the right side than to get the stories right.

And it would be hard to find examples from that period more egregious than the staged and phony stuff now coming from AP, Reuters and CNN, not to mention the outright advocacy from the rest of the MSM.

This story too will be twisted by the liberal MSM: blame America first, withdraw, and go the UN way with everything. Before we know it we will have another Carter in office and Iran will have its way with us like the last time.

It's good to see that a maj... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It's good to see that a majority of conservatives are still terrorized. I'm confident that America will no longer support the concept of having terrorism victims in charge of the War on Terror. This should keep you folks out of power for a long, long time.

You frightened children see boogey-men where none exist. Considering your fellow Americans (Democrats) as your enemy shows this clearly.

Keep talking. America needs to now just how damaged you chaps and chappettes are.

Never again, we must not put victims in charge of waging war ever, ever again.

Fundamentalist Isl... (Below threshold)
Fundamentalist Islam is not an ideology that will crumble from within. It demands total religious obeisance of its practitioners, regardless of material hardships incurred.

People said the same thing about communism.

Extremist Islam will crumble for the same basic reason that communism did: it denies basic human nature. The desire for freedom in all aspects of life (economic, social, moral, political) is universal. People are fundamentally the same everywhere. Just look at how the Chinese have embraced capitalism. 50 years ago no one would have guessed that was possible.

The Reagan approach to defeating Communism is the same that we should use with the Islamic fanatics. Build our strength both economically and militarily and avoid squandering that strength on battlegrounds of the enemy's choosing. Use proxies (Contras in Nicaragua, Afghan freedom fighters) to undermine the enemy and sap his strength. Establish strong alliances to contain the enemy's aspirations (remember how Reagan rallied NATO to counter the SS-20 missile threat).


Um, disgusted, Baggi is act... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Um, disgusted, Baggi is actually right. What you fail to realize is that it is the liberal left that is perpetuating the decay... they are the ones saying the enemy does not exist.

"The Reagan approach... ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"The Reagan approach... Use proxies (Contras in Nicaragua, Afghan freedom fighters) to undermine the enemy and sap his strength. Establish strong alliances to contain the enemy's aspirations (remember how Reagan rallied NATO to counter the SS-20 missile threat). "

...with the Democrats/Lefties/MSM fighting him tooth and nail all the way. The present-day Dems still won't admit Reagan was right. Anyone remember that? Just wondering.

"I have a much quicker way ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"I have a much quicker way in mind -- just put a Democrat president in office, then the media will declare victory and we can live in blissful igorance emboldening our enemies for a decade or two more until another 9/11 type event awakens the country to harsh reality."

I am literally stunned by your ignorance.

You have supported this awful idea of a war for years now, without a pang of consciousness. You are willing to believe any rumor or innuendo that chastizes your political enemies or the media, no matter how ridiculous. You believe Iraq had WMD when every reasonable person in the country, including the President on this one, has faced reality. You have taken no responsibility for your own mistakes and misplaced desires. Your lashing out is terribly sad and immature.

I wasn't disagreeing with h... (Below threshold)
disgusted:

I wasn't disagreeing with his doomsday synopsis of American civilization, LJD, but I'm not particularly bemoaning it either. World history is awfully cyclical, and technology has sped up the cycle. America are the good guys in this conflict, but on what planet do the good guys always win? (How'd the Romans do against the barbarians?) America is on the decline, and for economic and geopolitical reasons it seems pretty irreversible. You should pay somebody to teach your kids Mandarin, if you can afford it.

Lee, if this were the old d... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Lee, if this were the old days and your post came over a ticker tape I would've torn it out and wiped my ass with it.

The answer is no, we will n... (Below threshold)
woody:

The answer is no, we will never win another war. Hitler, to his infernal chagrin, was born too soon. Tojo gnashes his teeth.

The US will win another war... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

The US will win another war when young people like Ben Shapiro rush to the recruiting office and clamor to enlist.

That is a good indication of national will as any - when you are so patriotically motivated and so convinced to the threat to your loved ones and way of life that you are altruistically willing to serve, indeed demanding to serve.

During WWI, young men of Ben's age walking about in civvies were handed white feathers. In WWII, there just weren't any sane and whole young men of Ben's age about.

Ben goes to Harvard Law School - there is a plaque in the library there which lists quite a few HLS casualties from WWI and WWII.

The Army and Marines clearly need people - if the threat is so grave and your belief in it so strong, you should join the fight.

If not, I guess it's not that important to you, is it?

"Popular consensus also has... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Popular consensus also has it that we are losing the war in Afghanistan."

How could that be? The Libs and MSM are solidly behind the invasion and continued efforts in Afgan.

Anyone ever notice that whe... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Anyone ever notice that when trolling sphincters from the left come to a site like this, they are allowed to speak/post, however ignorant or insignificant the post.

If someone from the right tries to speak, people like the idiots from Columbia U do all they can to disrupt that speech. Try disrupting threads over at DU, or Kos, etc, and see what happens.

Libtards are only for free speech, when it suits them.

just saying....

Sad to say, but the America... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Sad to say, but the American-middle will likely not realize the true nature of the threat against us until a major US city is vaporized. And even then, our trolls will advise appeasement.

You frightened children ... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

You frightened children see boogey-men where none exist.

Dam, Lee...then who is beheading civilians and butchering our soldiers?

Lorie:Do you do an... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lorie:

Do you do any critical thinking at all or do you just regurgitate something you heard on right wing radio? Or do you just make up the kind of crap you posted here? If you check quickly you'll see that the current leader of this disaster in Iraq is a Republican.

Old Coot:

Can you tell me who that is who is going to "vaporize" one of our cities? Oh, probably some of those WMDs from Iraq I suppose. Your moniker is right on the money. Senility has set in.

You frightened chi... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You frightened children see boogey-men where none exist. Considering your fellow Americans (Democrats) as your enemy shows this clearly.

I see you are still on the frightened children theme, but it's the same as calling someone paranoid. Well they are not paranoid if the threat is real. The secrete service takes great precautions to protect Presidents, whoever they are. Fools call them frightened children, but history proves them wise.

Given the history of 9/11 and of Saddam's success in bribing the U.N., removing him form power was a wise choice. It's those who fear such decisive actions who are the frightened children. Does anyone doubt Saddam's hatred of America or his ambitions for greater power? What to you think Saddam would be doing now if he were still in power and all the U.N. sanctions were dropped? That's what would have happened if America had elected the frightened child who's now going around being frightened about global warming.

Never again, we must not put victims in charge of waging war ever, ever again.

From what I have heard so far, the Democrats are going to stay the course in Iraq. They will try to make it look like something different, but there will be no quick cut and run like the far left is hopping for. What changed is that they know a 9/11 type attack could happen in the next two years and if they force Bush to cut and run the public will hold them responsible for the disaster. As much as the Democrats would like to please their far left base, they are not willing to risk their shot at taking the presidency in 08. Does that make the Democrats frightened children or prudent politicians?

Sad to say, but th... (Below threshold)
Sad to say, but the American-middle will likely not realize the true nature of the threat against us until a major US city is vaporized.

At the very least it's going to take something this big for guys like Lee, jp2, and Hugh to get their heads out of their asses.

The enemy who is defeating ... (Below threshold)
Robert:

The enemy who is defeating us isn't Islamists.

It's hubris.

But don't take my word for it. I was 100% right about the Iraq wasr. That's why the MSM won't allow me near them.
Krauthammer, Styne, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Jay Tea, etc.

They're the ones who were wrong about EVERYTHING.
That's why they're invited back to tell us how to save face in Iraq and how we should be going after Syria, Iran, etc.

MSM Motto: No room for adults, plenty of room for children.

Maybe the lefties deny the ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Maybe the lefties deny the threat from Islamo-fascism because they themselves have no core belief system. Oh, other than higher taxes and unlimited abortions--they are PASSIONANT about those. With no core belief or faith system, they would happily convert to islam (or communism, before). The rest of us will not. And we will be the ones fighting.

And I for one will not be too anxious to defend our less patriotic citizens. You know--ammo can become pretty precious.

if the threat is ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
if the threat is so grave and your belief in it so strong, you should join the fight. If not, I guess it's not that important to you, is it?

There's two sides to this issue, so it's only fair that those who oppose war also do it from personal experience. No one hates war more than solders, so on questions of war only veterans and active military should vote. If your belief in peace is so strong you should become a veteran so that you can vote and express yourself from experience. If not, I guess peace is not that important to you, is it?

That's No one hates war mor... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

That's No one hates war more than soldiers

"I see you are still on ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"I see you are still on the frightened children theme, but it's the same as calling someone paranoid. Well they are not paranoid if the threat is real."

Wrong, it's not the same. You have reason to be frightened, whereas the dangers perceived by paranoids, by definition, are largely only in their minds. Terrorists are real, and are a real threat....

...but the terrorized conservatives are a danger to this country because they over react, and act out inappropriately, because they are terrorized. You poor babies... nothing more than victims. There was no good reason to wage war in Iraq as a direct result of 9/11 -- but any conservative will tell you otherwise.

Clearly, they can't think straight -- like frightened children who act out when things are beyond their control. Al-Qaeda needed to be dealt with post-9/11, and the Republicans failed to do so -- instead they over-reacted acted out of an irrational fear, and did a huge amount of damage as a result.

And as a result of your damage, conservatives cannot understand what is happening now with the Democrats in power. You will continue to lash out at people and institutions which are on your side - Democrats, the MSM, the UN, our European allies --- and you will still behave like frightened little children.

You're a marginalized political group that the neo-conservative Republicans manipulated and used to gain power.

Secretly, they referred to you guys as nuts. They were right. Conservative morons on Wizbang prove that on a daily basis.

We are such pussies. It ma... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

We are such pussies. It makes me sick.

As it was said before when a bunch of American are vaporized by a muslim nuke, PERHAPS some libs (who are still alive) will pull their heads out of their assholes.

It will be too late by then, but should make entertaining New York Times Headlins (if their building is still standing).

Lee is one of those liberal... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

Lee is one of those liberals with is head up his ass who won't know what hits him when he is vaporized or his throat is slit while hearing the words All Ya Snack Bar.

What an idiot.

Can you tell me wh... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:
Can you tell me who that is who is going to "vaporize" one of our cities? Oh, probably some of those WMDs from Iraq I suppose.

Hugh: Given the documents discovered in Iraq, it seems highly likely that Saddam would have quickly reactivated his nuclear weapons program as soon as the near-impotent UN inspection program was ejected. But you will likely choose to ignore that.

The more immediate threat is from a device obtained by jihadists from perhaps Iran or North Korea and "delivered" to our shores via a tramp steamer. The device will likely be as crude as the delivery vehicle, but it's effect will be devastating.

Senile? You'd better hope so.

"Will We Ever Win Another W... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilotb:

"Will We Ever Win Another War?"

That depends on whether or not we ever fight another real war. In the last few years I have heard of "the war on drugs", "the war on high prices", "the war on poverty", "the war on terror" and probably several others that I can't recall. Before we try to win a war, we need to define who it is that we are fighting and what constitutes victory.

There will always be enough brave young men and women to fill the ranks of the military in time of need, so I don't agree that we will ever lack the capability to defeat an enemy. The will power to do so is somewhat more dubious.

Leaving VietNam was not the downfall of the USA, but it was a dishonoring of the 50,000 that died there. Leaving Iraq will not be the end of the USA, but it will be dishonoring the 3,000 that have died there, and enable the radical mulisms to shift their resources toward the USA.

The real problem is, the notion that you can have wars agains things like drugs, poverty and terrorism. The only object of a war that makes any sense is people, and to have victory you need to be prepared to kill everyone you consider an enemy. A better term for the current conflict would be "the war on radical islam". Not very PC, but at least we would know who to try and kill. There will always be some nut case that can rile up a group of people who have nothing better to do that cause everyone else problems. The problem that currently exists is that we don't have the will power to go in and "kick ass and take names". An example of this would be the recent shift in policy for snipers, which sayes they can no longer shoot anyone with a weapon, but must wait to see if they have an intent to use it.


I think I've asked this bef... (Below threshold)
Rance:

I think I've asked this before on this site, but I'll ask it again:

Exactly what would qualify as a victory in Iraq?
Is there any outcome there that would qualify as a victory by our forces?

Rance:The presiden... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilotb:

Rance:

The president has defined victory as getting rid of Sadam (accomplished) and Iraq becoming a democratic nation (unlikely). Looks like one out of two is the best we are going to get.

Jesus never told Bush to... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Jesus never told Bush to invade Iraq, you jackass.
...
Care to back that up with a link

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq

But what's the point? You will now make ad hominem attacks on the source, and probably call Bob Woodward a communist.

Sad to say, but the Amer... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Sad to say, but the American-middle will likely not realize the true nature of the threat against us until a major US city is vaporized.

Well then by all means, let's go after those who might vaporize a US city! Because they sure as hell are not in Iraq.

Yeah Brian, if Nabil Shaath... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Yeah Brian, if Nabil Shaath (former Palestinian foreign minister) says Bush said it, it must be true.
I mean, the Palestinian govt is famous for its leadership always acting on the up and up and telling the unvarnished truth at all times...

Lord, but you are a tool

Wrong, it's not th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Wrong, it's not the same. You have reason to be frightened, whereas the dangers perceived by paranoids, by definition, are largely only in their minds. Terrorists are real, and are a real threat....

That was my point. Acting out of fear is the wise course if the threat is real. Ignoring the threat as if it doesn't exist is foolish. The attack of 9/11 proved the threat was real. Only blind fools can't see the threat Saddam would now pose if he were still in power. History has also proven the U.N. can be bribed into inaction as we saw with Iraq and as we are now seeing with Iran. The president of Iran is already making threats against the U.S. even though we could wipe Iran off the map militarily. Just imagine how emboldened he will be when Iran has nuclear weapons. It's only the blind fools on the left who can't see that threat developing.

The Democrats won in 06, but only a fool would believe everyone who voted for a Democrat is a loyal democrat. As this piece suggests, a single incident on U.S. soil which can be laid at the feet of Democrats would prove they are blind fools and turn the voters back the GOP. The Democrats are starting to realize that and I expect you'll be very disappointed by their support of Bush in the next two years.

Wait, wait.... Let me clear... (Below threshold)
waddayknow:

Wait, wait.... Let me clear some of the sand away from poor 'moo's' ears and maybe clear some memory.

The Deciderer did, in fact, tell a reporter that God told him to do Iraq....c. 6/2003...

"...Published on Friday, October 7, 2005 by The Independent
Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq
President 'revealed reasons for war in private meeting'
by Rupert Cornwell

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.

George Bush believes he is on a mission from God, according to the politician Nabil Shaath. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP

The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month...." you can read the rest here ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm) if you are unable to google "...bush god invade iraq..."

As for Shapiro's assessment it bears some consideration. Further consideration of the parallels between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity could also be examined because I see a call in his rhetoric to pit fundamentalist against fundamentalist ("...Super-national ideologies mean that war is not a local affair, but a global one....") to engage in an unending, world-wide war between Muslim and Christian that would only benefit the most powerful rat bastards on both sides and cost the lives of countless individuals who wish nothing more than to live a decent, honest life with family and friends and no war.

BTW, a question arises. Which 'christian' do you think is most likely to support a continual war against the 'unbelievers': Hard-shell Baptist, Mennonite, Spirit-filled Pentacostal, Snake handling Baptist, Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, Christian Scientist, Methodist, Catholic, Jehovah's Witness??????? C'mon pick one. Which one of these is the baddest, bloodthirstiest, religious M-F capable of considering genocide in Bush's name?

If your belief in peace ... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

If your belief in peace is so strong you should become a veteran so that you can vote and express yourself from experience. If not, I guess peace is not that important to you, is it?

MacL, I guess you missed my reply to you on the recent Webb thread.

First, though, I believe in peace in the abstract, but know war i

"Acting out of fear is t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Acting out of fear is the wise course if the threat is real."

Acting out inappropriately just makes the situation worse, not better. It is widely known and accepted that what we've done in Iraq is create a breeding ground for terrorists, and served up reasons for the young to hate us even more.

"Only blind fools can't see the threat Saddam would now pose if he were still in power."

He served no danger to us before we invaded. A longterm threat perhaps, but all we've done is destabilized the region and eliminated Saddam - who was a counter-balance to Iran, and now the door is open for Iran to move into Iraq and widen their scope of influence. It is now far worse than it was on 9/11, thanks to the inappropriate response of the Republican administration.

Republicans like you appear to be praying that we are attacked on our soil so that the Democrats are blamed. It's disgusting, and a further example of the sick, damaged, terrorized people American conservatives have become.... hoping that harm comes to their fellow Americans so that their political party can benefit. Disgusting.

Al-Qaeda needed to be de... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Al-Qaeda needed to be dealt with post-9/11, and the Republicans failed to do so...

Oh really? The following is a list of killed and/or captured Al Qaeda members. Agreed that this list is slightly old and other lists are even older (meaning the lists have likely grown), but to say that Republicans have failed in not significantly damaging and not capturing key AQ memebers is complete and utter partisan bullshit.

And following waddayknows l... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

And following waddayknows link gives you

Hello.
We're sorry but the page you've requested does not exist on our server.
Please check the spelling of the URL and try again

Anyway, you're just referencing the same second hand report... Palestinian foreign minister tells reporter that Bush told him God made him do it.
Not Bush told a reporter.

Tell us why we should believe a former member of the upstanding government of Abbas and Arrafat?

Whoops, wrong button.... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

Whoops, wrong button.
I'll start again.

If your belief in peace is so strong you should become a veteran so that you can vote and express yourself from experience. If not, I guess peace is not that important to you, is it?

MacL, I guess you missed my reply to you on the recent Webb thread.

First, though, I believe in peace in the abstract, but know war is sometimes necessary.

The question is, when do you know war is really necessary?

Now, as I said before, not only am I a veteran, I'm retired military with 20+ years of service.

And I also have worked as a US government contractor in Iraq, as one of my skills was in demand there.

Now, to return to Ben Shapiro and his little screed, I said up above that nations win wars when the national will is mobilized.

The fact that young Ben is studying in Harvard Law School instead of leading a platoon (granted, he's probably too weak and geeky to do so, but he could at least be a Civil Affairs officer, or Transportation or Signal Corps of something) is an indication that national will is not engaged.

National will is a collective concept, but in a democracy it's made up of millions of individual decisions to sacrifice individual goals, comfort and treasure to the war effort. The point of fascism, of course, was that the state imposed that sacrifice and the individuals surrendered that will for the collective good.

Either way, the state gets stronger in war "War is the health of the state."

Ben's own individual decision not to join is just one hypocrisy-laden indication that the national will is not engaged in this war. The Soldiers and Marines (and Sailors and Airmen, too) and their families are bearing all of the burden, while spectators like Ben dare talk about how weak the American people are.

Ben evades the fact that his most-desperately needed contribution is in uniform, but he forsakes it for whining from the peanut gallery.

If the threat is so great, the war so important, why isn't he in?

Whaddayknow's link - <a hre... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Whaddayknow's link - corrected.

...but to say that Repub... (Below threshold)
Lee:

...but to say that Republicans have failed in not significantly damaging and not capturing key AQ memebers is complete and utter partisan bullshit.

Has the threat been nuetralized?

No.

Well then, has the threat been minimized?

No.

Is the threat greater than ever before?

Conservatives tell us yes, unless it's in their party's interest to suggest otherwise.

Utter bullshit is the right term, Peter. Here's some toilet paper, wipe your chin.

Acting out inappro... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Acting out inappropriately just makes the situation worse, not better. It is widely known and accepted that what we've done in Iraq is create a breeding ground for terrorists, and served up reasons for the young to hate us even more.

You're acting out of fear over the potential of Iraq becoming a breeding ground for terrorists, but you ignore the larger threat Saddam would pose if he were still in power.

He served no danger to us before we invaded.

Saddam was under control only as long as the U.N. sanctions were in place. We now know Saddam had bribed the U.N. as well as French and Russian officials. Had Bush not acted when he did, Saddam would be in charge of an oil rich Iraq with no U.N. sanctions restricting his activity. Iran and Iraq made peace as a result of the first gulf war, so they would be ailed against the U.S.

Republicans like you appear to be praying that we are attacked on our soil so that the Democrats are blamed.

Not at all, we just recognize the lessons of history liberals like you are blind to. To this day, peace has never been obtained from a position of weakness. It's your ignorance or disbelief of history that puts this nation in danger.

MacL, I guess you ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
MacL, I guess you missed my reply to you on the recent Webb thread.

I knew you were a veteran, and I assumed you have read posts by myself and others and knew that many commenting here are also veterans. You seem to ignore that fact by suggesting that no one but active military should support the war, and to that I disagree.

In fact, most of those in the military despise the anti-war protesters and could make the argument that because they are not in harms way they have no right to speak. I disagree with that position as well. Questions of war and peace affect everyone directly or indirectly and everyone has the right to make their opinion known. Otherwise, what are we trying to protect? Please drop the schick about having to join the military to support war.

Has the threat been nuet... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Has the threat been nuetralized?

No.

Of course it hasn't.

Well then, has the threat been minimized?

No.

Positively disagree. AQ's ability to obtain financing and ability to conduct operations and capacity to even function has been severely cut off, in Afghanistan and around the world, thus the threat from AQ has been greatly diminished.

Is the threat greater than ever before?....Conservatives tell us yes, unless it's in their party's interest to suggest otherwise.

The threat from an enemy that hasn't been completely wiped out is always great, even in its greatly diminished state AQ could still cause incredible attack. We can't catch everyone, period.

Utter bullshit is the right term, Peter. Here's some toilet paper, wipe your chin.

No, Lee, I called bullshit on you claiming that Repubs have done nothing to stem threat and I proved you and your claim were full of shit. Deal with it.

You seem to . . [be] by... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

You seem to . . [be] by suggesting that no one but active military should support the war

No, MacL, that is not what I am saying. It is different.

You can support the war and not join in it, that's fine.

"Support," of course, being a flexibly defined and graded concept, the lowest level of which is saying, "Yeah, I guess we should be there, that's OK with me" or posting on a blog comments section and the highest level of support is something like earning a posthumous Medal of Honor after enlisting for combat and volunteering for immediate assignment to Iraq.

As they say, talk is cheap, or as the Romans put it, acta non verba

What you shouldn't do, what is morally bankrupt, is to say that we are losing what you say is a battle for civilization because of a failure of national will, blaming your fellow Americans collectively, while not committing yourself and your will in the best possible way.

Which in Shapiro's case, at his age (21? 22?), is joining his age peers in the military.

And please don't tell me that Shapiro contributes, by his blogging, as much as the lowliest ranking Army or USMC rifleman.

>>Well then, has the thr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

>>Well then, has the threat been minimized?
>No.
Positively disagree.

Well then you are a fool. Remember this...?

A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse.
Yeah Brian, if Nabil Sha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yeah Brian, if Nabil Shaath (former Palestinian foreign minister) says Bush said it

LOL! How predictably dishonest! All hail Bob Woodward, former Palestinian foreign minister!

Lord, but you are a tool

And you are either blind, dishonest, or mentally impaired. From the tone of your posts, I'm guessing all three.

-------- Original Message -... (Below threshold)
mullah cimoc:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: U.S. TEENAGERS FINANCING INSURGENCY THROUGH
PURCHASE OF FRIDAY PRAYER CDs
From: "MIND CONTROL CENTRA.L"
Date: Sun, January 1, 2006
10:36 pm To: "
From: MIND CONTROL CENTRAL
Date: 1/1/2006 9:57:28 PM
To: CIA MIND CONTROL AGENTS-REPORTERS
SPECIAL DIRECTIVE

Subject: MIND CONTROL CENTRAL - SPIKE ALL REPORTS ABOUT
IRAQI CHILD INSURGENT OMAR BIN HAFAR.

CHIEF ECONOMIST SAYS U.S. TEENAGERS FINANCING INSURGENCY
THROUGH PURCHASE OF FRIDAY PRAYER CDs RELEASED BY IRAQI
CHILD INSURGENT. TEENAGE GIRLS WEARING MODEST HEAD SCARVES
INSTEAD OF CORPORATE SLUT OUTFITS. SNOOP DOG THREATENS A
SPEECH.

DIRECTIVE 39-67 DATELINE/TEL AVIV

SECURITY LEVEL: RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION/COMSPAN

GSI (Goyim Stupification Index): .89

RE: U.S. TEENAGERS FINANCING IRAKI INSURGENCY THROUGH
PURCHASE OF MUSICAL PRAYER CDs. RAP INDUSTRY INDIGNANT AS
PROFITS PLUMMET, CRACK SUPPLIERS FEAR HARD TIMES.

1/1/2006 9:57:28 PM

DIRECTIVE: SILENCE ALL REPORTS REGARDING ACTIVITIES OF
CHILD INSURGENT OMAR BIN HAFAR, THE 13 YEARS OLD IRAKI WHOSE
TANK HUNTER KILLER SQUADS HAVE TERRIFIED HOMO NEOCONS. OMAR
HAS DEVELOPED A GROWING UNDERGROUND FOLLOWING OF U.S. AND
EUROPEAN TEENAGERS WHO PURCHASE 13 YEAR OLD OMAR'S PRAYER
CDs AND FOLLOW HIS BATTLEFIELD EXPLOITS AS PERHAPS THE MOST
FEARLESS OF ALL THE IRAKI INSURGENTS LEADERS.

WHAT WAS ONCE RUMOR, BUT NOW LEGEND, CLAIMS THAT OMAR'S
MOTHER AND FATHER WERE TORTURED TO DEATH BY ISRAELI
INTERROGATORS OPERATING AT BAGHDAD INTL AIRPORT IN THE
OPENING WEEKS OF THE WAR. OMAR'S FATHER, WHO WAS REPUTEDLY
THE MEANEST ROUGHNECK IN ALL OF THE IRAKI OILFIELD, WAS
MISTAKEN FOR A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION BY A HOMO NEOCON
AND INTERROGATED AT THE SPECIALIZED PERMANENT INTERROGATION
CENTER (S.P.I.C.).

AN INSURGENT ASSAULT IN JUNE 2003 ALLOWED OMAR AND OTHER
CHILD DETAINEES TO ESCAPE, BUT NOT BEFORE BURNING WITH CANS
OF GASOLINE THE INTERROGATORS AT SPIC. CENTNIG OFFICIALS
CLAIM THAT OF THE ORIGINAL TWELVE CHILDREN WHO FORMED THE
"SONS OF IRON BRIGADE" ONLY OMAR HAS SURVIVED.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT SONS OF IRON ACCEPT ONLY WAR ORPAHS IN
THEIR RANKS, THEY NOW FIELD OVER 6,500 COMBATANTS THANKS IN
LARGE PART TO THE PASSOVER SLAUGHTER OF MUSLIM MEN IN
OCTOBER 2004. ALMOST ALL HUNT U.S. AND COALITION TANKS
EXCEPT FOR SQUADS OF ROVING ASSASSINS WHO STRIKE
COLLABORATORS (OMAR CALLS THEM REPTILES) AT NIGHT AND
USUALLY KILL ENTIRE FAMILIES.

U.S. ECONOMIC ADVISER PREDICTS IMMINENT COLLAPSE OF RAP
MUSTIC INDUSTRY RESULTING FROM MASSIVE WAVES OF BLACK URBAN
YOUTH (AND SOME WHITE TRASH)LISTENING TO PRAYER CSs,
STUDYING HISTORY AND MATHMATICS, AND READING SCRIPTURE.
IRATE ALEISTER CROWLEY SOCIETY MEMBERS HAVE URGED PRES. BUSH
TO INTERVENE. HQ ADVISES THAT OMAR BIN HAFAR IS A SUPERSTAR
IN THE THIRD WORLD BUT UNKNOWN IN USA AND BRITAIN. LET'S
KEEP IT THAT WAY. RUMORS CIRCULATING AMONG TEENAGERS ABOUT
OMAR'S ROLE IN THE TELEVISED COERCIVE ENEMAS GIVEN TO OLIVER
NORTH BY BRIGADE MEMBERS CAN BE BROADCAST AS FREQUENTLY AS
POSSIBLE.


Posted by truth spreader 77 at December 7, 2006 01:15 AM
November 8th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
please my frends of america. Do not let joy of happiness cloud duty to those who have suffered so much in the land of the believing monotheists.

We hope you can investigation to this:

1. Who start this war? How originate? In Waziristan in the madrassa they tell us of the neocon group of shatan people. We hope you them all stoned at your local soccer stadium.

2. whence came from the false stories called as the faked WMD intel? To let these planters of disinformation escape would be unjust to the memory of your Dr. Benjamin Franklin. What nation statelet provide middle east intel to u.s.a. of america ? Nek Mohammed say israeli. Please let us know yuor true answer.

3. Is true neocon group are 99% jhovah witness church? Or maybe a different church but we are told they come from one group of evil doing persons. Please find this out and punish the guilty.

Please send navy seal team 7 to pakistan so that they may continue their torture technique on our traitor president mursharaff. In Urdu "musharaff" to mean eater of dung of white man.

Please also prepare registery of u.s.a. torturers so that these soul may receive treatment and medicine to cure their brains of these evil acts. What if they returned to your nation and became police or gym teachers. This is too dangerous in truth for amreika. Pls set up computer list and make have chips implanted in head so they can be tracked and treated.

What you shouldn't... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
What you shouldn't do, what is morally bankrupt, is to say that we are losing what you say is a battle for civilization because of a failure of national will, blaming your fellow Americans collectively, while not committing yourself and your will in the best possible way.

I'm surprised you would adopt Michael Moore's stunt. It was a disingenuous stunt when he did it for Fahrenheit 9/11 and it's still nothing but a disingenuous stunt.

If a young man becomes aware of the dangers of radical Islam, your advice is for him to join the military rather than rouse everyone in the nation to the threat. So if a kid wakes up in the night and finds the house burning, would you advise him to fight the fire himself or rouse everyone in the house to the threat? If your advice is for the kid to fight the fire himself, then you're at least consistent. If your advice is for the kid to rouse everyone in the house, then it shows how disingenuous your comments on this thread are.

If someone believes we're losing the battle because of a failure of national will, enlisting in the military effectively silences their voice, maybe permanently. That's really what this farce is all about; silencing the voice of those who see the need to confront radical Islam. Many of us believe the "failure of national will" is the result of ignorance or apathy, and the cure for that is to raise the alarm, not personally fight the fire of radical Islam. That's really what the left is worried about. The American people being aroused out of their slumber, so those on the left use this farce in an attempt to silence the voices sounding the alarm.

America will not be able to... (Below threshold)
Nancy:

America will not be able to win another war. Why? Because Americans won't support military action - even if their lives depend on it. Because a high percentage of Americans don't know or appreciate the history of their own country - and don't see the importance of knowing it. Because a high percentage of Americans think that David Letterman, Jay Leno and John Stewart really are telling them the news of the day - and they love it as long as it bashes George Bush. Because the "real" American media focuses on ratings and ignores truths that do not fit into the agenda of the business of the news. Because freedom of speech is not extended to conservative causes and there isn't widespread anger when their apprearances are marred with violence and upheaval - Where is the ACLU for conservatives? Because a high percentage of Americans don't listen when they are told that a majority of members in a world wide religion want them dead. Because a high percentage of Americans are so busy hating George Bush - they are unable to focus on the real dangers that face their country. Because the American military is more feared by liberal America than the true enemies of the country. Because politicians worry more about the next election than the next attack on America. Because common sense is lost in the fever of celebrity adoration - better a good looking candidate with a golden tongue than a man who stands up for them and America - who cares if they have no experience - do they look good and is it "time" for that particular gender/color/religion/etc.. to be moved up to prominence?!? . Because Americans don't all understand the wonder that is their life in America- don't appreciate the sacrifices that were made to fashion the wonderful life that they enjoy today. Well, maybe not all Americans act this way or think this way- but so many that it is disheartening sometimes. Conservatives - take heart and take a position. Work towards 2008 with the goal of saving America. Because that is the goal and that is the screaming need of a generation - our generation.

America will not be able to... (Below threshold)
Nancy:

America will not be able to win another war. Why? Because Americans won't support military action. Because a high percentage of Americans don't know or appreciate the history of their own country - and no one cares . Because a high percentage of Americans think that David Letterman, Jay Leno and John Stewart really are telling them the news of the day - and they love it as long as it bashes George Bush. Because the real American media focuses on ratings and ignores truths that do not fit into the agenda of the business of the news. Because freedom of speech is not to be given to conservative causes - visit college campuses to see for yourself. Because a high percentage of Americans don't listen when they are told that a majority of members in a world wide religion want them dead. Because a high percentage of Americans are so busy hating George Bush - they are unable to focus on the real dangers that face their country. Because the American military is more feared by liberal America than the true enemies of the country. Because politicians worry more about the next election than the next attack on America. Because common sense is lost in the fever of celebrity adoration - better a good looking candidate with a golden tongue that a man who stands up for them and America. Because Americans do not understand the wonder that is their life in America. They don't appreciate the sacrifices that were made to fashion the wonderful life that they enjoy today. Well, maybe not all Americans- but so many that it is disheartening sometimes. Conservatives - take heart and take a position. Work towards 2008 with the goal of saving America. Because that is the goal and that is the screaming need of the generation

MacL, I doubt you even beli... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

MacL, I doubt you even believe in what you're saying yourself, but your defense of young Ben is touching.

If a young man becomes aware of the dangers of radical Islam, your advice is for him to join the military rather than rouse everyone in the nation to the threat.

Yes, I do.

First, he's not going to "rouse everyone in the nation to the threat" writing on a few semi-obscure web pages like townhall.com.

Second, how many C-list Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins do you need? You've got Charles Johnson, Debbie Schussel, Glenn Reynolds, etc. There are plenty of polemicists out there "rousing" people.

Third, the military does need people. Ben does not look like an infantry type, but can't he enlist to learn Arabic, help to provide urgently needed intelligence?

Fourth, he could at least join the Reserves or National Guard. After a training period of about six months, he's be a civilian again until he was mobilized, except for one weekend a month and 2 weeks annual training. He'd be free to write for Townhall.com while not on active duty. With his law training, he'd be very welcome in an Army Reserve Civil Affairs unit, and could help to reform court systems in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Fifth, acta non verba. Actions do speak louder than words. As Ben is somewhat well known among people reading blogs, as a "rousing" young man warning us all about the imminent threat of those scary Mooslims invading next week.

So if he did enlist, it would make the news. It would also put paid to all his critics who say he's a simpering coward hiding under the bed.

I go back to the concept of national will, and the individual expressions thereof. People join the military for all sorts of reasons, boredom, unemployment, educational benefits. Some join out of pure patriotism in its most altruistic form - Pat Tillman being a good example of that guy. Now when Pat Tillman enlisted, it made the news, he was praised as the epitome of what a young American should be. And he was. If Ben enlisted, foregoing his opportunities to make money and risking his life as Pat Tillman did, it would be a strong individual expression of national will.

Your example of the fire and the fire department is almost too ridiculous to address, the national military and local fire departments being different insitutions, but of course you would have a duty to do what you could to put the fire out while waiting for other people do to it for you - you don't run out of the house and call the FD, letting a wastebasket fire spread.

Did I just see old hughie's... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Did I just see old hughie's name again? You know the "media" type guy. The one that has all those "degrees" but cannot prove it. ( or did I miss it?)
Stop and think a minute. Does anyone on here think that what they post makes a differance in anything going on in the world? What you post in rebuttual to someone makes as much differance as taking a piss in the ocean to raise the sea level.( take note "pucker" & hughie). The people that own the blogs are to me the only ones that really have a grasb of what they are talking about. The rest of us are just along for the ride. Otherwise we would have our own blog. So don't take yourself as being the holy grail of posters--you are just like me --highly pissed off about the "other" side. That being said here is a parting shot--to all you lefty liberals--up yours with a ten foot pole. Damn I feel better now. Go to go clean up my yard from a wind storm.

MacL, I doubt you ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
MacL, I doubt you even believe in what you're saying yourself, but your defense of young Ben is touching.

Yes I do believe what I'm saying. Every citizen in this nation has the right to support either war or peace without fools like Michael Moore criticizing them for not joining the military. Free speech is for everyone or it's for no one. Your cause is morally bankrupt. The left wants to take away the voice of supporters of the war by suggesting they have no right to speak unless they are in the military. Well, that applies to both sides or to neither. Anti-war protester are not in harms way, so they should just shut up. Either that or let everyone speak.

Second, how many C-list Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins do you need?

One more than all the anti-war protesters.

Third, the military does need people. Ben does not look like an infantry type, but can't he enlist to learn Arabic, help to provide urgently needed intelligence?

One good thing that came out of the Vietnam war was the all volunteer military. What business is if of your's whether or not some young person volunteers?

Your example of the fire and the fire department is almost too ridiculous to address, the national military and local fire departments being different insitutions, but of course you would have a duty to do what you could to put the fire out while waiting for other people do to it for you - you don't run out of the house and call the FD, letting a wastebasket fire spread.

You don't like the analogy because it demonstrates your hypocrisy. Even for a wastebasket fire the correct action is to first warn others in the house. That's what supporters of the war are doing; warning the American Electorate as to the danger of radical Islam.

Free speech is for every... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Free speech is for everyone

Preceded by:

Every citizen in this nation has the right to support either war or peace without fools like Michael Moore criticizing them

Anyone see the contradiction here?

Um, disgusted, Baggi is act... (Below threshold)
Keith Ralph:

Um, disgusted, Baggi is actually right. What you fail to realize is that it is the liberal left that is perpetuating the decay... they are the ones saying the enemy does not exist.


No, we know the enemy is real, and needs to be destroyed. But to ensure success and to reverse the current trend, we must shut down the enemy with force, and we must also remove the source of their anger. The source is Western corporations and corrupt deals had that leave these muslim and other countries exploited and hopelessly in debt. The people suffer, and see US manipulation as the source. The US behaves like an oil junky. It will do anything to ensure it can get its next fix of cheap oil. If the source is threatened, the US resorts to violence. You would think with all our technology, we could develop something else to use for power, like hydrogen. I think we could have already, if we had the will. Bottom line, US multinational corporations are run by arrogant A-holes, who walk all over those "below" them. And they are causing the rest of us problems with their behavior. Terrorism is a complex problem. On the one hand, islam is expanding around the globe. On the other, muslims are rallying to support each other against what they perceive as American aggression and corruption. Religion is being used to recruit Jihadists. Those who are behind the drive to stop the west are mixing in religion in order to recruit devout jihadists, who will throw away their lives for allah.
Shut down immigration from muslim countries, destroy terrorists, and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. Of course this will never happen.

Anyone see the con... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Anyone see the contradiction here?

And don't you see the contradiction in Michael Moore's farce? And what about your own?

The source is West... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The source is Western corporations and corrupt deals had that leave these muslim and other countries exploited and hopelessly in debt.

The kind of corruption that offends radical Islam is our sexually promiscuous society. As for oil deals, without Western corporations it would all still be in the ground and these now rich nations would be in deepest poverty.

The US behaves like an oil junky. It will do anything to ensure it can get its next fix of cheap oil. If the source is threatened, the US resorts to violence.

That's true, but it's not the government, it's the people that have the addiction . Just cause a gas shortage or rolling blackouts and you'll see how fast Americans start threatening to throw the bums out of office, whatever party they are.

You would think with all our technology, we could develop something else to use for power, like hydrogen. I think we could have already, if we had the will.

Becoming energy independent would go a long way in keeping the U.S. out of war in the middle east. There's lots of places we could drill for oil and gas domestically and we could have a major push for nuclear power, but the environmental lobby is too strong to allow that. When Green candidates run for office they get very few votes, yet they have great influence over the Democratic party. If voters are not electing them, then why are the people the voters do elect paying so much attention to them? The MSM will show a 15 second clip of the President saying something about the need to drill for oil along some cost and then they show a 45 second clip of some unknown radical environmentalist denouncing the plan. If the public wanted the country run by environmentalists we would elect them, but until we do, then lets let the people we do elect run the country.

Becoming energy independ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Becoming energy independent would go a long way in keeping the U.S. out of war in the middle east. There's lots of places we could drill for oil and gas domestically and we could have a major push for nuclear power, but the environmental lobby is too strong to allow that.

At the high end of the estimate, ANWR contains 9.2 billion barrels of oil. The US consumes 20 million barrels a day. That means in the absolute best case scenario, ANWR gives us 1.3 years of oil.

There is no possible way for the US to become energy independent with additional domestic oil drilling. All domestic drilling will do is put extra money in the pockets of the oil companies.

"ANWR gives us 1.3 years of... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"ANWR gives us 1.3 years of oil."

If that was the only place we got our oil from, that might mean something.

"All domestic drilling will do is put extra money in the pockets of the oil companies."

Sound reasoning. So let's ban all domestic drilling, if that's all it does. In fact, I hope the Dems do ban domestic drilling as you wish; it will mean a quick 2 years before they are thrown out of Majority status.

At the high end of... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
At the high end of the estimate, ANWR contains 9.2 billion barrels of oil. The US consumes 20 million barrels a day. That means in the absolute best case scenario, ANWR gives us 1.3 years of oil.

That's the excuse that's always given. It won't supply all our oil for 100 years, or it won't have any impact on the short term. As a result we never drill in such areas and that's one of the main reasons why the U.S. needs every drop of foreign oil.

There are lots more places besides ANWR that we can drill for oil or gas. There's lots of gas and oil just off the east and west costs and off the west cost of Florida. Did you know the oil sands of Canada contain more oil than Saudi Arabia? The U.S. has similar huge oil shale deposits out west.

All domestic drilling will do is put extra money in the pockets of the oil companies.

So you see oil companies making money as an evil thing. Something to be avoided even if it means going to war to protect foreign oil supplies. Is your political philosophy that pathetic, or do you have some other alternative in mind?

Two other points in reply t... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

Two other points in reply to MacL.

First, with regard to the much-used firefighter analogy. As MacL well knows, the military is a much different institution than municipal fire departments.

The military is in constant need of junior enlisted and officers, who can either stay in for one term, make it a career and move "up or out."

The need right now for new lower-ranking accessions is so desperate that the Army is lowering its standards, taking more enlistees in the lowest mental categories and making more "moral waivers" for criminal convictions, etc. There is no doubt that a young man like Ben Shapiro, obviously in mental CAT I and possessing high language and other aptitudes, would be a very welcome addition to the military. I say this a a former member of a recruiting advisory council.

In professional municipal fire departments, on the other hand, spots for career firefighters are highly competitive through civil service, and a firefighter can spend a whole career as a firefighter, without having to be promoted to lieutenant.

In places with volunteer fire departments, where there was a need, yes, an able-bodied person would have a moral obligation to join and do their share for the community, so in that case the moral obligation is the same.

The other thing is, even joining the active military does not silence a person. With approval, a servicemember can publish articles, maintain a blog. They can also comment on blogs, have pieces placed anonymously.

You also failed to respond to my point about young Ben joining the reserves or National Guard - why can't he even do his part in the Great War on Terror as a Citizen Soldier? He could still write whatever he wants most of the time.

And wouldn't Ben's writing about the war be much more powerful and credible after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I know why he won't join, barring some physical impediment - because Ben's a coward, or a careerist who has "other priorities," or he wants to make more money than an E4 linguist, O1 platoon leader, or O3 JAG makes, or all three.


First, with regard... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
First, with regard to the much-used firefighter analogy. As MacL well knows, the military is a much different institution than municipal fire departments.

You completely missed the point of my analogy. When others are unaware of the danger of a fire, a person's first duty is to warn them, not fight the fire. Being that many in this nation are apparently unaware of the danger of radical Islam, a person's first duty is to warn them, not join the military. The Iraq war is being lost at home, not in Iraq. It's the people's will to fight that's lacking, not our military's ability to fight. Ben has chosen to address the nation's real weakness, which is peoples blindness to the danger of radical Islam.

You also failed to respond to my point about young Ben joining the reserves or National Guard - why can't he even do his part in the Great War on Terror as a Citizen Soldier? He could still write whatever he wants most of the time.

I did not fail to respond to your point about Ben joining the military reserves or active. You just didn't like what I wrote. Here it is again. "What business is it of your's whether or not some young person volunteers?"

If veterans like you and I can go around telling young people what they must do with their lives then what did we fight for? Were you only in the military for the steady paycheck, or were you there, at least in part, to protect the freedoms others before us fought to secure?

I know why he won't join, barring some physical impediment - because Ben's a coward, or a careerist who has "other priorities," or he wants to make more money than an E4 linguist, O1 platoon leader, or O3 JAG makes, or all three.

And I know why you're on the kid's case. To shut him up because you don't like what he has to say. Well the ploy didn't work for Michael Moore and it's not working for you either.

So you see oil companies... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So you see oil companies making money as an evil thing. Something to be avoided even if it means going to war to protect foreign oil supplies. Is your political philosophy that pathetic, or do you have some other alternative in mind?

It's time for you to go inside. Your strawman is showing.

It's time for you ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
It's time for you to go inside. Your strawman is showing.

After you!

The Iraq war is being l... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

The Iraq war is being lost at home, not in Iraq.

Um no, as someone who's spent more than a year in Iraq since the invasion, up to this May, I can tell you the war is being lost in Iraq.

When the Iraqis I worked with are either out of Iraq, or trying to leave, it has nothing to do with the "MSM" or Michael Moore.

It has to do with their fear of imminent death through sectarian violence. Because the coalition cannot secure the country and the forces we train are too often ineffective or corrupt.

But maybe you know better from wherever you're at, just like young Ben from Cambridge.

But maybe you know... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
But maybe you know better from wherever you're at, just like young Ben from Cambridge.

No doubt you feel that way, but it's because your thinking is confined to a box built by liberals and the MSM. Our troops have to pussyfoot around because of the constant criticism from the world wide left (WWL). In countries such as Iraq, where hatred between groups leads to the violence we are seeing, the solution is to apply the Peace of Rome. I can already hear the hiss of snakes, but their silence in response to Saddam's rule reduces their credibility to zero.

your thinking is confine... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

your thinking is confined to a box built by liberals and the MSM

Um no, my thinking is confined to a box built by my own experiences in Iraq and my own moral standards. I know many good Iraqis who have worked for democracy and others who are just trying to stay alive and protect their families. So I can't dehumanize them. After all, aren't they the people we were there to liberate?

Our troops have to pussyfoot around

That "box" my thinking is confined to includes one of the foundations of Christian morality - the Golden Rule. If bad guys were hiding in your neighborhood, would it be OK for someone to bomb the whole neighborhood flat or massacre all military age males?

One of the benefits of not being personally involved in the war is the luxury to speak in bullshit code words.

Like, what do you mean by "the Peace of Rome" or "pussyfoot around?"

Do you mean 000,000s of soldiers, like Roman legionnaires, to guard the populace and impose order?

Cause we don't have the troops, due to your Great Genius Rumsfeld's refusal to increase troop strength.

Do you mean bombing towns where Americans are attacked without regard to civilian casualties?

Do you mean "decimating," the Roman practice of killing every tenth person in a rebellious area?

Anyways, wasn't the early adoption of Christianity a reaction to Roman brutality?

their silence in response to Saddam's rule reduces their credibility to zero.

I, and many others were in favor of deposing Saddam for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I even went there myself to help out. You can't ignore that things are going badly now, though - after awhile the balance of harms may show that more suffering and death was caused by the invasion than would probably have been caused by Saddam staying in power.

And that is because of American (specifically Bush and Rumsfeld) incompetence -- trying to wage war on the cheap, trying to save money by spending American and Iraqi blood.


Um no, my thinking... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Um no, my thinking is confined to a box built by my own experiences in Iraq and my own moral standards. I know many good Iraqis who have worked for democracy and others who are just trying to stay alive and protect their families. So I can't dehumanize them. After all, aren't they the people we were there to liberate?

And yet the U.S. is not being treated as liberators. In fact the majority of Iraqis seemed to hate us soon after Saddam's forces were defeated. If the Iraqis really wanted to live free, the insurgents would have been defeated long ago. The video a truck drive took of an ambush shows the insurgents operating in the open in a populated area. If the Iraqis really wanted to live free, the insurgents would have taken fire from half the houses in the area. The Iraqis are Muslims first and their deep hatred of the U.S., developed by Saddam's propaganda, is what allows the insurgents to operate in Iraq. The insurgents then turned on the Iraqis by starting a war between Muslim sects.

That "box" my thinking is confined to includes one of the foundations of Christian morality - the Golden Rule. If bad guys were hiding in your neighborhood, would it be OK for someone to bomb the whole neighborhood flat or massacre all military age males?

Well you didn't seem to be much of a Christian in a prior thread, but even if you are, you're no more Christian than the generation of WW2. The generation that practiced total war. They fire bombed entire cities killing hundreds of thousands at a time.

One of the benefits of not being personally involved in the war is the luxury to speak in bullshit code words.

Who says I'm not personally involved? Maybe you're new to the web, but you should know that only logic and reason carry any weight. You claim to be a veteran and that you were a contractor in Iraq, but on the web that carries no weight. Given you think the golden rule applies on the battlefield you're more likely some snot nosed kid who has no clue about how the real world works.

Like, what do you mean by "the Peace of Rome" or "pussyfoot around?"

Pax Romana is the peace Rome imposed by force. Those who broke that peace did so at great peril. Knowing that, most of the tribal warlords of the era lived in peace with their rivals. We seen the same thing in the former Yugoslavia. Without the backing of the USSR, Yugoslavia disintegrated in 1991 and the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs went back to killing each other. It only takes a few idiots to rekindle these old hatreds and without the threat of Rome, or the USSR in this case, war soon follows and thousands of people die.

We are seeing the same thing in Iraq. With the defeat of the President's party on 11/7, the threat of Rome, or the USA in this case, is reduced and Iraq is descending into tribal war, which is not the same thing as civil war. What I said before is correct. That is, the Iraq war is being lost at home, not in Iraq. It's the people's will to fight that's lacking, not our military's ability to fight. The left amplified every misdeed of the U.S. and dismissed the true atrocities of the insurgents. The left undermined Bush and Rumsfeld at every opportunity. The left succeeded in defeating the liberation of Iraq on 11/7. Now the death toll is likely to soar in Iraq and I lay it at the feet of the left. Apparently your moral standards are ok with human deaths as long as it's not Americans who are doing the killing?

Anyways, wasn't the early adoption of Christianity a reaction to Roman brutality?

Not at all. If you're going to claim to be Christian you should at least do some study on the subject.

I, and many others were in favor of deposing Saddam for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I even went there myself to help out. You can't ignore that things are going badly now, though - after awhile the balance of harms may show that more suffering and death was caused by the invasion than would probably have been caused by Saddam staying in power.

If you believe that then you're the worst of the bunch. I have respect for those who opposed the war from day one; I only criticize their tactics in undermining the President. But people who support war and then after the loss of life lose their stomach for it are to be despised. Without the support of people like you we would have never gone to war. Without the lose of support from people like you we would win and bring peace and freedom to Iraq. Look at the mess you and your ilk have caused. I don't believe you're a veteran. No veteran I know says the things you say.

MacL, your post is so confu... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

MacL, your post is so confused morally and strategically that I hardly know where to start.

Do you want to kill most Iraqis, or "bring peace and freedom to Iraq?" Or both, if "bring[ing] peace and freedom" requires killing most Iraqis?

If the Iraqis really wanted to live free, the insurgents would have been defeated long ago. The video a truck drive took of an ambush shows the insurgents operating in the open in a populated area. If the Iraqis really wanted to live free, the insurgents would have taken fire from half the houses in the area.

So I guess "Iraqis living in peace in freedom" is not what they want, according to you.

I actually think the insurgents and their supporters, except maybe in a few areas, are a minority. You disagree, which will make it hard to win unless you kill most of the country, right?

The Iraqis are Muslims first and their deep hatred of the U.S., developed by Saddam's propaganda, is what allows the insurgents to operate in Iraq.

Now I get what you mean: kill them all, those scary Moooslims. No, once again, what allowed the insurgents to operate was the security vaccuum that idiot Rumsfeld created by not even having enough troops to secure the Iraqi ammo dumps, the too-few troops, and the climate of intimidation that created in Iraq.

I don't claim to be Christian, but I try to live by some principles that come from Christianity and other religions, like the Golden Rule. But I don't take everything, like "turn the other cheek." You're the so-called Christian, who would bathe in blood.

It's the people's will to fight that's lacking

Like Ben Shapiro - he's got no will to fight, obviously.

But people who support war and then after the loss of life lose their stomach for it are to be despised.

Did I say we should withdraw? No, I've said repeatedly we shouldn't, but the people in charge - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld - are idiots and a radical new direction is needed. Rumsfeld being gone is a welcome first step.

What I am is angry at all of the unnecessary loss of life -- if Bush and Rumsfeld had listened to those who wanted a robust force struction and detailed and funded occupation plan, Iraq would be a lot better off today.

MacL, your post is... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
MacL, your post is so confused morally and strategically that I hardly know where to start.

I've noticed you don't have much capacity for understanding complex ideas. Sorry, I'll try to dummy it down for you, but there's only so much simplifying I can do for you.

Iraqis are Muslim first and most of them hated the U.S. as a result of the first Gulf war and Saddam's incessant propaganda. They are also of two Muslim sects that have a long history of warring with each other. This is not unlike the conditions found in Yugoslavia prior to 1991, yet the USSR was able to impose a kind of Pax Romana. Yes, some folks were killed and many more were imprisoned, but that lose of life and freedom was insignificant to what occurred once the USSR was no longer able to impose peace. Now try to remember the lesson of Yugoslavia as we go into the next paragraph.

Iraqis hate the U.S. just as the Yugoslavs hated the USSR. Iraq is made up of groups that have a long history of warring with each other just as in Yugoslavia. If the U.S. had the political will, it could impose Pax Romana, just as the USSR did in Yugoslavia. The only valid question is, which is worse for the people of Iraq, Pax Romana or tribal war and it's aftermath? Apparently you feel Pax Romana is the greater evil. Well there's no way to know for sure, but history shows that the loss of life from tribal war is staggering by western standards. In Yugoslavs the people were saved from the full measure of their tribal war by NATO's intervention. Who's going to come to the aid of the Iraqis once the U.S. pulls out?

But I don't take everything, like "turn the other cheek." You're the so-called Christian, who would bathe in blood.

The difference is that I count human deaths the same no matter who's doing the killing. I see the pullout of the U.S. and the resulting blood bath in Iraq as taking far more lives than the invasion and current policy. That's obviously something you didn't consider or don't care about.

It's the people's will to fight that's lacking

Like Ben Shapiro - he's got no will to fight, obviously.

You know full well the context of my phase was the ballet box, not the battlefield. Apparently misrepresentation doesn't go against those moral standards of yours.

Did I say we should withdraw? No, I've said repeatedly we shouldn't, but the people in charge - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld - are idiots and a radical new direction is needed.

And yet you continue to denigrate others, like Ben Shapiro, who support staying in Iraq until the job is done. Unless you voted for those who supported the President on 11/7, you voted to withdraw. No wonder you are finding this thread confusing.

MacL, you've gone round and... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

MacL, you've gone round and round on this, but you still won't say what you mean by stopping "pussyfoot[ing] around," and what Rules of Engagement you would adopt, and how loosening the trigger fingers and causing more civilian deaths would bring victory.

This is not unlike the conditions found in Yugoslavia prior to 1991, yet the USSR was able to impose a kind of Pax Romana.

The former Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact, and was an independent communist country dominated by Marshal Tito with its own arms industry and foreign policy.

But still, since you cite that example, I'm confused again by your brilliance - do you want freedom or dictatorship for Iraq?

MacL, you've gone ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
MacL, you've gone round and round on this, but you still won't say what you mean by stopping "pussyfoot[ing] around," and what Rules of Engagement you would adopt, and how loosening the trigger fingers and causing more civilian deaths would bring victory.

I only need to go round and round on this because you're so slow to grasp what I'm writing. I'll type real slow this time so that you can keep up. We send soldiers to Iraq to keep the peace among a hostile population. With their lives at risk they are going to make mistakes, but because of the howling left, we hold our soldiers in Iraq to a standard we don't even require of our local police. Our soldiers have to pussyfoot around when they are under fire.

What do you mean by civilian deaths? Some civilians get killed while firing their AK47, but the Iraqis claim the guy was firing at the insurgents. Some civilians get killed while planting an IED, but the Iraqis claim the guy was just investigating the IED in order to alert the U.S. military. Haven't you figured it out yet, they are all civilian deaths. The insurgents know the U.S. goes to great lengths to protect what we think are non-combatants, and so the insurgents disguise themselves as civilians. The local people know exactly who the insurgents are and would turn on them if the insurgents were putting the local people in danger. Because of the howling left in this country it's safe for Iraqis to let insurgents fire on truck convoys and troops from their front yards. When a convoy goes out, there should be a gun ship flying overhead ready to suppress enemy fire. Yes, some innocent people would die, but the insurgency would have been defeated long ago because the local people wouldn't allow them to operate in their neighborhoods.

Does that offend you? Well don't you think there were innocent people killed in allied bombing attacks of WW2? If the U.S. is not prepared to fight wars in which innocent people are killed then we should never go to war. I can respect that position, but you said above that you were in favor of deposing Saddam, so you're apparently not opposed to taking innocent lives to achieve freedom for the rest. The question is, when did you lose your stomach for it.

The former Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact, and was an independent communist country dominated by Marshal Tito with its own arms industry and foreign policy.

While true on the surface, it wasn't really an independent country. Remember Prague Spring? Tito died in 1980, but Yugoslavia continued to enjoy relative peace until 1991 when the USSR fell. Without the Pax Romana of the USSR, Yugoslavia disintegrated into ethnic war. Iraq is now in a similar state and without the Pax Romana of the U.S, it will likewise disintegrated into war. NATO came to the rescue of the people of the former Yugoslavia, but who will rescue the people of Iraq when the U.S. is gone?

But still, since you cite that example, I'm confused again by your brilliance - do you want freedom or dictatorship for Iraq?

Well at least you're honest about your intellectual limitations. In case you missed the last three years, the U.S. is attempting to build a free nation that can defend itself from both foreign and domestic enemies. The hope of Bush and right thinking Americans is to impose peace by force until the new Iraqi government can do it for themselves, and then hopefully Iraq can establish peace by law.

FWhile t... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

F


While true on the surface, it wasn't really an independent country. Remember Prague Spring?

Jeez, I may not be a Genius like you, but at least I have my geography and history right.

Prague is in the Czech Republic, part of the former Czechoslovakia, NOT Yugoslavia. Sheesh, you could at least check a map.

because of the howling l... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

because of the howling left, we hold our soldiers in Iraq to a standard we don't even require of our local police. Our soldiers have to pussyfoot around when they are under fire.

Not true, the current Rules of Engagement in Iraq are very robust and give the troops full discretion to return fire and take offensive actions against insurgents.

What they can't do is murder civilians in reprisal for an insurgent attack in the area, which the Marine JAG charged happened in Haditha, or rape young girls and murder the whole family, as the 101st Airborne JAG has charged happened in Mahmoudiyah.

Troops which have apparently acted in good faith like in the numerous checkpoint incidents where innocent civilians have been killed, are not prosecuted.

There has also been a fair amount of collateral damage from bombing, artillery fire, crossfire. Also not prosecuted.

Murder of uninvolved innocent civilians is prosecuted. Is that what you're complaining about? We should stop pussyfooting around and unleash troops to rape and murder?

Can you point to any specific cases in which you think justice was not done?

I talked to a soldier in Baghdad who complained to me about trigger-happy soldiers - saying some of them would waste a family in car or spray into a protesting crowd because someone threw a rock.

But I guess you believe such stories are all far left propaganda of the MSM.

While true on t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
While true on the surface, it wasn't really an independent country. Remember Prague Spring?

Jeez, I may not be a Genius like you, but at least I have my geography and history right.

Prague is in the Czech Republic, part of the former Czechoslovakia, NOT Yugoslavia. Sheesh, you could at least check a map.

Jeez, I didn't say Prague was in Yugoslavia. Are you really that dense that I have to explain ever little point in detail to you? The invasion of the Czech Republic by the Soviet Union demonstrated to the world that true "independence" of satellite states would not be tolerated by the Soviet Union. The warring factions of Yugoslavia were held in check by the USSR until it's demise in 1991. That's what I was talking about, the imposed peace of the USSR and it has noting to do with Yugoslavia being independent. Why can't you understand such a simple concept?

Not true, the curr... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Not true, the current Rules of Engagement in Iraq are very robust and give the troops full discretion to return fire and take offensive actions against insurgents.

Our soldiers have to wait for someone to start shooting at them to take offensive action, because they simply can identify insurgents until they act. That's not the case with police, who can use deadly force whenever they reasonably feel threatened. For example, when someone approaches police in disregard of their orders, police are justified to shoot. That's not the case with soldiers in Iraq. And don't give me the language barrier BS. All the troops that go on patrols in Iraq are trained extensively before they even go to Iraq. That training includes key words as well as local customs and hand gestures.

Murder of uninvolved innocent civilians is prosecuted. Is that what you're complaining about? We should stop pussyfooting around and unleash troops to rape and murder?

Apparently you consider the allied bombing of cities in WW2 as murder. Sorry to bust your bubble, but war causes civilian deaths. What did you think your being "in favor of deposing Saddam" involved?

Can you point to any specific cases in which you think justice was not done?

I gave you the specific example, which you ignored. Once again, we should protect convoys and patrols with airborne gunships. If the local people allow insurgents to lay in wait in close proximity to their homes, then they are involved. As soon as a convoy or patrol comes under attack the gunship can be called in as needed. We don't do that simply because the risk of hitting "so called" civilians would invoke a howling response from the left in this country. As a result, the insurgents have a safe means of attacking patrols and convoys. If the military would have been free to quickly defeat the insurgency with such tactics, then in the long run both American and Iraqi lives would have been saved.

I talked to a soldier in Baghdad who complained to me about trigger-happy soldiers - saying some of them would waste a family in car or spray into a protesting crowd because someone threw a rock.

But I guess you believe such stories are all far left propaganda of the MSM.?

First, I don't believe you're a veteran or were ever in Iraq. Your words don't match with someone with those experiences. Second, hearing someone say that someone else told them what they would like to do is hearsay and not worth spit. Third, there's a big difference between news and truth, but I don't want to confuse you any more than you are.

Our soldiers have to wai... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

Our soldiers have to wait for someone to start shooting at them to take offensive action, because they simply can identify insurgents until they act. That's not the case with police, who can use deadly force whenever they reasonably feel threatened.

This is not true, the Rules of Engagement in Iraq allow the use of deadly force where there is a reasonable belief of insurgent activity, like bearing arms or taking actions like planting bombs.

The ROE in Iraq are a lot more liberal in allowing the use of force than that of ANY police department, that is for sure.

I've heard AC-130s used in Baghdad at night, that chain-saw sound of the 30mm cannon. Apaches escort convoys and are on quick response for patrols.

But, this "take the gloves off" is just another myth, carried over from Vietnam. Same old shit.

In a counterinsurgency, if you kill too many civilians, you lose. Especially in a place like Iraq, where every civilian you kill mistakenly might have 100 cousins and tribesmen who will take revenge.

Better quiet but massive presence than indiscrimate force: but the US never deployed enough troops to minimally secure places like Baghdad and Fallujah/Ramadi.


Here's a story which reflec... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

Here's a story which reflects the experience of myself and other contractors:

Here's the link:<a... (Below threshold)
observer 5:
This is not true, ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
This is not true, the Rules of Engagement in Iraq allow the use of deadly force where there is a reasonable belief of insurgent activity, like bearing arms or taking actions like planting bombs.

That's the problem. U.S. troops don't know who the insurgents are until they act, so they often take casualties before they can take action. Our troops know that every time they fire their weapons they are going to be accused of some crime by locals. These are the same locals who watched the insurgents planting IEDs or laying in wait and allowed the insurgents to operate in their neighborhood. The ROE needs to address civilian complicity with the insurgents. The message to the Iraqis should be that if they allow insurgents to operated in their neighborhoods without alerting authorities, then they won't be considered innocent when U.S. troops defend themselves. That's harsh, but such policy and the more use of gunship's would quickly bring an end to the insurgency.

In a counterinsurgency, if you kill too many civilians, you lose. Especially in a place like Iraq, where every civilian you kill mistakenly might have 100 cousins and tribesmen who will take revenge.

Like I said before, the Iraqi people already hated the U.S. from the first Gulf war where we killed thousands of Iraqi troops who likely each had 100 cousins and tribesmen. That's one reason the insurgents can operated so freely in Iraq. It's a hostile population where many so called "civilians" are complicit with insurgents. The MSM ignores such complicity when reporting on so call atrocities by U.S. troops.

Better quiet but massive presence than indiscrimate force: but the US never deployed enough troops to minimally secure places like Baghdad and Fallujah/Ramadi.

And I've heard retired generals also make the case for more troops, but with the caveat that we would take many more casualties. Well thanks to the MSM, the American electorate has no stomach for casualties and that's the underlying reason there are so few troops in Iraq. Now if the majority of the American electorate had been howling about there not being enough troops in Iraq, then Bush would have had the political capital to run a proper counterinsurgency.

Here's a story which reflects the experience of myself and other contractors:

So the U.S. not only needs to train the Iraqi army and police, but also the local constructions workers. Who knew the Iraqi people were so inept?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy