January 27, 2007

1968, Again

There was an anti-war protest in Washington today. The usual players were there, including Jane Fonda in an attempt to once again be relevent. Do you think she'll visit the insurgents like she visited the North Vietnamese? I don't think so, either---they'd chop her head off.

Protests such as this remind us of how wonderful our nation is. A large group of people can travel to the very center of national power and say pretty much anything they want and as long as no one gets violent, naked or high, no one gets arrested. I can't imagine going to a protest such as this, even if I were against the war. The manpower that such a gathering consumes could be better used someplace else.

What does trouble me, however, is the non-binding resolution that our Senate is set to debate this coming week. To quote The Mercury News:

The resolution would put Congress on record against the president's plan to send 21,500 more soldiers to Iraq, but it would do nothing to stop it.

This is the manuevering of cowards. If the Dems had any resolve, they would seek to cut funding for the war. This would not be popular with voters, who may disagree with our forces being in Iraq but who certainly do not want to see them not get the supplies and support they need. So, for the sake of political gain, the Dems and their fellow-traveling RINOS are pushing for a resolution with no teeth. According to them, it will harm no one while sending the President a strong message.

What those on the Left fail to realize is that the very fact of this resolution's existence lends comfort to this nation's enemies. The terrorists we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places understand our history very well. To them, the game is simple: if you kill enough Americans and turn public opinion, the Yankees will go home. Vietnam and Somalia help prove their belief in American weakness. Now, The Party That Ignores History is about to do what they've done again and again---tell the world that the US is leaving soon.

As odd as it may seem to those whose opposition of the war is wrapped up in their hatred of President Bush, I suggest that another resolution be passed: one that calls for complete victory in Iraq. Tell the President to end the war quickly and bring our people home. Tell him to accomplish this by using harsh, unyielding force against the insurgents in Iraq. Tell him the days of fighting a politically-correct police action are over. Tell him to give this nation's field commanders free reign in the completion of their missions. Tell him that we will support no more Fallujahs. Tell him that resistance must be met with fierce, swift violence that does not seek to contain, but to completely destroy. Tell him that this is what victory requires.

As I've written here before, we are out of easy answers. All that remains is a choice: victory or retreat followed by more dead Americans. I would like to think the Democrats will come down on the side of victory. But I know better.

Posted by Matthew at January 27, 2007 09:32 PM
Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/996

Comments

I fail to see what kind of "harsh, unyielding force" one can use against a suicide bomber, and I was unaware that attacks on US troops were not being met with fierce, swift violence.

The main casualties in Iraq today and since the beginning of the war have been Iraqis. So our response tomorrow to a bomb in a Sunni marketplace should be what ? What is the "overwhelming force to destroy" response? And when the next bomb goes of in a Shia mosque, who do we want to obliterate?

It is interesting to note that all this began with the now forgotten WMDs. What's the Iraq body count now? 55 - 60,000? All with the help of RPGs and Semtex. Sure looks like weapons of MASS Destruction to me.

All that is left to do now is some sort of gesture to save face. Secure Bagdad with a bunch of Marines, call the area safe, and get out of dodge.

Posted by: Hash [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 06:58 PM

While I don't have access to the same intel as our military, I would be willing to be a large sum of money that some areas offer more protection to insurgents than others. Go for those areas.

I believe we now have a moral responsibility to secure Iraq. Whether or not we should have gone in the first place is another issue. To paraphrase Colin Powell, we broke Iraq. Now we have to fix it.

Posted by: Matt_D [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 08:40 PM

That's not going to fly. We can't just dismiss the "issue" of whether we should have went in to begin with. Too many lives have been lost and ruined to just dismiss the issue so the neocons can save face. You're right that the dems won't stop funding for the war. Sometimes I believe the Pubs and the Dems are really the same party. It's only a "good" war if it's their war. If it's the other guy's war it can't be good. This is just the beginning. Iran's next!

Posted by: David [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2007 11:14 PM

I have to clarify that I didn't bring up the WMDs to dredge up a long dead horse and beat it some more. I brought it up to say that terrorists can create a LOT of mayhem with conventional and unconventional uses of conventional weapons. They don't need nuclear or biological weapons to murder on a massive scale. We somehow always seem to lose focus of that fact. Maybe "dirty bombs" and superbugs in drinking water are somehow more sexier.

Anyone wonder where all these plastic explosives for the IEDs and suicide bombs are coming from?

Posted by: Hash [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 29, 2007 12:13 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?