You just gotta know hanging Saddam was the right thing to do when so many moral midgets have come out against it.
Oh man, Leiberman is going to get whacked by the Krazy Kos Kids.
"Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism....Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable.....I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists."
Expect to hear a call from Michael Moore, The Huffington Post, and the KKKs to have Lieberman killed over this apostasy.
Because I've had to listen to nearly a quarter century of shitbird comments about the military (what with ROTC and Active Duty time), I've never once, for even a second, believed that the Left "supports the troops". Not back in college, not during Desert Storm, OEF, OIF, Bosnia, Somalia....never. After all, if there was anyone who believed such a transparent lie, those on the Left wouldn't have to make such an effort to confirm it all the time. There is no correlation, except perhaps in the mind of a Lefty, between opposing the Iraq war and supporting the troops. One can very easily oppose the Iraq war, and also wish ill for the US troops. In fact, most, if not all, on the Left do oppose the Iraq war and wish ill for US troops.
As noted on Tim Blair's site, via Town Hall, the comments posted about a six-year-old singing a Christmas song about missing her brother, who is serving in Iraq, are nothing short of disgusting. But they typical Lefty fare.
Read it and weep. There are no moral limits on the Left's hatred for fellow Americans. Just ask one. Or read their true feelings when they can post anonymously on You
Tube. It really must gag a Lefty when they lie about "supporting the troops".
I find myself making note of what I will need to report back to Congress, concerned
once again about the unbound cruelty of the American soldier. Imagine my displeasure when I found that US soldiers had cut off the ears of corn, beaten the egg whites, cut the eyes out of the potatoes, whipped the cream, and conducted other atrocities of which I will not speak in mixed company.
In order to save my own sanity, I had to separate myself both physically and mentally from the underclass that makes up the fighting men and women here in Iraq. I found myself missing my good friend Assad.
-Baghdad, December 2006, near (or perhaps over) the Cambodian Border
The MSM is all abuzz about the new "grim milestone". According to the military experts at ABC and other outlets, there is some sort of permanent mark on the wall created by the 2,973 Americans killed on 9-11. This number has become some sort of barometer of success or failure for the Bush Administration....as decided by the MSM.
Of course the number of dead Americans on 9-11 has no correlation with the number of dead US servicemembers in Iraq. According to the Joe Wilson/MSM version of the truth, there was never any connection between Iraq and 9-11, so why make one now?
But there is a correlation to that number that does make some sense, and which has a firm connection to 9-11. When did the number of al Queda in Afghanistan killed by the US surpass the number of Americans in the US killed by al Queda?
That date was sometime near the end of November 2001.
Years before the start of OIF.
Was that milestone reported? Nah, the reporters were too busy romatically reporting on the effete protests worldwide against the battles in Afghanistan, and thereby reliving their own glory protest days.
...since I already know the answer, but I'll ask anyway.
Some moron posting on Kos has a poll, asking
"How many deaths will it take till he knows/ that too many people have died?"
He (she?) must mean President Bush, since every post on Kos is about President Bush. (Here's a question; how lame will the Daily Kos be after Jan 20th, 2009?)
I have a poll question I'd ask, if I knew how to do polls on the web.
"Given that the Left doesn't believe we are at war with islamic fascism even after islamic fascists have carried out attacks against the US for the last 28 years, and even formally declared war on the US in 1996; how many more American civilians must die before the Left believes we need to defend our country?"
- They will never believe, because war is never the answer
- They may believe after another major attack on US soil, but still won't acknowledge it
- They will never believe no matter how many Americans die because it's always going to be America's fault that we were attacked
- No Blood for OOOOOOIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL!
Prince Harry joins the military, and then demands to go to Iraq?
I know that Senator Kerry was only talking about, and insulting, US soldiers when he said that smart American kids go off to college, and the dumb ones go off to Iraq, but really, this is just too sweet to not contrast.
A bloviating gigolo senior US Senator who couldn't wait to leave Viet Nam and grab the spotlight in order to condemn his fellow soldiers, upstaged by a 22 year-old self-effacing royal who is demanding to serve in another unpopular war because he believes it's the honorable thing to do.
Less than 12 hours after I suggest that the US Army define anyone holding an AK-47 as a terrorists, and ripe for his 72 virgins, a US soldier sends a top aide to al Sadr off to paradise. For brandishing his AK.
That was quick.
Good to see Chiarelli is listening.
Now....what next to suggest?
Cliff May questions in The Corner why the Ethiopians are able to kill a thousand or so Somali islamic terrorists in a matter of days, when it takes the US months to do the same.
He offers two explanations: more boots on the ground (ridiculous, they can't possibly have more fighters in Somalia than we have in Afghanistan and Iraq), and less concern about the press backlash. While this second claim is not without merit (this is a brown-on-brown fight that doesn't have a clear bad guy, i.e. the US, so the MSM can't be bothered to report all the "atrocities"), such lack of concern doesn't really help you kill bad guys.
So what is the answer?
It's quite simple, and summed up by a Aden Garase, a government soldier who was put in charge of Belet Weyne, the first Somali town captured by Ethiopian forces.
"Anyone who has a gun but is not wearing a government uniform will be targeted as a terrorist."
It really is that simple, and it really is that effective.
There have been many in the US coalition that have advocated such a policy in Iraq. The problem with the militias in Iraq is that through convoluted State-Department-driven policies, there's no way to determine which militia members are the enemy, since there is no standing definition of "enemy". Sometimes the Mahdi militia is the enemy, sometimes they aren't. We've let Sadr decide when that is, instead of us. In the end, the soldier on the street can't possibly know which side JAM members, or any militia members, are on at that given moment when he sees them riding around in their technical, brandishing an AK-47. Geez, did the duly-elected Iraqi Prime Minister say that JAM was good, or bad, in today's press conference?
It's much simpler, and obviously much more effective, to say that if you are not a uniformed member of an allied protective force, and you are brandishing a weapon, you are the enemy. Put that policy in effect in Baghdad, and see how quickly Coalition forces can kill one thousand terrorists in Sadr City. It would be done faster than you can scream "Allahu Ahkbar". Or should I say, faster than they can scream it.
Brutal, you bet. We used to understand the effectiveness of brutality, and it's necessity in war. We killed a few hundred thousand Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to secure a surrender from the Japanese military, and save perhaps a few million more Japanese (and US soldiers) from the slaughter that would have come with a beachhead assault on the island. We gave a warning to the Japanese military and government of the impending bombing, they chose not to warn the civilians, and the civilians paid the price. We would be able to be warn the civilians in Baghdad of their impending doom should they brandish a weapon against us. Unlike the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they could make their own choice. Keep a weapon, brandish a weapon, and meet their 72 virgins that day.
Our policy makers are no where near to doing that. We have lost the ability to apply appropriate brutality to any situation, wartime or not, because we have lost the ability to understand, or even recognize, the enemy. In fact, it appears that as our enemies apply ever more brutality to our forces, they will be rewarded, not punished.
Let's take a lesson from military planners that are graduates of the battlefield of Belet Weyne, Somalia, instead of the War College at Carlisle Barracks.
-We define the enemy (in fact that's already done, islamic fasicsts worldwide have declared they are our enemy).
-We define the battlefield (for example, Sadr City, Ramadi, Fallujah).
-We recognize the Geneva Convention does not proscribe effective warfighting, including those actions which by today's standards may appear to be brutal, but which are nonetheless, designed for mission effectiveness and not cruelty.
-We set the rules of engagement (ROEs) based on their effectiveness to our mission, not their level of brutality.
-We clearly announce who we believe is the enemy, and the resultant ROEs for the enemy, to the population on the battlefield. The population can then decide whether they want to be "enemy" or not, and they can act on that knowledge to either fight us, or save their lives.
-We carry out effective warfighting until the enemy is defeated.
Thank you Aden, for reminding us once again that war is brutal, and that if the enemy is determined to be brutal, so should we.
Read. Then shudder at how close we came to this guy making foreign policy decisions for the entire US.
-He compares himself to Winston Churchill because he was invited to speak at the same college as Churchill.
-He equates his desire to protect his record of 4 months service in Viet Nam from the Swift Boat Veterans to Bush's need to protect the US from Islamic Fascism.
-He declares that the Iraq War has been a failed policy for years, which can only mean that he believes any war not won in a week or two, is a failure.
-He sets the groundwork for proclaiming his flip-flop on the war is a matter of statesman-like, Churchillian, strength.
-He equates his meeting last week with the Syrian president, a leader whose nation is currently at war with our military forces in Iraq, with Nixon's diplomatic trip to China, and Reagan's visit with Michael Gorbachev. US Senators, conducting pseudo foreign policy in opposition to the current US policy is a sign of weakness, and Iran and Syria are sure to understand that. US Presidents, meeting with regimes hostile to the US as a show of strength and confidence, is a sign of strength. Surely Kerry's meeting with Bashar is more like Briton's Chamberlain meeting with Hitler than it is with either of the two meetings he mentioned.
Kerry's ego is certainly well earned. He managed to turn an afternoon of Congressional testimony declaring all of us servicemen and women as inhumane killers into a lifetime political career (only possible in Massachusetts, by the way). He's amassed a personal fortune through two marriages that any other gigolo would be proud of. He used his four-month combat tour in Viet Nam to grab the nomination for president. Kerry has a lifetime of turning mediocre into extraordinary, so it's not out of line to hear him declare himself the next Churchill/Nixon/Reagan because of his flip-flop on the Iraq War.