Anti-War Bloggers Update Us on the Surge

How dare you question their patriotism!

Kevin

lol Kevin.

There's a great line from The Siege, in a conv. between Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington.

"Are you questioning my patriotism?"

"I'm questioning your JUDGMENT."

heh, so true.

"All through the Iraq debate, Republicans keep warning us about emboldening the terrorists in Iraq."

Republicans who speak of the Dems undermining our efforts in Iraq are speaking from a position of knowledge, not emotion. Please read on. The following quote comes from the first paragraph of the new Countersurgency Field Manual FM3-24:

"The United States possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority. This capability has pushed its
enemies to fight U.S. forces unconventionally, mixing modern technology with ancient techniques of insurgency
and terrorism. Most enemies either do not try to defeat the United States with conventional operations or
do not limit themselves to purely military means. They know that they cannot compete with U.S. forces on
those terms. Instead, they try to exhaust U.S. national will, aiming to win by undermining and outlasting public
support. Defeating such enemies presents a huge challenge to the Army and Marine Corps. Meeting it requires
creative efforts by every Soldier and Marine."

So, what are the Dems (and Chuck Hagel) doing if it is not "exhaust[ing] U.S. national will?" By setting deadlines, our enemy KNOWS that all he has to do is wait a few months.

While I am on the subject, what do the Democrats in Congress think will happen if we leave Iraq next year? Do they think that peace will magically break out? Or, do they not care what will happen to the people of Iraq?

And, one last thing while I am on this rant. REDEPLOYMENT is just another word for RETREAT. Bare with me in this analogy.

A serial rapist and murderer breaks out of jail in any big city in America. He takes refuge in your house, holding your entire family hostage. The first police officers on the scene are ambushed and killed by the fugitive and the SWAT team is called in.

The man refuses to negotiate. Instead he murders your 10 year old daughter and threatens to kill everyone. A swat team enters the house and they are blown up by a booby trap set by this criminal. The survivors drag two of their comrades out of the house, critically wounded. Three of the team members lie dead in the house.

Your local city councilman shows up on the scene ranting and raving about police brutality and poor planning to the amassed news cameras. (Oh yeah, he is running for mayor.) The city councilman demands that the police withdraw because of two failed attempts to rescue your family.

What would you do? More importantly, what do you think that criminal would do after the police left?

Richard S. Lowry
Marines in the Garden of Eden

I won't defend the Dems, but I think Chuck Hagel's position comes from being a grunt in the jungles of Vietnam, who kept hearing the "light at the end of the tunnel" speech by Westy, LBJ, and McNamara. I think he fears (and rightfully so) that this is the same line, over and over again. So, I don't fault him for his position. It is a strong one, borne of a miserable and tragic experience in Southeast Asia (and please do not, DO NOT give me the "well, we won the battles" line).

As for the analogy, once it involved Big Army, it would go something like this:

The police chief would demand a study be done on the type of weapon the fugitive had. After six months (and more SWAT casualties), a four-hour long power-point brief would be presented by a deputy chief, who would tell the police chief that 1) the fugitive has a gun, 2) this gun has bullets, 3) bullets hurt, ergo 4) we need more armor.

The police chief and his staff would be amazed at the findings and cheer the solution. The SWAT team members would chuckle and roll their eyes, wondering how it is a police chief needs a power-point brief to realize that bullets hurt.

The SWAT team, decked out in an additional 80 lbs. of armor would charge in again, only with similar results (even worse now that they have lost the ability to move quickly and get behind cover). Again, the police chief would convene his staff and demand answers. The deputy chief who had presented the previous power-point brief would be fired. The new briefing officer would ask for six months to research the problem. He would come up with a similar solution, recommend another twenty pounds of armor, and try again with similar results.

A sergeant from the SWAT team would merely add another foot of armor coverage to the bottom of the entry shield, preventing the SWAT team from being shot in the legs (which was the real problem all along). He would recommend using a sniper instead of entering at all, but the city's legal counsel would intervene saying that the snipers use too large a round and it's against the rules.

The sergeant would take about a minute to realize that tear-gas would do the trick, but the SWAT team commander would quickly intervene, saying it's against city regulations to use tear-gas, even though the regulations on it are almost a hundred years old and never envisioned a situation like the one presented. The city's legal counsel would heartily agree. The commander, preventing a PR disaster, would be given a medal and promoted to the police chief's staff.

Frustrated, but not ready to give up (no good sergeant ever does), the sergeant would recommend using a flashbang grenade. The department would agree but then they would require the sergeant to attend a six-month long school on how to pull the pin and throw a flash-bang grenade. Once back on the scene from the school, the sergeant would ask for the flashbang grenade, only to be told that he hasn't filled out the proper request forms and sent them through the chain-of-command. One of the members of the SWAT team orders a commercially-available flashbang (which, for an additional twenty dollars, arrives overnight), but is fired from the department when the new SWAT team commander sees it and finds out that, although it's the same model, it wasn't approved by the department for official use. The town's legal counsel would recommend criminal charges against the SWAT member who ordered the flashbang grenade.

Meanwhile, someone on the police chief's staff, while touring the scene, would complain that the SWAT team's hair is too long and they all would have to get haircuts.

After awhile, the mayor says that we need to train a force of fugitives to deal with the fugitive, because fugitives should police themselves.

The sergeant is, at this point, eligible for retirement. However, the department won't let him retire until the fugitive is dealt with. In addition, SWAT team members who have been out for several years are brought back into the department. And, even though the department requires a six-month school on something as simple as throwing a grenade, the old members are given a one-hour familiarization lecture and are geared up and sent to the scene.

So, the sergeant and his team are assigned to train this force of fugitives. While preparing for another entry attempt into the house, one of the trained fugitives starts stealing the windows. Another shoots a hostage because the hostage is not the same religion as the fugitive. Another fugitive starts actually shooting at one of the SWAT team members who yelled at him during training then decides to join the fugitive already in the house, presenting a new problem for the SWAT team because not only are they dealing with two fugitives now, but one of them is somewhat trained and equipped.

The police chief demands a study be done on the problem and....

You get the picture.

Thought: for all we know, the Vietnam war was on the cusp of victory just before the funding was cut, the troops were withdrawn, and the country was abandoned to its fate.

In fact, many of the former NVA and VC people admit that after Tet they were basically defeated, and except for Walter Cronkite's speech, they probably would not have been able to force the US to withdraw and lose.

If there's any lesson to be drawn from Vietnam, I think it's that you can't win if you are unable to follow through. Maybe you can't win if you do, either, but the chance of losing is 100% if you run away.