We're Still Winning
This morning I was searching newspaper archives for early Iraq War data, and turned up a wonderful tidbit from 3 1/2 years ago in the Wall Street Journal (7/28/03). Since retro's all the rage, I thought I'd share it.
Under the banner, "We've Already Won--and We're Still Winning," writer James Taranto tut-tuts, "We've heard a lot of jibber-jabber during the past two years over such abstract matters as international law, pre-emptive wars, American imperialism, unilateralism, and on and on. Just lately opponents of the Bush administration have been trying to gin up controversy by falsely claiming that the president claimed that Iraq was an 'imminent' threat." Yes, why would people dither over such inconsequential nonsense?
All those terms are abstract, but then again, so is the bible and the Constitution. We only concretize them through universal implementation and subsequent agreement upon their meanings. How many people have now died because U.S. citizens allowed their government to wage offensive war without a proper legal basis?
At the time of this piece, Taranto says 49 soldiers had been killed in the "guerilla war" since May 2003. He did at least get the type of war correct, but as of 11/19/06, the final score has still not been posted. I wonder if the author has since reconsidered his position?
The thing I am most in awe of is that the American people allow their government to perform illegal activities in the name of goodness, with authors like this one acting as their cheerleaders. My training in sniper school and Special Forces taught us to shoot the cheerleaders first when and if they incited crowd violence. It is an instinct which might not square well with the First Amendment, but I do wonder how much such blather and neglect influences the madding crowd.
Under the banner, "We've Already Won--and We're Still Winning," writer James Taranto tut-tuts, "We've heard a lot of jibber-jabber during the past two years over such abstract matters as international law, pre-emptive wars, American imperialism, unilateralism, and on and on. Just lately opponents of the Bush administration have been trying to gin up controversy by falsely claiming that the president claimed that Iraq was an 'imminent' threat." Yes, why would people dither over such inconsequential nonsense?
All those terms are abstract, but then again, so is the bible and the Constitution. We only concretize them through universal implementation and subsequent agreement upon their meanings. How many people have now died because U.S. citizens allowed their government to wage offensive war without a proper legal basis?
At the time of this piece, Taranto says 49 soldiers had been killed in the "guerilla war" since May 2003. He did at least get the type of war correct, but as of 11/19/06, the final score has still not been posted. I wonder if the author has since reconsidered his position?
The thing I am most in awe of is that the American people allow their government to perform illegal activities in the name of goodness, with authors like this one acting as their cheerleaders. My training in sniper school and Special Forces taught us to shoot the cheerleaders first when and if they incited crowd violence. It is an instinct which might not square well with the First Amendment, but I do wonder how much such blather and neglect influences the madding crowd.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:46 PM
4 Comments:
Sir.
Its good to see a decent american military voice. At last, it looks like your army is doing something to rectify their mistakes, basically going back to the Powell doctrine. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-doctrine20nov20,0,2021606.story?coll=la-home-headlines
My friend Martin K pointed out your blog to me, and I must say that i am delighted by your blog. Keep up the good work.
I'm delighted to have two friends visiting my site, and I hope you won't be as hard on me as Martin is(!)
Thanks for your participation.
Ranger and Lisa.
First - a belated Happy Thanksgiving.
This is just a bit off topic. It is a response to Lurch's 11/25 "Why DID We Attack Iraq ?" post over at Main and Central.
Actually, it is more of a question. Interested in your views on this.
------------------------------
Good post, Lurch.
Ideally, there would be another way for active duty men and women in uniform to speak out and tell the truth about flawed plans or / unnecessary marches to war.
Under the current system (the hearings on Capitol Hill) - one who tells the truth like Shinseki did runs the risk of getting "Shinsekied." And, under the current system - it is almost too easy for senior officers to "game the system" and just go along. Either to have their careers advanced - or to avoid having it derailed.
What if the top 5 ( or 10 ) generals were appointed to a commission. The purpose of this commission would be to write an opinion about pending war plans for public consumption. Much like the Supreme Court does after they render a decision. With this commission, however, each opinion is submitted anonymously.
I guess what I am recommending is a more organized mechanism or forum for active duty generals to speak out vs. what they are currently reduced to doing via Seymour Hersch and the New Yorker.
---------------------------------
KW,
Thanks for the holiday wishes; same to you and your pod.
I don't favor the proposal you suggest, since you can lay all the generals in the Army head-to-toe and you wouldn't reach a decision.
The only opinion that counts is that of the senior man present. You can affect his opinion with a staff study or a staff position paper.
My definiton of tactics is the p.o.v. taken by the ranking officer. For better or worse.
Post a Comment
<< Home