Post #68

Subject: The classic errors

I ran across a blog post entitled “DON’T STOP THE WAR!” If I may -- my responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

Why would we want to stop this war?
(1) We're winning

[And how do you define “winning?” Killing more enemy troops – combatants? guerillas? – than losing our own? That was a mistake in Vietnam and is a mistake in Iraq today. Remember the body counts of Vietnam and how we were constantly being told we were turning the corner because we were killing more than were being killed? We killed over a million North Vietnamese – over 20 times what we lost – but did not win that war. Unfortunately, George W. Bush seems to not understand that, for every Iraqi he kills, there are two more who were originally supporters of democracy who are now jihadists and willing to fly planes into buildings.]

(2) It's the right thing to do

Most importantly: the only thing that "anti-war" protesting at home does is KILLS OUR TROOPS IN THE FIELD. I remember the news reports in 1991 and all the networks talking about how we were "fighting for oil." I remember how it made us feel knowing that there were people at home who did not appreciate the blood we were expecting to shed.

[I hate to sound like a smart-ass, but, really, how does that work? I hear it all the time. If you are on patrol in Baghdad and you come under attack, how does Dan Rather make your gun not shoot straight? If you are wounded, will the Army doctor not work hard on you because his daughter is home in college makin’ love not war!?! :p]

… I've shed blood to fight this evil. Don't lessen my sacrafice. You don't have to agree with everything Bush & Co. do, I certainly don't, but don't let them do to this generation what they did to mine in 1991 -- pull out before the job is finished, ensuring that our enemy will live to once again terrorize the innocent.

[Uh, your mission was accomplished in ’91. – take pride in that. But, after the higher-ups in the Pentagon concluded that Vietnam was lost, how did sending over 20,000 more troops to their deaths lesson the sacrifice of those who had already died? In my Post #65, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show, “And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.” The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests – just like in ‘91. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests – that is why I say Bush’s “New Way Forward” is nothing short of murderous.]

(3) Our enemy isn't about to stop until he's dead

… This war isn't going to end even when we're finished in Iraq. This is a battle for the survival of Western civilization.

[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. Killing Arabs on TV is not helping – indeed, we are breeding new terrorists.]

I am a US Marine veteran. I have been to Iraq (1991), I have met the enemy, and I am very much aware that he cannot be reasoned with, he cannot be negotiated with, he cannot be bribed or bought off, and he will never, ever stop killing innocent people until he is dead. The minute we surrender to terrorism in Iraq, they will return this war to OUR shores and start bombing OUR schools, OUR churches and shopping malls and killing OUR people.

[The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. From my Post #45, Senator Gordon Smith said, “And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.” Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” “the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”]

You can't "stop" the war BECAUSE THE ENEMY HASN'T QUIT. Jane Fonda thought she could do that in 1968 when America was about to achieve a military victory, and because of her THOUSANDS of American servicemen were killed or wounded by an enemy which gained renewed morale after her visit to North Vietnam.

[I wasn’t aware Jane Fonda was a General who followed political orders to send troops into combat. :p Why don’t you blame those really at fault for Vietnam – Johnson who turned Vietnam into a quagmire and Nixon who couldn’t admit the defeat that was handed to him. The Iraq War itself, Bush’s Vietnam, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor ‘em.]