Keen Arrows

The most powerful man? His role in our future.

This entry was posted on 11/9/2006 9:20 AM and is filed under US Politics.

Joe Lieberman seems to be much more popular these days as an Independent in the senate. Cut loose by the Democrats for his support of the war, they seem to like him much more now. Republicans like him too. Everybody is going to want Joe's vote. See Letting The Bidding War For Joe Begin.

The next two years are going to be very interesting. Did the political tide turn to the Democrats mainly because of perceived corruption in the Republican party, because our economy has been consistently reported as being in bad shape, or because we the people are displeased with the concept and conduct of the war?

Joe's vote could be critical in deciding our futures.

It appears clear that the only war America is willing to fight is one without casualties. (43,000 plus died in traffic accidents in 2005; 3,000 plus volunteers have died in two years in Iraq. Every life is precious, but in a country that has been at war throughout its history--most of the time to preserve its freedom--we don't seem to be able to stomach self-defense anymore. Not if it involves fatalities. You may honorably disagree with W's motives and strategy, but how can one reasonably argue that the US, the world, or even Iraq benefits from a precipitous withdrawal of US troops?)

David Warren says, here... "So far as President Bush can be blamed, it should be for showing insufficient ruthlessness in a task that could not be accomplished by half-measures. Alternatively, for failing to grasp that America was psychologically unprepared for real war, not only by the memory of Vietnam, but by the grim advance of "liberal" decadence in domestic life over the generation since."

<snip>

[In the Vietnam era, as now] The 'alternative America', ruling from its ivory towers in academia, the media, and the entertainment industry, could not understand why anyone should die for any cause at all; could not distinguish between freedom and tyranny; and instinctively sided with any enemy of what they fancifully imagined to be 'American imperialism'".

I know, if given the power the Democrats will withdraw honorably, as we did in Vietnam. How did that Fram oil filter commercial go...? "Pay now, or pay later." And pay we will.

Thanks also to Michelle Malkin

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URL for this entry

No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Page: 1 of 1

11/12/2006 9:52 AM lyssad wrote:
“Insufficient ruthlessness” What does this mean?

We invaded, overthrew the government, occupied the country, removed the president, disbanded the military. There is nothing more an army can do. Unless you are advocating the biblical/koranic injunction to slaughter the men and sell the women into slavery?

Once the army had done its job, leaving it there to do some other job became counterproductive. Even though more Americans are killed by gangs than by Al Queda, there are good reasons we don’t want the US Army in South Central LA.
Reply to this
1. 11/12/2006 8:27 PM Cliff wrote:
  "What more can an army do?" Surely you don't mean that further, more "ruthless" (to use David Warren's word) military action was not possible? Here's a quick list of possibilities (not recommendations) to demonstrate my point.
  1. Secure the Syrian and Iranian borders against insurgency by either direct action in those countries or more aggressive confronation at their borders.
  2. Attack insurgents and rebels in force rather than cruise the streets as targets.
  3. Restrict freedom of movement of the natives (enhanced marshall law) in order to increase security.
  
  Again, these are not my recommendations nor do I necessarily think they are bad ideas--they are simply examples that demonstrate more "ruthlessness" was certainly, easily possible.
  Reply to this
11/13/2006 4:38 PM lyssad wrote:
We cannot 'attack the rebels in force' unless we know who the rebels are.

Military action is possible but counterproductive: it creates rather than lessens resistance unless used against the correct targets. Identifying the correct targets is police work. Assigning police duties to the military is a recipe for disaster, here and throughout history. Continuing a disastrous military strategy will continue to be counterproductive.
Reply to this