Triumphal Macho-Geeks!

It is very interesting to me that every time we make progress in Iraq or the war on terror, you can always count on left wing blogs to second-guess, nay say, and be generally negative and snide.

Am I the only one who feels frustrated by this? Why is defeating our enemy in battle a bad thing? Why are they constantly making excuses for regimes like Iran and Syria but calling our Generals traitors?

Tapped needs some testicular fortitude.

This nation has seriously lost touch with the reality that is death.

"Every death is a tragedy, every tragedy a reason to sue. Sue the bar, sue the beer company, sue the cigarette company, sue the car company, sue the gun company, This wasn't supposed to happen! Its a tragedy! Every one gets a flower coated coffin. Everyone gets nice words spoke over thier corpse." Its like the entire country has forgotten that eventually, everyones' life expectancy hits zero.

Some folks die due the acts of irresponsible people. Punish the guilty according to thier crime.
Some folks die because its thier time. End of story.
Some folks die because the unwise or poor choices they made in life. Learn from thier mistakes, remember also the right choices they made, and the good things they did (If any) and move on.

And some people die because they're assholes. Dangerous assholes who's only goals in life are to kill, steal, and destroy. Their lives must be forfeited, so that others may live. Thier deaths stand as a statement, to any who are lured by the shadows in this life. Thier deaths are the vindication of the positive nature that is intelligent humanity.

We isolate, incarcerate, and if need be destroy the predators. The strongest and bravest members of our society sacrifice thier happiness, health, and if need be lives to protect those whom the predator views as prey. Why? because the strong members view their protectorates as more valuable then themselves. The children, because they are the future. The elderly, because they are the founts of knowledge, and due much respect. The physically weak, because it takes more then muscles to make a strong person. The mentally disabled, because some of the most important lessons in life are just too straightforward for an intelligent man to grasp. It takes a childlike mind to truly comprehend, and sometimes show you.

When you stop hunting the predators, when you stop killing those who would do innocent people harm, then you live in an archaic and animalistic world. The predators chase the her. The weak, young and dying, are slain. The strong and the fast runaway, reduced to cowardice, reduced to animal fear and self preservation.

Let us hunt the predators. Realize that we aren't hunting for sport. We are hunting for the preservation for those whom we consider valuable. Our children, our elderly, our families, and those who's tasks and skills are too important, too valuable, for the simplicity of violent defense.

Perhaps Mr. Duss could have participated in negotiations with someone like al-Zarqawi. I am sure he could have helped this (now dead) killer see the error of his ways...and helped persuade those he trained to use their skills for good.

Oh yeah, a big negative on the name change...:)

I'm not sure where anti-war folks developed this Fantasia view of terrorists, where killing one somehow automatically means another two pop up out of his corpse, but it ain't realistic.

You do understand that Masri trained others in methods of bomb-making before we killed him, right? And that those others will in turn train others, right? So can you understand why I am hesitant to treat his death as yet another "turning point"?

You know what really creates more terrorists?
Weakness.

But according to the "weakness creates terrorists" model, when we showed strength by invading Iraq, this should have scared all the terrorists away. What went wrong?

The terrorists weren't supposed to run away, thus, nothing went wrong in that sense. What the invasion did was divert the region's supply of terrorists and nutters into one concentrated area where they can get killed more efficiently. There will always be a flow of loonies coming from the radical imams and whatnot, if we are weak, we do nothing and their numbers grow, if we're smart, we go international and beat six kinds of snot out of them to keep them under control. The point is, they're gonna try to kill us and our allies anyway, just take a look back to 1948, the UN gave them their chance, they chose to go for genocide. Thus it goes.

yeah Duss, I'm not sure where that idea gained steam. al-Qa'ida's operational strength is vastly lower than it was before 9/11.

But according to the "weakness creates terrorists" model, when we showed strength by invading Iraq, this should have scared all the terrorists away. What went wrong?

Not necessarily. They weren't "scared away" (where'd you get that?) when we invade Afghanistan either. What invading both countries did was make them more accessible for us to kill, which degrades them as a movement, raises the cost of using terrorism as a tactic, ties them up on their turf, and keeps them off of ours.

On the weakness point. These guys understand strength, and strength alone. You can argue that we should have never gone into Iraq, and that's fine. But that's yesterday's debate I'm afraid. They're there now... so showing weakness and pulling out would boost Islamic radicalism as a movement to untold heights, more so than when they forced a Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan.

We can't give them that victory. If we do, we'll be fighting these idiots for decades.

M. Duss,

You do understand that Masri trained others in methods of bomb-making before we killed him, right? And that those others will in turn train others, right? So can you understand why I am hesitant to treat his death as yet another "turning point"?

So if we left him alone, he would quit training bomb makers....right??

What really disturbs me is the statement that we created the situation where he could practice his craft, you mean he didn't take up bomb making BEFORE the Iraq invasion?? I think you fail to realize that these people (terrorists) simply use it as an excuse to kill. If we weren't in Iraq they would simply make up another excuse......and keep on killing.....

also, on your "turning points" comment.
No one said the war was won because this idiot is dead. In fact, I never even called it a "turning point." I just mentioned that I was glad he's gone.

And I can't remember anyone saying the war was won when Zarqawi was killed either. So, I guess I'm not really sure where you're getting your information.

On the weakness point. These guys understand strength, and strength alone. You can argue that we should have never gone into Iraq, and that's fine. But that's yesterday's debate I'm afraid. They're there now... so showing weakness and pulling out would boost Islamic radicalism as a movement to untold heights, more so than when they forced a Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan.

What you don't seem to understand is that the invasion of Iraq allowed al Qaeda to tie its ideology, of which a majority of Muslim Arabs don't approve, to an insurgency/resistance movement of which a majority of Arabs do approve. There's no arguing the fact that its ideological appeal has vastly increased throughout the Middle East as a result of the Iraq war, and claims about the "operational strength" of al Qaeda as an organization are neither here nor there, as it was always meant to be serve as an ideological foundation ("the base") for dispersed cells, which is what we've seen in Iraq.

We can't give them that victory. If we do, we'll be fighting these idiots for decades.

We'll be fighting these idiots for decades precisely because we went into Iraq, instead of concentrating on obliterating them in Afghanistan.

And I can't remember anyone saying the war was won when Zarqawi was killed either. So, I guess I'm not really sure where you're getting your information.

I suspect your smart enough to know what I mean. Every one of these type events, the fall of Baghdad, the capture of Saddam, the death of Zarqawi, the election in Iraq, is touted, maybe not bey you, but certainly by many conservatives, as a turning point. Never works out that way. Why? Because it's a bad strategy.

What really disturbs me is the statement that we created the situation where he could practice his craft, you mean he didn't take up bomb making BEFORE the Iraq invasion?? I think you fail to realize that these people (terrorists) simply use it as an excuse to kill. If we weren't in Iraq they would simply make up another excuse......and keep on killing.....

I do realize that, but you've simply provided an argument for concentrating on the terrorists in Afghanistan. The fact is that Masri simply would not have had either the recruits, nor (more importantly) the urban laboratory he did if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Surely, Masri would've continued to kill and bomb in Afghanistan, but the more developed, urban environment of Iraq provided him a chance to perfect techniques which we're (and the rest of the world) are going to be coping for decades.

As for showing "weakness," that's a bedtime story conservatives tell their kids. There isn't an imaginable withdrawal scenario in which al Qaeda doesn't declare victory. It seems pretty obvious that there are better ways of evaluating our strategic effectiveness and options than how the enemy represents them in his propaganda, and that "not showing weakness" is simply an argument for open-ended commitment.

Okay. You're still fighting 2003's debate. What else?

Nice cop out.

not a cop out. I'm talking about now, you're talking about four years ago.

No, in fact, if you read your own comments, you've been defending the strategy of invading Iraq four years ago. Should I take your unwillingness to continue that defense as a sign that you recognize that it was a bad move?

I'm happy to talk about "now," but I think that requires, at the very least, a candid appraisal of how we got here.

This is the closest I got: What invading both countries did was make them more accessible for us to kill, which degrades them as a movement, raises the cost of using terrorism as a tactic, ties them up on their turf, and keeps them off of ours.

Bringing terrorists into our kill box wasn't an original enterting argument for invasion, so I think you're drawing your own conclusions again.

You're also shifting the whole debate back to 2003 based on that one quote, which is a bit aggravating.

I'm glad to talk the road to war. But one of my biggest pet peeves when talking about the occupation is folks' infuriating habit of going back to March 03 over and over and over again, when today's security situation is so completely different.

I refuse to allow the grounds of a debate to be dictated to me like that, so when you change the subject away from...say, your comments on al-Qa'ida to the casus belli for Iraq, I'll opt out until you get back on topic.

And baiting me by calling that a "cop-out"... ha, that ain't gonna get me to play your game, dude.

also, please elaborate here: I'm happy to talk about "now," but I think that requires, at the very least, a candid appraisal of how we got here.

...because that doesn't make any sense to me. The battlespace is fluid, always shifting. Post awakening, we're not even fighting the same enemy as we were in 03.

Bringing terrorists into our kill box wasn't an original enterting argument for invasion, so I think you're drawing your own conclusions again.

Well, the Flypaper Strategy was pretty frantically promoted by war supporters when it became apparent that there were no WMD and no significant ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, but I'm glad we both seem to agree now that it was a dumb strategy.

The battlespace is fluid, always shifting. Post awakening, we're not even fighting the same enemy as we were in 03.

Ah yes, the "awakening," in which we empower Sunni tribal elements to fight al Qaeda, and, eventually, Iraqi Shiis, thus undermining our attempts at statebuilding and effectively ceding half of Iraq to Iran's sphere of influence.

I understand that "the battlespace is fluid, always shifting," but the problem, so are the arguments of the war's supporters. There's never any acknowledgment that the arguments and justifications offered a year, two years, three years ago turned out to be BS. That's what I mean by a candid appraisal of how we got here.

Sorry, forgot to sign that one.

"The fact is that Masri simply would not have had either the recruits"...if we weren't in Iraq.

That's the arguement I never get. It's seems so naive to say that without American troops in Iraq there wouldn't be terrorists or bombmakers. It's like the other current fav - Iraq made us take our eye off the ball and that's why we don't have OBL.

Everytime there is an act of terrorism against an American or an American interest someone tries to pin it back on America. Here at Op-For, the bloggers and commenters are too smart to fall into that trap. We know that once you start apologizing or explaining it, you are off track.

I am glad Abu Yaqub al-Masri is dead. He made bombs and that wasn't America's fault. He taught others to make bombs and that wasn't America's fault. The one certain fact here is that al-Masri will never kill another American, or Iraqi or anyone else and that's a good thing. It's not a turning point, it's not the end of the war, it's just good news. It doesn't make me bloodthirsty, it makes me honest. If someone was brutalizing you and that person was stopped in a similarly brutal fashion would you be sad? If the answer is "yes", then something is wrong with you. If the answer is "no" then the only difference between us is I feel more personally about those al-Masri killed or would potentially have killed.

So which is it Mr. Duss? Are you damaged or distant?

Oh yeah Duss, "breakfast chef and carpenter to the stars." Now there's someone who I want to hear military analysis from. Is this guy kidding? He has to be another Karl Rove plant, like MoveOn.org and the "BetrayUs" ad.

"...The fact is that Masri simply would not have had either the recruits, nor (more importantly) the urban laboratory he did if we hadn't gone into Iraq."

He would have had plenty of both regardless of if we were there or not. My country knows this- we lost enough aussie citizens in Bali, before the Iraq war even started.

These guys aren't created or trained by our presence in Iraq any more than Nazi stormtroopers in Normandy were created by D-Day.

this idiot wouldnt know a terrorist if one selfdetonated on his driveway.where the fuck did all these wannabe military genises start crawling out of the woodwork. and what goddamn sense does this recruiting bullshit make. masri can train more hajis from the grave is that what hes sayin? someone show this doucebag the door.

M. Duss, I'm sure when the 8th Air Force started bombing Germany in 1943 it caused an increase in German recruitment also!
Using you anti war libs arguments we should have only attacked the countries of Japan and Germany only, forget about going into N. Africa and France or the Soloman Isls.
Iraq is a battlefield in the larger world war.
And if and when we kill BinLaden do you think the war is over and everyone comes home? NOT. This war will last for at least another generation, get use to it!

Awesome post, John.

Sometimes I think these guys have confused reality with video games - a terrorist doesn't immediately spawn from a JDAM crater. Plus, it just blows my mind how relentlessly negative they are. On a forum I go to, anytime I post good news people throw a fit, declaring that the war is still uncertain, this doesn't mean the US will win, etc. It's almost like the are rooting for the other side...

OmegaP, your right. Remember these people have more vile hatred for the guy in the white house than they do for the enemies of this country who would slice their fool heads off in a heartbeat!

John, John, John ... "Negative Nancy"? What happened to "nattering nabob of negativism"? Stay true to your roots, man!