Wake Up, America
Our troops support the Iraq war.
I am an ex-Air Force officer and I speak frequently with active duty and reservist troops who have been to Iraq. I have not yet met one who didn't believe in the mission, or who wasn't deeply, deeply concerned that the LWM distortion of the war wouldn't yet result in a cowardly and stupid retreat from a battlefield we've won.
What John Murtha and other vets are doing to undermine those currently fighting overseas for their own selfish political gain is simply despicable.
Being a vet wounded in combat and decorated for valor does not confer upon you the right to betray your country. Benedict Arnold was an American hero before he tried to sell the plans to West Point to the enemy. Has he been remembered as hero or traitor?
You can believe as you will, and argue for what you like. Principled men do not seek to undermine American support for a war once the shooting begins---they do so before the decision is made to go to war.
Churchill, as always, had it right, commenting upon the amazing British evacuation from Dunkirk as the Nazis broke through the Maginot Line: "Wars are not won by evacuations."
Our troops and their leadership want to win the war.
What do you think the aim of Murtha, Kerry, and the rest might be?
I am an ex-Air Force officer and I speak frequently with active duty and reservist troops who have been to Iraq. I have not yet met one who didn't believe in the mission, or who wasn't deeply, deeply concerned that the LWM distortion of the war wouldn't yet result in a cowardly and stupid retreat from a battlefield we've won.
What John Murtha and other vets are doing to undermine those currently fighting overseas for their own selfish political gain is simply despicable.
Being a vet wounded in combat and decorated for valor does not confer upon you the right to betray your country. Benedict Arnold was an American hero before he tried to sell the plans to West Point to the enemy. Has he been remembered as hero or traitor?
You can believe as you will, and argue for what you like. Principled men do not seek to undermine American support for a war once the shooting begins---they do so before the decision is made to go to war.
Churchill, as always, had it right, commenting upon the amazing British evacuation from Dunkirk as the Nazis broke through the Maginot Line: "Wars are not won by evacuations."
Our troops and their leadership want to win the war.
What do you think the aim of Murtha, Kerry, and the rest might be?
posted by Teflon at 8:58 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Just a brief comment now, and then I'll come back later for something more in depth (and to comment on Part III below) --
What do you think the aim of Murtha, Kerry, and the rest might be?
Well, remember what week this is. What were the aims of the crowd in choosing Barabbas over Jesus and demanding Jesus's crucifixion? What was the aim of Pilate in condemning Him while knowing that He was innocent?
It has been the history and experience of mankind to hate and distrust and destroy the good, while embracing and advancing the evil. All too often, mankind has been blinded, unable to see the light of truth and promoting their own ends. While there are no doubt some that do know, it is likely that Murtha and Kerry and many of the rest are merely foolish and blind, they "know not what they do." Their aims are probably good faith attempts at peace and pacifism.
The problem with this is that it is also apparent that, not only do they not see, but they are not willing to see. All too often their natural blindness is a purposeful blindness, as they cover their eyes to avoid confronting the truth. Maybe the reason for that is that the truth is dangerous. The truth (which is that Islam has been at war with us for 1,400 years) might result in people getting hurt, them included. So they avoid the truth, wash their hands of the truth, and reject and condemn the good in a vain attempt to be rid of that uncomfortable truth.
The problem, of course, is that truth cannot be hidden or shoved aside. This is not a war that we can simply choose not to fight. We cannot simply "bring the boys back home" and have peace. The war was thrust upon us, and it will accompany us wherever we go. It takes two (at least) to have peace, and you cannot have peace if the enemy remains at war.
I got such a treat yesterday afternoon. Our 21 yr old neighbors' son, who enlisted into the Army at 18, came for a visit and i asked him what he thought of W. They all believe W did the right thing- all our soldiers, and moral overseas is good. They know the inaccuracies of our media, both in content and slant. Yet, they just keep going and doing and- i'm so thankful to him.
I shook his hand, teared up andjust thanked him so much- he re-enlisted. Is that six more yrs- i think so. In addition, his little sister, 18, just finished Basics in the Air Force. She's now in Tech School and is really enjoying it (although she really tried to get out during her first couple of weeks of Basics i guess). What a sacrafice from those kids and thousands like them. And our *Retired* generals can blow chunks, for all I care.
Bender-
"...you cannot have peace if the enemy remains at war."
Isn't that the exact situation we've been in with Iran for the past 27 years? Even now, Iranian military aid, training, money, and intelligence is being provided to the "insurgents" in Iraq. We're in a shooting war with Iran already; we simply haven't acknowledged the fact.
Karen-
The great thing about America is that we continue to produce such outstanding men and women for our armed forces. When retired generals on the Democrat payroll claim that we cannot win the war in Iraq or a hypothetical war with Iran (and remember, the Iraqis and Iranians fought to a brutal stalemate in the 80s), it makes me laugh. Clearly these folks didn't get out from their big Pentagon desks enough to see what troops in the field were doing. Or perhaps their integrity doesn't mean as much now that they're retired and those deep-pocketed Democrat consultants come a-calling.
Either way, there is no doubt that we've got the very best military in the world, and that they will continue to outperform their civilian critics by at least as much as they outclass their enemies.
I know people who know John Kerry personally, and in all honesty, from everything I've heard, he's seriously pissed off that the war in Iraq is being run so incompetently -- due to the incompetence of Bush and Rumsfeld, not due to any fault in our troops --, and that American kids are being stranded in the middle of a civil war with no clear plan for victory or exit.
I realize that the people on this blog no doubt disagree and think that the war is being run very well, that everything is on track, etc. But if you really want to know what the aim of Murtha, Kerry, etc. is -- if that wasn't just a rhetorical question -- then I think you need to understand that they sincerely think that what's going on in Iraq is a mess, and that somebody needs to demand that Bush et al. get their act together and, as Kerry has said, "Give the troops leadership equal to their sacrifice." Nothing more mysterious than that.
NoisyDem-
First, welcome to MoltenThought.
Murtha has called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq (to somewhere quite literally over the horizon, in fact) while Kerry's position has been completely incoherent---the same old voting-for-it-before-he-was-against-it schtick.
Forgive me for noting that political opportunism seems to be a more likely driver for both men than a well-thought-out alternative policy. Murtha and Kerry fervently believe that criticizing the Bush administation's conduct of the Iraq War will strengthen Democrats in both houses of Congress and perhaps lead to their winning the 2008 presidential election. This seems quite sufficient to explain their efforts to undermine the war effort, especially given neither man has exactly been well-known for their support of the military or for defense policy. You might recall Kerry's disgraceful role on the POW-MIA committee a few years back, for example.
In the spirit of dialogue, I will also readily admit that I opposed our intervention in the Balkans during the Clinton Administration, feeling that airpower deployed in such harsh terrain wouldn't accomplish much except to kill pilots. I cannot honestly say that I would have been so disposed had a Republican administration proposed such action---I find Republicans far more credible on national security issues than Democrats.
What was Murtha and Kerry's position on the Balkans? I can't recall them warning of an Eastern European quagmire, but perhaps you do.
Until the Democrats produce more credible war critics who propose viable alternatives to current policy (cut-and-run is not a viable policy post-9/11), I'm afraid Americans who truly care about national security won't entrust them with command authority.
Thanks for reading, and for your comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home