Confused by our leaders......
I am trying to figure out how the members of our Senate can really say that passing a (non binding) resolution to deny the military effort in Iraq can be said not to "enbolden" the insurgency. I mean, really, come on, if you are in a war and your your enemies parliment suddenly says "Nope, we think this whole thing is a lousy idea." wouldn't you be enboldened? I would be. Hell, I'm more than halfway to victory right there. so should I stop fighting and negociate now? NOpe, kill more foplks and get those guys really out of the action.
the Senate has the right, even the responsibility if they REALLY believe it is wrong, to oppose the military action. But to sanctimoniously declare that what they are doing won't help the enemies is crap. They are giving the enemy a boost and they know it, they just refuse to admit it.
I suppse what really makes me unhappy is that the Taliban in Afghanistan will lookat this as a roadmap to success. If you want the Americans to leave, kill LOTS of people. It doesn't even have to be American troops. Just make it bloody and pretty soon they will be backing out. But the anti war folks won't admit to that possibility either.
the Senate has the right, even the responsibility if they REALLY believe it is wrong, to oppose the military action. But to sanctimoniously declare that what they are doing won't help the enemies is crap. They are giving the enemy a boost and they know it, they just refuse to admit it.
I suppse what really makes me unhappy is that the Taliban in Afghanistan will lookat this as a roadmap to success. If you want the Americans to leave, kill LOTS of people. It doesn't even have to be American troops. Just make it bloody and pretty soon they will be backing out. But the anti war folks won't admit to that possibility either.
posted by exMI | 09:24
6 Comments:
To be annoying, what war ? The U.S. is occupying Iraq for no clear reason : that's not war, which is a struggle to defend one's turf against assault. Following a course of action which generates opposition only makes sense if that is the objective.
Afghanistan was ignored, after the initial effort, to take out a paranoid who ruthlessly suppressed opposition. This makes as much sense as killing wolves and then wondering where all the deer came from.
The Brits know that troops devoted to Iraq take away from forces available for Afghanistan : though the Pakistan problem is another knotty issue that needs resolution.
Don't you usually find it helpful when planning an operation to clearly identify relevant factors and concentrate on them ?
That lack of clear analysis and expertise is far scarier than any emboldening of the "enemy" by pointing out abject failure : at this point nobody can figure out effectively who and where they might be. Hit the target !
India and Pakistan are buying U.S. weaponry. Armed conflict stimulates the market. Islamist jihadis paddling across the Atlantic - past the navy - are less of a threat than Death Merchants.
Saying the insurgetns are are only trying to defenc their turf agaisnt us is valid for one small group of them. but the mere fact that the vast majority of attacks carried out in the country are targetting other Iraqis shows that this is not the case. Afghanistan has never been ignored, but it was back burnered which I think was mistake. But then I am not in a panic overt the situation in Afghanistan like so many on the left are. the Taliban re emeerged and got their butts kicked again and again. Most of the people in AF don't want the Taliban back. It is as serious a situation as it has ever been but it is far from an "Oh my GOD!" crisis.
I am frankly not sure where you want to go with your last statement. Should we decalre war on McConnel Douglass? And the bit about Islamic jihadists paddling across the Atlantic is crap. they will buy airline tickets and fly over just like they did before. Or they will recruit people who already live in the area they want to attak like they are doing in England now. the threat is real despite the efforts of some peopel to pooh pooh it.
You're pretty good at digging up backup for your assertions. Where should I look for assessments of domestic successes on "anti-terrorism" in the West?
I grew up taking classes in school where we practiced "kissing your ass good-bye" because of MAD and the USSR : maybe I don't scare easily.
Part of the reason that it's hard to balance potential but scarcely reported sabotage/indiscriminate murder, etc. in the West against the real and obvious mass loss of life engendered by U.S. activities and loss of control of local malice in Iraq.
Some of our differences likely comes from counting the cost. Loss of 3,000 committed to foreign adventure by their government stacks up against 600,000 Christan pacifists killed by Kurds - see BlueGirl's Abyssinian news link. Also I have no problem with projections of 665,000 other deaths when linked with flight of at least 1.5 million and countless injured ( many of whom contribute to Iraqi mortality figures because their domestic medical system has been disassembled ). Combined with people moving from their homes because of sectarian violence and loss of infrastructure, plus constant sabotage, the only heartening stat is the Iraq police efforts : even while outgunned, murdered, and supposedly housed in totally botched buildings.
Regardless, Baghdad "cleanup" is underway. I still wonder about IFF concerns : the divisions of language, religion and culture seem they would act to make up cock-ups all too likely.
Sooner or later peace will come. It's quiet in a graveyard.
is very hard to get accurate assesment sof sucess in domestic anti terrorism because, in eneral, when a plot is discovered it is stopped at once by teh organizers and thsu nothing happens. Even if it is merely being investigated a littel so it is very hard to say definativly that "We stopped this plot!" The liquid explosive stuff is an exception becaue it was stopped at the in such a way that there was actually something to see. It is a big game of bluff and counter bluff with alot of lives on thei line. Luckily, the Intel services in our countries are actually very good at it.
As far as counting the costs, well yes. This is going to sound cold hearted and cruel but our military in Iraq gives all the wannbe Jihadists out there a target they can go and vent their suicidal martyr urge on that isn't buildiing full of peopel in London, New York, or Atlanta. Frankly, I view that as a pretty good idea.
Um. You do realize you're quite possibly digging up rationalizations for occupations of foreign states I trust.
Setting up live training operations for guerrilla resistance among dissatisfied occupied countries doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but aligns quite nicely with the NIE.
Oh yeah,a nd the left in this country will just love us if we start doing that. They frankly won't be happy unless we are sitting at home with our thumbs up our butts.
And those aren't rationalizations. they are flat out good reasons to stay in Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home