Take off gloves in bloody Iraq

New York Daily News ^ | 10/28/03

[kattracks]

Happy Ramadan. Here's how the medieval fanatics celebrated the arrival of the holy month yesterday: with desecration. With one horrific Baghdad blast after another, killing at least 34, wounding more than 200.

The casualties included Iraqi police officers who have been dutifully working with coalition forces to secure their tattered post-Saddam nation and wholly humanitarian Red Cross volunteers who were blown up by suicide bombers driving a Red Cross ambulance.

Counting Sunday's brazen missile attack on a Baghdad hotel occupied by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the daily slaughter is grimmer than it has been since the U.S. rolled into Iraq in March.

The soulless murderers are attacking with the clear intent of undermining U.S. resolve at a time when many Americans are growing skittish at the cost in lives and dollars of bringing a free and democratic Iraq into the 21st century. Amid the bloodshed, it is all too easy to lose sight of the hard-won progress that's being made toward that goal.

President Bush vows to stay the course in defeating the forces swarming in with hatred in their hearts, readied for death and glory. To abandon the Iraqis now, or even to waver in commitment, would be a disastrous blow to the region and to U.S. prestige.

There is an alternative to merely staying the course - take the gloves off altogether.

We've been playing a little too nice in Iraq. We've been pacifying more than we've been taking care of business. We've been more culturally sensitive than is entirely a good thing for the safety of our troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it himself: Our aggression is insufficient. We're not punching hard enough.

Sunday's hotel assault, it is reported, was known by intel to be imminent. Yet local officials conceded that no particular precautions were taken. Not to put too fine a point on this, but: Why the hell not?

It has now been nearly six months since the President declared major combat operations to have concluded. It's time to declare them resumed.

[snip]

You can e-mail the Daily News editors at
voicers@edit.nydailynews.com
Please include your full name, address and phone number. The Daily News reserves the right to edit letters. The shorter the letter, the better the chance it will be used.

Originally published on October 28, 2003

[familyofman]

"Okay. Get tough and do what?
Yes, I would like to know as well. Has anyone specifics or was this just idle chatter?"

Idle chatter with no specifics. A bit like "bring em on" or "we want to concentrate the evil-doers & terrorists in one place". Seems like the 2 requests of bringing them on & concentration are working - now what, employ a little rope'a'dope?

[TADSLOS]

Bulldozers and salt.

[kanawa]

"But Mouwafak al-Rabii, a Shiite Muslim member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, said the United States must speed up the training of Iraqi police and soldiers and employ ruthless measures to crush the insurgency.

"There is no doubt about it that we need to change the rules of engagement with these people," al-Rabii told CNN. "The rules of engagement now are too lenient.""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1009078/posts

[appalachian_dweller]

I'm in agreement with NTWK here. We cannot punish the civilians for these attacks.

>> All we need to assure ultimate victory is patience -- on the part of the home front. <<

GWB said this would take time. We need to stay the course. There's a lot of good we're doing in Iraq. It's just the lamestream media terrorist sympathizers won't report it.

We can fight the terrorists on THEIR streets or on OUR streets. I prefer theirs.

IMHO, the problem is coming out of Syria and Iran. If we want to get tough that anyone, it would be those nations. The tyrants in power there do not want a free Iraq. Freedom is contagious and a free Iraq would mean the end of their regimes and they know it.

[hosepipe]

Captured not kill the insurgents....
Bug them.....
track them...
clean out the whole nest....

Just like with other vermin... Duuh!...

[Prodigal Son]

Villages where there is a reluctance to register or cooperate should be advised that the village will be razed, destroyed after a certain date, and then carried out.

LOL, and then what do you do with a village full of people who no longer have a place to live? You'd just create more problems than we have currently if you did that.

Also, what would you do to the commanders in the field who refused to carry out such an order? And there would be some who did. What would you do when the Senate impeached the President for acting in this manner? Again, that could happen as well.

If we want to act like Saddam himself, what was even the point of removing the man? What is the point to the whole thing if you simply become the thing you wanted to defeat?

[Prodigal Son]

Those are workable ideas. What I find interesting though is it is rare that the ones I ask this question of actually have anything to say. This is the case here as well. You have ideas the others have a cliche.

[Final Authority]

What would happen if a President decided to use a nuclear weapon to save American lives? The end of world war II would happen.

If you ever had to fight off a drunk in a bar room would you just take a few punches and then negotiate and then after several more punches would you leave missing several teeth? No, a survivor hits hard a quick with a chair or cue stick first so he doesn't have to visit the dentist. The instigator must pay.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Ya think MacArthur would have tolerated this crap in Japan ? There would have been dead Nips everywhere

Japanese borders are surprisingly easy to shut down. No one just steps into Japan from a neighboring country.

[Prodigal Son]

I don't think we'll be seeing the President using a nuke anytime soon. Do you? So that is mostly a moot irrelevent point.

Again, what do you do with a whole village of people who no longer have a village to live in?

The instigator must pay.

Yes, but does the guy sitting next to the instigator at the bar have to pay too?

[Final Authority]

How many Americans must die in defense of freedom before we use the weapons we have? Do we have a right to use the weapons we have in our defense? How many Americans would you have die to save the lives of our enemy's? Is an Iraqi Arab's life worth as much to you as an American soldier's?

We must ask hard questions before we disregard all tough solutions. It would have been better if the World Trade Center wasn't taken down by Arab, Islamist, terrorists but it was and it would have been better if Iraq wasn't a hotbed of terrorism because we wouldn't be there, but we are.

Can we negotiate? History says it is a losing proposition. Can we pacify them by being good, buying them, leaving them alone? In their own words, it is a fight to the finish. Who should finish the fight still standing? Answer that question correctly and then proceed to the solution.

[Final Authority]

With regards to using nukes, I used that concept to be emphatic regarding use of force. There are many weapons short of nukes that should be used to protect American soldiers. With regards to the bystander or collateral damage, in war it is inevitable. Losers worry about things like that. Should you and I pray that GWB is no loser?

[DoctorMichael]

Here, here!

[Mr Crontab]

So the whole 'create a free democratic Iraq' thing is to be replaced with a 'we're going to shove freedom down their throat even if we have to level their village to do it'?

[Poohbah]

Ramadan is a month devoted to fasting, prayer, and giving alms.

When Saddam's people and al-Qaeda pulled this stunt, they pretty much convinced the average Iraqi Muslim that they are INFIDELS.

The terrorists are hoping we crack down on the civilians. If we keep our heads, we get the civilians on OUR side.

We're winning.

Shout it from the rooftops.

We're winning.

[Final Authority]

Contrary to popular thought, and I know GWB and many used the notion to sway popular thinking, but it is unlawful for the President to use force for any reason other than to protect the Constitution of the USA, and of course, the people under that Constitution. In the first major speech after 9-11, the President said he would defend the Constitution, as he must, and then when intel said of the promise of WMD's in Iraq combined with the fact that they were in default with respect to UN obligations, the President had the responsibility to lead troops into Iraq. If freedom was a result of the effort then that is a political achievement but not a legal requirement. In fact, if it were the only reason GWB went to Iraq then he should be impeached. The only reason to go to Iraq with troops is to kill and break stuff.

Simply put, the effort was and couldn't legally have been to "shove" freedom down their throat. It was to kill the government and to replace it with a government more in line with preserving our Constitution, even it it isn't in a democratic form.

Now the mission is to finish the job with as few American soldiers lives lost as possible, even if it means escalation and destruction. War isn't pretty, and another day as we had on 9-11 is even worse. So, how will you have it?

[Prodigal Son]

What do you do with a village full of people after you have destroyed their village? This was your suggestion. You need to have a follow on answer.

When you talk about using our weapons- be specific. What specifically would you have us do?

[Prodigal Son]

It was to kill the government and to replace it with a government more in line with preserving our Constitution, even it it isn't in a democratic form.

This wasn't the reason given by GWB.

[Final Authority]

The reason to go to Iraq was to remove the threat, that is, remove Saddam. Somehow, GWB got the political idea to add to the equation the idea of liberation. With respect to village and the folks formerly living there, ask where the people of Hiroshima lived after the bomb. I do not think think it is the concern of the military because if they execute orders perfectly there would be few people left to worry about. The first thing GWB and the military must do is achieve the military goals and that is not done yet. After that and when the populace is beaten down and is willing to submit then one can worry about re-settlement and re-building. The trouble now is the news media, politicians, many US citizens, and even GWB thought the war was over. I isn't.

With resepct to weapons, they do not have to be bombs but they can be physical controls such as prison camps, registration, work camps, ID's, bulldozers, controlled demolition, public trials, hanging the former government officials in custody, etc. We aren't doing any of that now. We are trying to act like police in a civilized country. It ain't civilized so they will never respect the authority. It is still war.

[Final Authority]

I Asked the following questions to you and if you would like to continue having a dialog, please answer. Thanks

How many Americans must die in defense of freedom before we use the weapons we have? Do we have a right to use the weapons we have in our defense? How many Americans would you have die to save the lives of our enemy's? Is an Iraqi Arab's life worth as much to you as an American soldier's?

We must ask hard questions before we disregard all tough solutions. It would have been better if the World Trade Center wasn't taken down by Arab, Islamist, terrorists but it was and it would have been better if Iraq wasn't a hotbed of terrorism because we wouldn't be there, but we are.

Can we negotiate? History says it is a losing proposition. Can we pacify them by being good, buying them, leaving them alone? In their own words, it is a fight to the finish. Who should finish the fight still standing? Answer that question correctly and then proceed to the solution.