read later
VDH is, as usual, a voice of sanity.
The author nails it and points out once again that our biggest problem with the war is a matter of "selective information" to JQP.
You're not going to do away with seditionists like Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, the RAT party, the Hollywood elitists, the propaganda press, et al..sooo..the answer would seem to be to keep up the pressure to get the real message out to 'the people'.
Rather, Jennings and Brokaw will continue to present the terrorist's side of the news, we must make sure that talk radio, forums like FR and the internet get the positive side out to 'the people'.
I beleive W is proceeding to plan and is ignoring all the media noise. <P.
When power is transferred on 6/30 what will the libs say?
"Does anyone care about whom Teddy Kennedy is screaming this week?"
Mary Jo Kopechne? When you think about it, gasping for air in a submerged vehicle is a torturous way to die.
Is that unfair? Oh, I don't think so. When you appoint yourself a moral arbiter like Kennedy, you better have the cash to write that check.
Hypocrisy is no problem for the Left. To lie in service of their goals is Stalinesque. No problem.
"We must press on, of course. Use the troops that we have to put down the insurrectionists immediately and without mercy—and we will not need perpetually to call for ever more soldiers. One subdued Fallujah is worth two additional armored divisions in terms of deterrence. Give the Iraqis a higher public profile, and do not waver from the long scheduled dates of transfer of power. And finally, keep reminding the American people how much has been accomplished and how rare is our effort to defeat fascism and leave consensual government in its wake—and do that every day."
Makes sense to me. Bush should DO IT!!!
Toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein was not particularly difficult for our vastly superior military forces almost flawlessly following a brillantly conceived plan of attack.
Leaving behind a stable government, much less a semi-democratic one, is proving much more difficult. We a dealing with a population with no tradition of representative government, nor even a history of benign autocracy. We are dealing with people who are hampered by adherence to a "religion" which taps into the most base instincts of humankind and exploits the Arab inclination toward angry reaction to their rather juvenile feelings of humiliation brought on by centuries of cultural non-achievement. Islam is a stagnant pool which produces a society of comparative simpletons totally incapable of understanding anything related to the modern world. The Muslims' hatred of freedom and progress is totally understandable when considered in this context.
The war in Iraq was justified because the removal of Saddam from power in the post 9/11 World was a matter of absolute necessity. In the aftermath, however, we face a situation of immense complexity. Did the planners assume that a pro-western "democracy" would naturally follow the demise of Saddam? Was it assumed that the removal of a brutal tyrant would result in Iraqi gratitude and an eagerness to embrace freedom? If so, I think these planners lost sight of who we were dealing with. These people are Muslims who are easily dominated by the most extreme fundamentalists in their midsts. Their overriding duty is to protect Islam from the Western onslaught which they are told is out to destroy their religion and culture.
Frankly, we probably need a new Saddam who rules at least as brutally as the last one, but one who knows his bread will only be buttered so long as he follows our bidding and that he will be killed the moment he fails to do so. The lesson to be learned here is that when you are at war with a third rate society, your first rate weaponry must be brought to bear until it is understood that opposition means instant death and total destruction. We are a long way from ever doing that, so this may be a long campaign with a less than satisfying outcome.