Failure is not an option...
Steve opines: "Fair enough, Andy. I'll grant you that the Democrats are demagoguing the heck out of this, but history will undoubtedly record that the Iraq Conflict was lost by none other than George W. Bush hisownself. It will be recorded that the whole adventure was ill-advised to begin with and degraded from there. As has been repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, no war has ever been won by half measures. Once the main objective, which was nailing Saddam, was out of the way, the Dimwit-in-Chief simply lost interest. All the shrill screeching by the plethora of Democrats running for King...err...President will be a minor entertainment footnote."
I honestly don't believe it's lost in Iraq... I totally agree, wars can't be won by half measures and as Commander-in-Chief, Bush is the person responsible for deciding how this war is being fought. We just have to give this new plan a chance because these new rules of engagement is what the soldiers out in the field have wanted from the very beginning. I don't know what the history books will say about Bush; as Richard Nixon used to say, "History depends on who's writing it." We just have to win in Iraq... As in Vietnam, we are winning every battle on the battlefield; the problem is I don't think that will be reported as such.
"As well, the similarity between the current situation and Reagan's defeat of the Soviets ends with the Democrats' rhetoric. Reagan fought and defeated a very real and present danger through shrewd tactics and brilliant strategies. Bush is fighting a war of agit-prop with ill-defined goals and a vague, abstract enemy. As has also been pointed out elsewhere, wars are fought against nations and peoples, not ideas and situations. Bush's silly war on terrorism is no more concrete or viable than Johnson's war on poverty, it just happens to get more people killed."
My point was all about the Democrats' rhetoric. With that said, I don't consider this a "silly war on terrorism." I consider this a threat just like I considered the Soviet Union a threat. I agree the situations are different, but I have to say that this threat from Islamic Extremists is just as dangerous as from the Soviets. Let's not take this lightly... Looking back at history, anytime we underestimate our enemies, we suffer deadly consequences as a result.
I honestly don't believe it's lost in Iraq... I totally agree, wars can't be won by half measures and as Commander-in-Chief, Bush is the person responsible for deciding how this war is being fought. We just have to give this new plan a chance because these new rules of engagement is what the soldiers out in the field have wanted from the very beginning. I don't know what the history books will say about Bush; as Richard Nixon used to say, "History depends on who's writing it." We just have to win in Iraq... As in Vietnam, we are winning every battle on the battlefield; the problem is I don't think that will be reported as such.
"As well, the similarity between the current situation and Reagan's defeat of the Soviets ends with the Democrats' rhetoric. Reagan fought and defeated a very real and present danger through shrewd tactics and brilliant strategies. Bush is fighting a war of agit-prop with ill-defined goals and a vague, abstract enemy. As has also been pointed out elsewhere, wars are fought against nations and peoples, not ideas and situations. Bush's silly war on terrorism is no more concrete or viable than Johnson's war on poverty, it just happens to get more people killed."
My point was all about the Democrats' rhetoric. With that said, I don't consider this a "silly war on terrorism." I consider this a threat just like I considered the Soviet Union a threat. I agree the situations are different, but I have to say that this threat from Islamic Extremists is just as dangerous as from the Soviets. Let's not take this lightly... Looking back at history, anytime we underestimate our enemies, we suffer deadly consequences as a result.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 10:47 PM
1 Comments:
Iraq is not lost (despite what the media and Democrats "pray" for every night). Wars do not have timetables or do they run neatly within election cycles. This country needs to defeat this enemy regardless of the time or the "damage" to our national image (Who cares about that, when did we become the French?) This enemy is only rising and will take any withdrawal as a "victory". If we leave Iraq without the chance to defend it's borders and keep fostering the seeds of democracy, it will come back on us ten fold (Syria and Iran are salivating at the chance). Will we only have to return to another third world country and kill this enemy again? Maybe we won't have to go so far next time, maybe they will come right to our front door and stay for awhile? Is that what it is going to take for the Apathetic Republic to wake-up? It is up to us, we can continue this "silly war on terror" or just ignore it and maybe it will go away.
Post a Comment
<< Home