Gen. David Patraeus’ report on military operations in Iraq is due this month, but many have already made up their minds that it’s time to pull the plug. And I’m not just talking about anti-war dope-smoking hippies and Democrats in Congress. But perhaps I’m repeating myself.
The fact is America hasn’t fought an all-out war to win since we dropped the Big One on Japan to bring World War II to an end. We fought Korea to a stalemate, and lost in Vietnam. We pulled up short of outright victory in the first Gulf War, allowing Saddam and his minions to live to fight another day. And that other day is today.
As the enemy continues to shoot down and blow up American military personnel, along with innocent civilians, our soldiers and our allies are forced to fight a politically correct war with one, and often both hands tied behind their backs. Call it “compassionate combat,” brought to you by our “compassionate conservative” American president.
It goes kinda like this: Johnny Jihadi blows up an American convoy or shoots at American soldiers. Johnny J runs away. GI Joe pursues Johnny J. Johnny J runs into a mosque. GI Joe, thanks to the politically correct “rules of engagement” (ROE) he’s forced to fight under, gives up the chase and let’s Johnny J get away. To fight another day. To kill more Americans and more innocent civilians. That’s infuriating.
It’s as if we’re playing a game of tag on the playground, where you’re “safe” from being tagged “it” if you reach home “base.” But this is no game; it’s war. And there should be no safe base in war. If Johnny Jihadi runs into a mosque…bye-bye mosque, baby! No apology necessary.
Yet our military last week was reduced to apologizing for…soccer balls.
What? You missed this story?
“The U.S. military regrets any offense it may have caused by handing out a soccer ball emblazoned with the name of Allah on it as part of a public relations exercise in Afghanistan,” according to an Associated Press story out of Kabul on 28 August. “At least one of the balls – which were dropped by helicopter to children in Khost province in eastern Afghanistan – carried a small picture of the Saudi Arabian flag. The flag features in Arabic script the Islamic declaration of faith, which contains the words Allah and the Prophet Muhammed. . . . Most (Muslims) would find the idea of kicking a ball emblazoned with those two names deeply offensive.”
Indeed, the AP reports that villagers, the target of this “winning the hearts and minds” PR gesture, were “upset and angry.”
Oh, puh-lease. Such Muslim hyper-sensitivity over a good-will gesture is ridiculous. Nevertheless, the most powerful military on earth was reduced to groveling for forgiveness. “We regret any disturbance that was caused in this case,” said military spokesman Sgt. Dean Welch. “If we hurt one person, this is one too many.”
Are you kidding me? It’s bad enough when military lawyers handcuff our soldiers’ ability to hurt or kill the enemy when he runs into a mosque, but when the brass starts regretting “disturbances” which might have hurt somebody’s FEELINGS, something is seriously wrong with this picture.
If our troops aren’t allow to kill the enemy wherever he runs without worrying about hurting somebody’s feelings, then no matter what Gen. Patraeus says in his report, we’re doomed to failure and might as well throw in the towel. If we’re not going to let our soldiers fight with everything they’ve got, and fight to win, then we shouldn’t be sending them at all. Enough is enough.
Soccer balls, indeed.
Posted on September 2nd, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
“If we’re not going to let our soldiers fight with everything they’ve got, and fight to win, then we shouldn’t be sending them at all.”
How would you define victory in Iraq? Do you think your definition of victory in Iraq is achievable thru military action? If so, what kind of military action?
Sometimes I wonder how much thought was given to these questions in 2002. Sometimes I wonder if anyone even asked these questions in 2002.
1. “lost in Vietnam”…what did we lose? Did “they” folow us over here and kill us?
2. “We pulled up short of outright victory in the first Gulf War, allowing Saddam and his minions to live to fight another day”…are you advocating that we should have started this mess in 1991?! Bush I (…and then Secy of Defense, Cheney), knew to leave a strategic stalemate in place between Iraq and Iran. Bush II wanted to be a war president, push his agenda and blah, blah, blah. His reason for starting this war, with the aid and abetting of congress, has been long since been debunked. Even CNN’s crazy loon, said yesterday that he has believed all along the whole point of attcking Iraq was to get to the poinit we are at the precipice today, “popping the head of Iran.”
Chuck, what you seem not toappreciate is that no war has been declared since WWII, and this is not just semantics. Without a declaration of war by the congress, there is no universal support for the miltary action undertaken, and thus there is an errosion of support over time.
JS, I agree with your observatrions and will add that many Democratic members of the House of Representatives did not vote in favor of the auhtorization to use force.
Southy: I don’t know who the crazy loon on CNN is, but you raised an interesting point when you wrote, “Even CNN’s crazy loon, said yesterday that he has believed all along the whole point of attcking Iraq was to get to the poinit we are at the precipice today, ‘popping the head of Iran.’”
I would agree that the neocons’ goal wasn’t to stop with Iraq. That was just a good staging area. I never was sure whether the next target would be Syria or Iran, but I guess now we know it’s Iran.
Doing a quick comparison of Iran to Iraq gives the following basic information: Iran’s land mass is 3.7 times greater than Iraq’s. Iran’s population is 2.6 times greater than Iraq’s. On top of that, President Ahmadinejad is a pretty unpopular guy in Iran. Of course, the only thing that could possibly change that and cause the country to rally around him would be for the US to take military action against Iran.
People in the Bush Administration have recently upped the volume of their saber rattling about taking military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. How are we supposed to do this with an Army already stretched to its limits occupying Iraq? And don’t believe for a minute that three days of air strikes will eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.
Southy: You’re right in stating that “many Democratic members of the House of Representatives did not vote in favor of the auhtorization to use force.”
There were also some Democratic senators who voted against the authorization to use force. One of them was not John Edwards. If Bob Schrum’s recollections in his recent book are correct, Edwards was opposed to the war but voted for it because he felt that a “no” vote would destroy his chances to be elected president in 2004.
I can’t believe this man still feels qualified and deserving of the presidency.
Cnn loony is Glen Beck. Edwards and many other Ds made an electorally strategic choice to go to “war” as they were advised by D Party strategist, James Carville. He said if they didn’t, they may lose their reelection. What the hell kind of manner is that to decide to send our men and women and national treasure in to harms way?!?!?!Unfortunetly, many Rs followed Karl Rove’s same encouragement (remember that in January 2002 he told a Texas GOP crowd that war was coming, YIPEE!; rally round the flag).
Crazies. If we didn’t need oil, we wouldn’t be there in Iraq. Iraq oil output is now down 1,500,000 barrels a day from when Hussien ran the place; hmmmm is that having a positive impact on the return on investment of the oil people??!?!?!
I detest Michael Moore, but the one scene from “Fahrenheit 911″ that I enjoyed was when he walked up to members of Congress and asked them if they had children serving in the military. I don’t remember the responses, but I’ve always felt that the question was pretty valid. Here are people making decisions to go to war based on their re-election prospects, and they have no clue about making any kind of sacrifice for it.
One of the most appalling statements I’ve ever read from a public official was back in 1989, when the current vice-president was questioned on why he didn’t serve in Vietnam, and he responded, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.”
A far cry from World War II. Joseph Kennedy was strongly isolationist, detested FDR, opposed US entry into the war. When we got into the war, though, his two oldest sons joined the Navy, one killed, the other wounded.
In some ways, however, things don’t change. In his book “Citizen Soldiers,” Stephen Ambrose wrote that the stock market slumped in December 1944 because Wall Street thought the war would be over by the end of the year, and that business would suffer as a result of the coming peace. But when the Germans launched their offensive in the Ardennes (the Battle of the Bulge), the stock market rallied because the German offensive signaled that they weren’t ready to give up yet and that the war in Europe would last for several more months.