March 22, 2006

Iraq anniversary - 3 years

Fighting wars you can win: Definitely. You pose the question of maybe countries shouldn't go to war, on the idea that you can't predict the outcome. Not really the same, I don't think.

That's not what Neo did.

We are there because we are waiting for what?

We are waiting for you, Steve, to bring us the critical logistics supply that is required to win the war. We are still waiting.


IMO, political realities made it difficult for Bush, initially, to explicitly explain this threat. He's doing a better job now - though there is obvious room vor improvement.


Bush wouldn't know how to tell you about this threat, even if he wanted to and could afford to politically. So there are 3 barriers preventing Bush from explictly explaining the threat.

It's hard for me to understand why people don't get this.

They just don't care. As Steve said, he doesn't care how many Iraqis are murdered in the streets, it doesn't affect him.

My second point was, and is, that we have NO SPECIFIC GOALS.

Bush would be brain dead to tell you the specific strategic and tactical goals of this war, just so you can blab it on the internet and tell our enemy. You do understand that Al-Qaeda data mines the internet on a regular basis, right?

This is so not secure.

Problem is, I'm not getting them.

Which is a good thing, it shows that military security has not been cracked or "leaked".

BUT that's not how this war was sold to the American people, and that's why they are tired of it.

WWII wasn't sold to the American people, since Roosevelt said he wouldn't get involved in foreign wars...

War isn't a commodity to be sold and bought.

that's the party line that is currently being put out there

There is no party line, since there is no party propaganda apparatus. Show me Bush's propaganda apparatus and then you can talk about party lines.

Having spent quite a bit of time sitting immobilized in an APC or an Amtrac I can tell you my heart goes out to anyone who has to sit knee in the crotch of the guy sitting across from you, utterly helpless, waiting to be blown up.

A warrior is never helpless. Those people you see helpless in that vehicle, are not warriors.

Do we switch on to full appeasement mode from here on out?

So long as American soldiers don't die, I don't think steve cares about what else happens.

I simply want our people in a position to minimize this particularly helpless and therefore gruesome form of death.

I suppose helpless children must be protected now and again.

I'm being honest about how I feel about this: that's why I can't take any pleasure in this, at all.

You can't take enemy propaganda that demoralizes you... Okay. You ever hear of mental defenses?

even wrote a constitution for them

Now we're verging on the "made up facts" branch of logic.

they certainly won't be defeated by 150 K Americans, many of whom are in vulnerable support roles to begin with.

Sounds like the Iraqi police that bunked up in their stations, and allowed the terroists to slaughter everyone in the neighborhood. A bunch of cowards.

Steve, enemy propaganda is going to affect your thinking regardless of the situation in Iraq. I say regardless because propaganda uses psychological attacks that bypass both armor and military power.

So it doesn't matter if we pull back in. Cause the enemy is just going to come up with some new trick to show you on tv and demoralize you. THEN, you will be complaining about that new trick and trying to get Americans out of harm's way yet again.

Don't make me remind you about the Marine Corps barracks bombing that killed 220 Marines. You can pull in your helpless children all you want, steve, from the IEDs, but it's not going to make your mental defenses against enemy propaganda any stronger. Nor will it save any American lives. You don't win a war on the defensive, and you sure as hell aren't saving lives in the long term by fortifying up.

Link

Here is Glenn's thoughts on reading history, the 21st century way.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home