A Message to All the Cut and Run Freepers Currently Polluting Free Republic

I'm reading an astonishing number of comments on Free Republic these days by posters who have joined the ranks of the anti-American left in calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some claim to have military experience, some claim to be patriotic Americans and some claim to be smarter than the rest.

These posters are joining the Murtha-Rangel-McDermott treason caucus. Oh, they say they love the troops, but their decision to abandon them in the field speaks otherwise.

Three years ago, the United States led an international coalition to rid the world of one of the worst regimes on the planet. Saddam Hussein was an international terrorist: He financed terrorism, he trained terrorists and he harbored terrorists. He waged war on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He waged war on the people of Iraq, including genocidal campaigns against the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south.

Saddam successfully subverted the Oil-for-Food program and was wearing down support for continuing the sanctions keeping him in check.

He had numerous contacts with al Qaeda over the years. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. He maintained research capabilities to implement nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as soon as the sanctions were lifted. There is evidence that some of these programs would have been operational within a year even with the sanctions in place.

The decision to remove Saddam and his regime as part of the Global War on Terror was correct.

Three-and-a-half years after Iraq and the world were liberated from Saddam and his terrorist regime, there are those on Free Republic who are clamoring to give up, surrender, cut and run, stab the troops in the back, betray the Iraqis, betray our allies in the GWOT, spit on the graves of our fallen heroes and join Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Ramsey Clark in bringing about America's defeat in the GWOT.

It's only been three-and-a-half years--only six months since the freely elected government in Iraq was formed. In that time, what has been called a mini-Marshall Plan of construction and reconstruction has come to fruition. The Iraqis have held three national elections, they have held numerous local elections, fourteen out of eighteen Iraq provinces are relatively peaceful and stable.

Six months ago, when the Iraqi government was formed, the experts said the war would be taken to Baghdad because our enemies in the region could not abide the example of a free, democratic society in the Middle East. For once, the experts were right. The battle of Baghdad has been a prolonged Tet Offensive style operation of headline-grabbing attacks intended to sap the morale of Americans and Iraqis alike.

From what I've been reading on Free Republic lately, a lot of Freepers have fallen for the enemy's ploy and are howling like barking moonbats for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some of that talk is couched in talk of 'we're fighting a PC war like Vietnam!' The soldiers I met in Iraq recently told Debra Argel Bastian to pass on a message to the Vietnam vets criticizing the war: With all due respect to your service, this is not Vietnam. It is not being fought like Vietnam. Please let us finish our mission.

But our enemy is playing the Vietnam ploy to great benefit. They know they can count on the American and world media to broadcast their propaganda. They work with leftist Americans to sabotage the war effort at home. They know these leftist Americans have allies in the Democratic party. They know they do not need a military victory--only political and psychological victories are needed to defeat America.

There are those who argue that murder and dictatorship is the mindset of the Middle East and that will not be changed by our actions. Funny how those who smugly denigrate the Arab peoples' capacity for freedom forget the wholesale slaughter of millions of Westerners by Westerners at the hands of Western dictatorships just a few generations past.

I hear complaints that the Iraqis aren't standing up. Yet, to use one common example, when police recruits are slaughtered in bombings, Iraqis line up the next day at the same recruiting center. The insurgency is small in number, but they are able to do enough damage on a daily basis to stretch out the time it will take to secure the whole of Iraq.

At this time of our testing, the American people are starting to go wobbly. Sadly, many Freepers are too. Our troops and their Commander-in-Chief are not, thank God. It's only been three-and-a-half years. The progress made has been phenomonal. Throw in the towel now, and you'll just have the terrorists follow us home. Everyone knows that, including you. I'm not willing to pay that price, not now, not ever, but you are.

Let me close by offering similar sentiments recently offered by two men 'in the know' on the situation in Iraq who are not giving up. First, Kurdish Regional Government Prime Minister Barzani: "When I was in the United States recently and read the negative news in the Washington Post, New York Times and in the network TV broadcasts, I even wondered if things had gotten so bad since I had left that I shouldn't return."

Next, Gen. Abizaid: "When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing."

What does Bush understand about war? Not a single thing. What did Rummy know? Not a single thing. Congress? Many went to war but had poor teachers to guide them except those of the WW2 years who are now for the most part out of congress.

Oh BS, man! Not a single thing, eh? What gall. Rummy was Sec Def in Ford's Admin. He was also a carrier aviator in the 1950s. But what freaking difference does it make? I'm getting real tired of this attitude that so many have--to wit--They are the ONLY ones who have knowledge, and everyone who disagrees with them is a total moron. Also, the idea that those who haven't serve have no say is condesending. Finally, our elected leaders--civilians--who often know nothing of war--are our commanders. That's part of the Constitution we took an oath to.

Hyperbolic statements and insults do nothing--NOTHING-for the debate here except make enemies out of people who should be allies!!!!

Taking assassinations off the table was a direct result of the drive by media spilling national secrets of how we tried to stop Castro and then a democratic Congress, fresh off dispatching Nixon, training their guns on Ford. I remeber well the press making a hissy fit over it and the dems promising to investigate and stop this. You make it sound like Ford and Rumsfeld just made it up out of whole cloth.

Once again, the alliance of the dems and the DBM found its target. It has been ever so since Vietnam. Now they are targeting our efforts to combat terrorism.

You simply are not going to get a war of total extermination in the Middle East from any political leader in the USA. No matter how much you wish for it, it's not going to come to fruition.

Why don't you run for office wherever you're from, and let folks know that if elected, you'll fight the Muslims like Joshua in the Old Testement, ensuring that every man, woman, child and animal of every city, town and village we capture will be put to death by US troops. I'm sure no one will bring out pictures of Nazis to protest you.

We are at war.

The Constitution doesn't recognize War and War Lite, only that a state of war exists. Traditionally we have used two different instruments for declaring war. When dealing with a sovereign nation we have used a declaraion of war, and we took it off the books in the treaty that ended the war. When dealing with a non-sovereign, like the Barbary Pirates or al-Quaeda, we used a declaration authorizing the use of force. (That we didn't remove these declarations from the books after the non-sovereign was defeated was simply a matter of legislative sloppiness, and nothing further should be read into that.)

While a declaration of war and a declaration authorizing the use of force are two different instruments of war, they have the same constitutional weight. However, they don’t have the same political weight.

Looking at the two world wars of the 20th Century, once war was declared, Americans banded together to fight the common enemy. Dissent was crushed or severely chastised. But declarations authorizing the use of force have had problematic histories from the invasions of Haiti and Nicaragua in the early 20th Century to Vietnam and the current imbroglio in the Middle East.

During World War II the enemy was an ideology so evil that few could miss the point. Two years before America became involved in the war, the British and Canadians were already fighting, and many Americans took the train across the Canadian border to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force. (This is a far cry from those Americans who crossed to Canada during the Vietnam debacle.)

After Pearl Harbor, America launched its first full military mobilization since 1917. The draft had been reinstated a year earlier, and now American males received letters that began, “Greetings from the President.” Few thought of evading the draft, and huge crowds of angry men mobbed recruiting centers to enlist. There were no voices calling the attack “a law enforcement problem”. There were no voices saying that America had brought the attack upon itself because of some flaw in its makeup or policies. There were few who said that such an attack was not sufficient reason to go to war. No anti-war demonstrators ever took to the streets, and if they had, an angry mob would have lynched them before the police could have arrested them. With the 1941 declaration of war, we operated under what I call “World War II Rules”.

American society and industry underwent full mobilization. Industrial plants manufacturing consumer goods were converted to war plants under full government industrial planning.
Gasoline was rationed, and a 35 mph national speed limit was enforced. Billboards with the message, “Is this trip really necessary?” were ubiquitous. Posters reminded people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Hitler.”
Silk, nylon, rubber and copper were among many materials that were reserved for military use, and those who dabbled in the black market were imprisoned. Foodstuffs were rationed, people were warned not to hoard food and told to report those who did. Catholics had always had meatless Fridays, but now the entire nation had meatless Tuesdays.
American women planted “victory gardens”, Boy Scouts scavenged metal and rubber “for the war plants,” and people were encouraged to buy war bonds because, “It's bonds or bondage!” (Just try using that slogan in San Francisco today!) On the radio, when American women heard, “Ladies, bring your fat cans down to the corner butcher,” they knew it referred to cans of rendered fat, not oversize buttocks.
In wartime all news coverage is propaganda. No matter how bad the news from the front, the reassuring voices of Edward R. Murrow, Ed Herlihy and Lowell Thomas explained how this latest setback was merely a bump in the road on “our way to total victory!” All war news was censored. Reporters censored themselves, editors censored reporters, and publishers censored editors. If a publisher prepared to print something that undermined morale or the war effort, the FBI paid a visit.

If we were operating under World War II rules today, things would be different.

Gasoline rationing would likely be in effect. Money paid to the Saudis for their oil has long trickled into al-Qaeda’s coffers, and the US would become quite choosy as to the sources of its oil. Alaska would be drilled deeply and thoroughly. Posters would appear telling people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Osama”. Money devoted to highways would be diverted to public transportation on a massive scale.
War is based on credit, and rather than pass tax cuts the government would raise taxes through the roof to cover the cost of war. War bond campaigns would flood the media.
Mainstream Media outlets issuing news coverage slanted against the war would receive a visit from the government.
Those anti-war demonstrators in Oakland who blocked stevedores from loading a naval ammunition ship would be greeted by lead instead of rubber. The survivors would be arrested for treason.
People who put "No Iraq War" signs in the windows of their homes would be severely ostracized by their neighbors, if not burned out. A similar fate would greet those advertising their beliefs via bumper stickers.
Certain congressmen and senators would be expelled and then arrested for sedition.
Most importantly there would be a total military mobilization, but this time conscription would function without deferments. It’s hard to have an anti-war movement when everyone is in uniform. America’s colleges would shut down because there would be no students. (This would have the positive effect of ending the poisoning of the minds of American youth by the mavens of socialism and political correctness.)

While it may make no difference which instrument we use to go to war, we have to establish ground rules. Unfortunately, thanks to a failure of foresight, we are operating under Vietnam Rules. Unless we change this, we are going to lose.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.