"OUR NAIVE VERSION OF WARTIME MORALITY"
General Batiste spoke of dealing with the murderous militias in Iraq..."or crush them."
Then crush them. We've taken Falluja and Mookie Al Sadr twice, and released them for political reasons, in the belief that the murderous bastards on all sides, could be brought to "democracy."
GWB and Ms. Rice may be correct in their belief that most people want a stable form of life that "democracy" of some kind can bring them, but these poor people are powerless in the face of a barbarism that we haven't seen since the Holocaust, and which defies "Western" imagination or understanding.
Tens of thousands of innocent people killed by their own neighbors....their elected "government" talking, making deals, covering their future asses ...their police co-opted or worse, while the only force capable of stopping the carnage is on standby...building schools and hospitals, and taking casualties. For what?
Victory means winning....victory means victory....that means killing our enemies and the killers of our friends, and of those tens of thousands of innocents. Anything less is worth nothing. Period. Not one American life, or U.S. dollar.
Victory, on the other hand, is worth everything we have to pay for it. It means saving our future and the future of the Middle East; an outcome that first destabilizes the "realists" miserable reality of the past forty years, and which enforces, a new "reality." Enforces. By killing those who resist. The old fashioned way of warfare. The Ghengis Kahn way. The Keyser Soze Rule.
The "press" and the Washington Elite harp on the question of too many or too few troops....on whether or not we should have disbanded Saddam's army....or this or that ..and all of it is meaninless. Meaningless, since what we lack in Iraq is not a plan, not an exit strategy, not a coalition, not a vision, but a determination to destroy our enemy. Since they disdain victory, those anus-sucking politicos who love power more than they love America don't complain of lack of determination, but only of Bush and Rumsfeld's mistakes."
If only "mistakes" had not been made, all would be just peachy, thank you. As Pelosi said, Iraq is a situation to be handled, not a war to be won.
Our lack of determination means that we sacrifice our soldiers lives to prevent "needless" deaths....we execute the plan cleanly...."morally" by some strange definition....and ever with an eye to what the useless U.N. or whomever will think of us. To worry about what people think of us has caused us to allow this barbarism to continue.
Hearts and minds, my ass. "Take them by the balls; their hearts and minds will follow," as they say. That's worth paying for.
Ralph Peters makes the case better than anyone else has. Straight up. Straight out. Read the whole thing.
"YESTERDAY, 80 terrorists in police uniforms raided an Iraqi research institute in Baghdad, rounded up 100-plus male students, loaded them into vehicles in broad daylight and drove away. They couldn't have pulled it off without the complicity of key elements within the Iraqi security services and the government: "our guys."
...Apart from highlighting the type of regime of which both Shia and Sunni Arab extremists dream - a land of disciplined ignorance and slavish devotion - the mass kidnapping also highlights the feebleness of our attempts to overcome ruthless enemies with generosity and good manners.
With Iraqi society decomposing - or, at best, reverting to a medieval state with cell phones - the debate in Washington over whether to try to save the day by deploying more troops or withdrawing some is of secondary relevance.
What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.
That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them.
...With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.
...From the Iraqi perspective, we're of less and less relevance. They're sure we'll leave. And every faction is determined to do as much damage as possible to the other before we go. Our troops have become human shields for our enemies.
To master Iraq now - if it could be done - we'd have to fight every faction except the Kurds. Are we willing to do that? Are we willing to kill mass murderers and cold-blooded executioners on the spot? If not, we can't win, no matter what else we do.
Arrest them? We've tried that. Iraq's judges are so partisan or so terrified (or both) that they release the worst thugs within weeks - sometimes within days.
...Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.
We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.
We're not really the enemy of the terrorists, militiamen and insurgents. We're their enablers. ...Our naive version of wartime morality handed Iraq to the murderers. Will our excuse for a sectarian bloodbath be that we "behaved with restraint?"
Any code of ethics that squanders the lives of tens of thousands and the future of millions so we can "claim the moral high ground" is hypocrisy worthy of the Europeans who made excuses for the Holocaust.
If we want to give Iraq's silent - and terrified - majority a last chance, we would have to accept the world's condemnation for killing the killers. If we are unwilling to do that, Iraq's finished."
Well, is it true, Iraq's finished? Who really thinks the Dems will allow such a course? If not, it's possible that it's WE who are finished, as the consequences of anything other than victory are all but unimaginable.
We're not talking politics here, folks. We're talking survival.
Ours.
Then crush them. We've taken Falluja and Mookie Al Sadr twice, and released them for political reasons, in the belief that the murderous bastards on all sides, could be brought to "democracy."
GWB and Ms. Rice may be correct in their belief that most people want a stable form of life that "democracy" of some kind can bring them, but these poor people are powerless in the face of a barbarism that we haven't seen since the Holocaust, and which defies "Western" imagination or understanding.
Tens of thousands of innocent people killed by their own neighbors....their elected "government" talking, making deals, covering their future asses ...their police co-opted or worse, while the only force capable of stopping the carnage is on standby...building schools and hospitals, and taking casualties. For what?
Victory means winning....victory means victory....that means killing our enemies and the killers of our friends, and of those tens of thousands of innocents. Anything less is worth nothing. Period. Not one American life, or U.S. dollar.
Victory, on the other hand, is worth everything we have to pay for it. It means saving our future and the future of the Middle East; an outcome that first destabilizes the "realists" miserable reality of the past forty years, and which enforces, a new "reality." Enforces. By killing those who resist. The old fashioned way of warfare. The Ghengis Kahn way. The Keyser Soze Rule.
The "press" and the Washington Elite harp on the question of too many or too few troops....on whether or not we should have disbanded Saddam's army....or this or that ..and all of it is meaninless. Meaningless, since what we lack in Iraq is not a plan, not an exit strategy, not a coalition, not a vision, but a determination to destroy our enemy. Since they disdain victory, those anus-sucking politicos who love power more than they love America don't complain of lack of determination, but only of Bush and Rumsfeld's mistakes."
If only "mistakes" had not been made, all would be just peachy, thank you. As Pelosi said, Iraq is a situation to be handled, not a war to be won.
Our lack of determination means that we sacrifice our soldiers lives to prevent "needless" deaths....we execute the plan cleanly...."morally" by some strange definition....and ever with an eye to what the useless U.N. or whomever will think of us. To worry about what people think of us has caused us to allow this barbarism to continue.
Hearts and minds, my ass. "Take them by the balls; their hearts and minds will follow," as they say. That's worth paying for.
Ralph Peters makes the case better than anyone else has. Straight up. Straight out. Read the whole thing.
"YESTERDAY, 80 terrorists in police uniforms raided an Iraqi research institute in Baghdad, rounded up 100-plus male students, loaded them into vehicles in broad daylight and drove away. They couldn't have pulled it off without the complicity of key elements within the Iraqi security services and the government: "our guys."
...Apart from highlighting the type of regime of which both Shia and Sunni Arab extremists dream - a land of disciplined ignorance and slavish devotion - the mass kidnapping also highlights the feebleness of our attempts to overcome ruthless enemies with generosity and good manners.
With Iraqi society decomposing - or, at best, reverting to a medieval state with cell phones - the debate in Washington over whether to try to save the day by deploying more troops or withdrawing some is of secondary relevance.
What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.
That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them.
...With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.
...From the Iraqi perspective, we're of less and less relevance. They're sure we'll leave. And every faction is determined to do as much damage as possible to the other before we go. Our troops have become human shields for our enemies.
To master Iraq now - if it could be done - we'd have to fight every faction except the Kurds. Are we willing to do that? Are we willing to kill mass murderers and cold-blooded executioners on the spot? If not, we can't win, no matter what else we do.
Arrest them? We've tried that. Iraq's judges are so partisan or so terrified (or both) that they release the worst thugs within weeks - sometimes within days.
...Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.
We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.
We're not really the enemy of the terrorists, militiamen and insurgents. We're their enablers. ...Our naive version of wartime morality handed Iraq to the murderers. Will our excuse for a sectarian bloodbath be that we "behaved with restraint?"
Any code of ethics that squanders the lives of tens of thousands and the future of millions so we can "claim the moral high ground" is hypocrisy worthy of the Europeans who made excuses for the Holocaust.
If we want to give Iraq's silent - and terrified - majority a last chance, we would have to accept the world's condemnation for killing the killers. If we are unwilling to do that, Iraq's finished."
Well, is it true, Iraq's finished? Who really thinks the Dems will allow such a course? If not, it's possible that it's WE who are finished, as the consequences of anything other than victory are all but unimaginable.
We're not talking politics here, folks. We're talking survival.
Ours.
posted by Jerry at 11:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home