Black days: WoT morale at rock bottom
posted at 8:12 pm on August 9, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I started to write this yesterday but got sidetracked with photomania. Which was fortuitous. The smell coming from Connecticut today adds atmosphere, and besides — we’ve got a theme going here.
Pessimism about the war is as bad right now as I’ve ever seen it. And I don’t mean just Iraq, and I don’t mean just among the general public. I mean the whole war, even among hardcore lock-and-load “let’s roll” hawks. Check out this murderers’ row.
It bears repeating, despite the incredible progress that has been made in Iraq; we are in great peril of losing the war entirely. Having seen and reported on how it doesn’t have to end this way, because there are units and leaders in our military who know how to succeed in Iraq, who have won the peace for communities once considered as dangerous as Baghdad, I have always maintained a hope of the eventual success of the mission citing conditions on the ground as justification. Unfortunately, given what we have for information sources, now may have passed. Now could be yesterday, or last month, or even last year. Now it may be too late.
Grim at Blackfive:
I suspect that we will one day speak of the war in Iraq the way we speak of the Spanish Civil War — that is, rarely by comparison to the greater war that followed it. Peace is not in the cards. Things are going to get worse. Our enemies are glad to employ terrorists, who will try to bring the war to our homes. The wise man will prepare his sword, and the arm that may wield it.
[W]hile, all things being equal, people surely prefer to live in freedom than under a dictatorship, culture ensures that things are never equal. Someone living in a tribal or traditional culture will view the world differently, and have different values, than an atomized individual in the West. He might value sexual purity more than freedom, thus insisting on the repression of women. He might value his religious conviction that all of the Levant should be Muslim-controlled over freedom and life itself. He might hate the dishonor of foreign occupation more than he loves anything.
For all these reasons, Hezbollah seems to have a better understanding of human hearts, at least in its part of the world, than the president of the Unites States does.
[M]ost people would like the Middle East to be free and happy and prosperous and free of incomprehensible religious differences (Sunni, Shiite, Sufi – help us out, guys; do they all have to start with S?) and generally off the radar. Thirty years of hearing Death to the Great Satan, however, hasn’t left the average American mad. It’s left them bored. It’s left them disinterested in the final consequences to the societies in which the chanting mobs appear. They don’t care. And as I said, that may have more injurious consequences than Disappointed Engagement or Active Animus. The former leads to withdrawal; the latter leads to rash plans quickly nixed when the anger cools.
A nation that no longer cares about what happens Over There is a nation, I think, that has already made its peace, however subconsciously, with a horrible conclusion.
He doesn’t specify what he means by “horrible conclusion,” but I think we’re all on the same page. No less a personage than Bernard Lewis believes Iran might have something big planned for two weeks from now. Perhaps Mike Wallace thought to ask Ahmadinejad about it yesterday when he interviewed him for 60 Minutes, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Why the despair and why now? Because, I think, of Israel’s predicament in Lebanon. Until last month, it could plausibly be argued that most problems in the war on terror (read: most problems in Iraq and Afghanistan) were the result of Bush’s mismanagement. Which, for conservatives, is hugely depressing in one way but hugely comforting in another: if your big problem is personnel, the solution is simple enough. All in due time. But if your problem is strategic, that’s not so easy. A lot of hawks, me included, have near-blind faith that Jewish genius and resilience will always carry Israel through when it’s beset by its enemies, but even the invincible IDF doesn’t seem to be making much headway against the jihad. From yesterday’s JPost:
According to intelligence information, the Hizbullah command-and-control array is still functioning even after nearly four weeks of fighting. So are the logistical command centers – still operating and succeeding in directing the smuggling of weapons into Lebanon from Syria.
The officer said that Hizbullah still had the ability to fire short-range rockets, of which the guerrilla group has already fired 2,500 since the beginning of the war.
That number’s now 3,333. According to the American Thinker, one of the reasons Hezbollah’s command and control array is still functioning is because its center is untouched. The Israelis are sufficiently frustrated that they effectively relieved their top commander in Lebanon last night and replaced him with a new one in hopes that he’ll have better luck.
To paraphrase my pal Rick Moran, it is getting awfully late in the day not to have a winning strategy against Islamist militias. At the moment, neither America nor Israel seems able to find one. Or maybe they have and they’re simply unwilling, for whatever reason, to commit the resources needed to effectuate it. Either way, we’re running out of cavalry here. Meanwhile, the moderates in the region are telling Bush not to make them choose between liberalization and tribalism; the Lebanese prime minister who’s supposedly going to disarm Nasrallah is crying like a Hollywood finocchio, to borrow a term from “The Godfather”; and both U.S. and Iraqi officials appear to have suddenly become alarmingly obsequious to Muqtada al-Sadr now that Shiism’s on the march in Lebanon.
Unless John Howard’s got something ingenious cooking in Australia, this is shaping up to be a long-term stalemate. At best. And at worst, a Lileksian “horrible conclusion.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
All crap.
Is Iraq going to be as civilized as America, Western Europe, or the advanced nations of the far East? Nope – and probably not in our lifetime.
But if that’s your measure of having “Won” the war over there you I’ll argue that you suffer from the same swollen ego and delusions of grandeur liberals do. It’s MORE than enough that those poor dumb bastards are even voting in the first place.
I’ll believe that the democratically elected government over there will collapse and be overwhelmed by an Iranian backed dictatorship when I see it.
Personally I ain’t holding my breath.
venmax on August 9, 2006 at 8:29 PM
While reading this post I just had the bone-chilling realization that we may wind up with a nuclear resolution because anything else would take to long.
B Moe on August 9, 2006 at 8:40 PM
I mean let’s be perfectly honest here.
WTF is Iran and Syria going to do? Hmm?
Israel alone has more than enough nuclear firepower to wipe them off the face of the planet.
Liberals in this country are growing increasingly marginalized in this country. Lamont? Riiiiiight…..
Believe it or don’t – Militant Islam is becoming more and more Europe’s problem than it is our own or even Israel’s. Don’t believe it? Imagine this country and instantly replace all the hispanic immigrants with Muslims – THAT’S EUROPE. As a result Europe is growing less and less tolerant than it used to be (even if that doesn’t necessarily mean MORE conservative). Let’s not even talk about the increasing number of terrorist attacks over there.
We have large standing armies on either side of Iran’s border (Afghanistan and Iraq). Nothing short of a complete and shockingly swift (by any historical measure) of a complete withdrawl of American forces will change the fact that Iran stands a good chance of getting squashed like a pancake. You see that sort of pullout happening anytime in the near future? Not me.
The ONLY thing I’d grant you is MAYBE China will turn crazy-go-nuts and invade taiwan, causing us to have to fight an Asian war instead of a middle eastern war – and honestly, I think we’d still whip ass on both fronts.
In short – stop falling into the psychological trap of hippy-drippy Western sentimentality and look at the cold hard facts on the ground.
Militant Islam if f*cked.
venmax on August 9, 2006 at 8:44 PM
We are facing a new kind of enemy: We don’t speak their language; we don’t have many effective intelligence networks within Islam; we are not dealing with an enemy defending nation-states; they are not fighting a war for political reasons, rather they are fighting wholly for religious reasons; they are willing to not only die fighting for their cause, they are willing to kill their own people to advance that cause; they are not a uniformed enemy fighting on front lines, rather they are terrorists fighting within civilian areas; and they cannot ever be appeased, as their goal, while appearing to be many, is the annihilation of Israel, every Jew on earth and every infidel, in the hopes of providing the means for their Messiah the Madhi to come to power. To make matters worse, we are fighting France, Germany, Russia, China and others more interested in making money from Islamic countries and getting cheap oil than resisting this global enemy. I believe we are also fighting the MSM and the Left!
I say all of the above to make this point: America, Israel or other western countries were not and are not prepared to fight an all out global war against this relatively new type of enemy. We are forced to learn as we go, and sadly most Americans and surely most people in the west are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to win this war; and add to that the instant gratification generation in the west that is unwilling to fight a prolonged war against such a determined, religiously motivated enemy.
While we fiddle around with IslamoFascism, negotiate, try to play fair, hold back our military might and try the path of appeasement; Europe is already burning with Muslim inspired civil unrest, and we have all the seeds of that same and even worse unrest here in America. So, while it is easy to criticize Bush, our military, our intelligence services and Israel; the role of armchair critic does nothing to help us persevere and win this war, all to our peril.
Umnumzana on August 9, 2006 at 8:51 PM
What ever happened to American men? I cannot believe that polls, and articles are showing just how easy it is to make people eye the idea of running away from a foe as attractive. We have heard leaders begging for help for Hezbollah, terrorists in Iraq admitting that they are losing, yet let us all cry that we haven’t won yet. What a load of [bush word].IMHO, Israel knows what it is doing, but they are having difficulties due to being cautious of the innocents in Lebanon. I believe they will succeed in making their foes think twice before trying to destroy Israel again IF people will stop paying attention to the Hezbollah propaganda.
Keep your eye on the ball, and we will win in these wars. If you cannot handle the propaganda, or stress then go back to your mama. She will protect you even if you do disgust her.
President Bush was correct when he stated that this war against terrorists would not be easy, it would not be quick, and it would be different from any war in recent history. We supported him then by over 75%, our troops continue to do a great job, and we need to support their efforts. It isn’t as if this was a hardship on most people in America. Well, if they are forced to listen to Michael Moore, Hilary Clinton, or Murtha it might be.
DannoJyd on August 9, 2006 at 8:53 PM
Right. Israel just replaced its top general, and my noticing that fact makes me a pussy. Super.
Allahpundit on August 9, 2006 at 8:56 PM
Nothing new here brother. That was Imperial Japan in 1940.
Again I disagree. Remember all the Mexican protests that took place here a few months back? Imagine if those were all Muslims. THAT’S EUROPE. Trust me on this one – even if it takes some time – the Euro’s are unquestionably moving in the direction of seeing those people as being more trouble than they’re worth. They may not “Love” us – but they sure as sh*t don’t “Hate” us the way they do the Muslims.
Yes and no. We’re willing to make the sacrifices, but at the same time this conflict will take a long, long time as did the cold war. We will win, but people’s willingness to get “Angry” about it will ebb and flow. In fact I see this as being far less dangerous than the cold war – communism was an ideology that easily crossed religious, ethnic, and cultural lines – Isam does not.
venmax on August 9, 2006 at 8:58 PM
We are not dealing with rational people over there. “You can’t deal with a man with a shotgun in his hand!” (Bob Dylan) These people are insane, pure and simple.
When the time comes, we are going to have to obliterate them from Gods green earth. Make no mistake about that. They are beyond reason, beyond sense and beyond anything we can or could do to deal with them. They will pull the trigger,we will then smoke em! Bring it on!!!
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on August 9, 2006 at 9:01 PM
What you say venmax, about Iran having hostile American forcees on it’s borders with Iraq and Afghanistan is certainly true. And they are certainly in a position to put pressure or invade if need be. But that is only if they are free to do so, and are not pinned down, bogged down, tied down, whatever in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We could take all 132,000 troops and put them on the border of Iran and invade. But what would happen? What would Iraq do as we left? Perhaps the Shiites would attempt to stab us in the back as we faced east towards Tehran.
From what I gather, these troops we have there are all ready doing combat operations. They aren’t training like they were in Germany.
Anyway, I’ll grant you. It could work, if we were willing to do a mental shift from our current surgical strike mentality with no civillian casulites and switched over to more of a Conan style mode of crushing our enemies, driving them before us, and listening to the lamentation of the women. Which may be the wave of the future, as I don’t know that our current methods have yielded the dividends we need.
Anyway, we started this whole GWOT with the idea of an axis of evil. We can’t get bogged down forever with Iraq to the detriment of going after Iran or N. Korea.
EFG on August 9, 2006 at 9:02 PM
Would you have worried about the East Germans stabbing us in the back if the western world had needed to invade Russia in the cold war?
Maybe… but with any REAL consequence? No.
Iran is the center of gravity in the War on Terror just as Russia was the center of gravity in the Cold War. Once Russia fell, so did ALL it’s satellites. Once Iran falls, so will all it’s satellites.
That’s the big question right now. And it’s honestly the first big question mark we’ve come to since 9/11. That’s what has everyone feeling “down” right now – the fact that they don’t know.
Again, lets be perfectly honest. Anyone with an IQ above 19 who saw the Twin Towers come down on 9/11 knew two things right then and there:
1.) Afghanistan was toast.
2.) Iraq was toast.
Past that it’s a big question mark – which is where we are at right now. What will work? Blowing up their nuclear capability? A full invasion? Israel dropping some bombs? Who knows?
That’s what’s causing the funk – the not knowing – not the idea that we’re somehow “losing”.
The only reason to be depressed is to figure that somehow Western Civilization will fall to these camel jockeys. If you want to believe that fine – seems an emotional and irrational thing to believe – but to each his own.
Right. Now is the time to be flexible and have a willings to be patient, adapt, and overcome.
venmax on August 9, 2006 at 9:11 PM
We can take the lead of the French and when it gets tough, simply wave the white flag.
Chief1942 on August 9, 2006 at 9:13 PM
I think our humanitarian expectations as a society don’t match up with what it takes to win the war on terror. It’s not Canada, France, the United States or any other civilized western country that needs a 9/11 to wake them up to the real threat of terrorism. It’s Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Palestine et al that need a massively devestating attack on their own homelands to wake them up to the real threat of us. Just absolutely humble them, make them realize that this culture war that they are waging against the west, Israel, and all non-Muslims is one that will only lead to their own extinction.
Right now, they think that they can win because we are weak. We’re too emotional when “civilians” die, forgetting that terrorists themselves are civilians. Our kneejerk reaction is to float towards John Lennon and Gandhi and their ideals when that horrible, scary word, war, breaks out. They think that they can kill us, change our society to their own warped interpretation, win these proxy wars, force out these occupations, defeat the idea of democracy, or use democracy to instate terrorist organizations into legitimate, albeit homicidal, governments… and with the way we fight, with the things we do not allow, with the way we react to our own media and theirs, they are absolutely right.
They’re safe among their civilians, we aren’t safe anywhere.
Savage on August 9, 2006 at 9:28 PM
Venmax, with all due respect, which I mean sincerely: 1. I disagree with almost everything you said, both factually and philosophically. 2. I honestly do not believe you understand the kind of enemy we are facing.
That being said, God forbid the Democrats win the Congress this year and/or even more disagreeably Hillary or someone of her ilk gets elected in 2008; there is a high likelihood we will be forced out of Iraq shortly thereafter. Then what happens to the Middle East? Bin Laden and the terrorists are counting on our weakness and unwillingness to make sacrifices in the war against IslamoFascism. Bin Laden said he knew we did not have the resolve and that will insure their victory over the Middle East, as a first step.
The only hope, in my opinion to stop this Islamic terrorism is if we take off the kid gloves, stop playing by western politically correct rules of warfare; and for us to be committed to absolute victory. Sadly, though I support George Bush’ war on terrorism generally, he is not Churchill, FDR or Reagan, that is, a leader of great stature, with the ability to win the hearts and minds of his own people and those of the West, while having a steely resolve to win. I should add, I see no candidates on the Left or Right with that stature or resolve on the stage today.
Umnumzana on August 9, 2006 at 9:40 PM
Savage: Very good post, I agree!
Umnumzana on August 9, 2006 at 9:41 PM
Yes and no. We’re willing to make the sacrifices, but at the same time this conflict will take a long, long time as did the cold war. We will win, but people’s willingness to get “Angry” about it will ebb and flow.
And lots and lots of muslims will die, at the hands of their fellow muslims. We need to be the embodiment of another, more rational way. We need the Iraqi government to be part of that as well.
This ain’t Grenada, and it was never going to be.
Pablo on August 9, 2006 at 9:46 PM
The media presents nothing but bad news in order to further their leftist agenda, people who don’t know any better pick up on it, and there’s your headline. In reality we and our new Iraqi allies are killing terrorists in Iraq. We and our new Afghan allies are killing terrorists in Afghanistan. Israel is killing terrorists in Lebenon and Gaza. We are winning. Terrorists admit that they’re losing. Yet the media spins it 180 bassackwards. Whose side are they on anyway? (Rhetorical question).
Tony737 on August 9, 2006 at 9:57 PM
Not if we rearm (nukes, too) and unfetter Japan…
A few weeks into the deal, no less. We should look at that, and go beyond.
I wouldn’t dream of second-guessing our generals and strategistsuh, yes, I would. It doesn’t take a Mensa to understand that you can’t give this enemy chance after chance after chance and expect to succeed. As they stage photo ops that the Western media lap up for the Pulitzer mother’s milk that it is, we fret over panties on people’s heads. They chop heads, and we respond by enacting the torture ban. I knew shit was going sideways when we didn’t flatten Fallujah immediately after the Blackwater guys hung from that bridge like jihadi Peking ducks. Or, for that matter, while Al-Jazeera still stands.Perhaps we should consider a return to the Powell Doctrine, which is really derived from Sun Tzu. A war on global jihad is not the time to reinvent the wheel. Until we figure this out, it is, indeed, time to sharpen our sword.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 9, 2006 at 9:57 PM
If I may, I think I can summarize where my current (and by no means permanent) pessimism comes from. These are in no particular order, but they’re all relevant in some way.
1 Abdul Rahman. He’s the convert to Christianity who had to leave the “new Afghanistan” under threat of death. And not just from the government. His death sentence was taken away under international pressure, but average Afghans wanted him dead anyway. Clearly, they’re not on board with the Bush administration’s “fire in the minds of men” rhetoric. Our win there ended up enshrining sharia as part of the law of the land, and it demanded Rahman’s death. Great.
2 Iraq. Sectarianism is winning out over the desire for freedom. It just is. Al Qaeda seems to have been defeated in Iraq, but the Sunni vs Shia thing threatens to spark a civil war and may hand a huge chunk of the country to Iranian control. In the face of this, and the open secret that Iran is stirring up most of the trouble in Iraq, our leadership says and does nothing. Iran gets a free pass. Oh, and Iraq got sharia too. Great.
3 Israel. Israel did everything the international community wanted, but instead of peace it got war. It’s clear from the way Hezbollah is attacking that it isn’t interested in peace, and neither are its masters. Again, Iran is stirring up massive trouble and facing no consequences for it. Our leadership does name Iran and Syria as instigators, but then doesn’t follow through. There’s a real possibility that Iran could take part or all of Iraq, keep Syria in its pocket and take Lebanon back for the jihad. It’s fair to say that at this point, the Cedar Revolution is dead.
4 Domestic politics. There’s a real chance we could be looking at a replay of 1974, when the Democrats got swept up in anti-war fervor and cut off funding to our allies in South Vietnam. That act condemned a million people to their deaths and has enslaved a country to Communism ever since, yet the people who cast that vote paid no price then and are willing to do the same thing in Iraq. But the consequences for abandoning Iraq will be huge, much worse than Vietnam (think Somalia on an ocean of oil). But they don’t care about that. There’s also a real chance that the Democrats could (assuming they take both houses, which I doubt but it is possible) move to impeach Bush over the war. To do that in the face of Iran et al would be a major disaster, but they just might do it.
5 Iran seems to be planning something big, bad, very violent and decidedly against the “fire in the minds of men” thing. Its people seem to support it. Most in the Islamic world seem to support it, or at least lack the courage to confront it. Yet our leadership is either unaware, unconcerned, or not yet ready to level with the American people. Of course, if they did level with us about half would accuse them of scaremongering. Because Bush is the bigger threat than an Iran with nukes. And half of Iraq. And Lebanon. Great.
There are a few other reasons, but these are the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
Bryan on August 9, 2006 at 10:11 PM
I think we’re looking in the wrong place. What we are doing is fighting WWII’s ground war around Germany, and wondering why it’s taking so long.
Isn’t the real war one of attrition, in the golden sense, with Iran?
Axe on August 9, 2006 at 10:16 PM
Dude. THAT would f*ckin rawk.
Are you asking for a challenge?!
Douuuuuuuuble Deuuuuuuuuuce!!!!
http://www.homestarrunner.com/20×6vs1936.html
venmax on August 9, 2006 at 10:17 PM
these guys are drama queens. Iraq will be fine…This isn’t a computer game. Things take time. Get a grip and don’t get all wimpy now. Our boys aren’t.
tomas on August 9, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Bryan: While I cannot say I agree 100% with you, you do offer some thought provoking ideas.
Umnumzana on August 9, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Let me add the only new enemy we are facing is wimpyness.
Those who aren’t willing to fight…attack those who do.
tomas on August 9, 2006 at 10:22 PM
This is what the USA and Israel get for trying to wage a “nice” war! I keep saying this same thing.. right now it IS the darkest part of the night for the good guys. Things dont look good, there are no big, major gains, no marked progress and with Hezbollah seemingly barely affected after going toe to toe with the IDF for weeks it IS looking grim. BUT..during the Blitz it looked dark, after Pearl Harbor it looked dark, waging WAR is DARK, hard, grim, depressing, demoralizing business. WAR is HELL.
Having said that, I will keep the Faith that the Good Guys will pull this one out just as they have each and every time. We may HAVE to go nuclear against Iran. But most importantly, the Good Guys MUST stop trying to wage WAR on the “nice” Take the gloves off NOW. It isnt too late..until we are down to our last man/woman/child/mountain cave, it isnt too late!
It is easy to be scared, frightened, apprehensive..it is HARD to stay the course. Be resolute and firm. Have Faith..in all that we are and all we will be.
labwrs on August 9, 2006 at 10:27 PM
When wars of this nature are waged, goals need to be concrete and easy to discern.
Partitioning Iraq into three smaller (and therefore, in the long term, less dangerous) countries was the way to go. I had hoped that the Administration would have been more sensible and realized this much earlier. It may still happen (the Kurds are certainly ready to exit stage left from a unified Iraq), but I fear that instead of the relatively peaceable dissolution of Iraq that might have been possible early on had we taken the initiative, it may now require a nasty civil war.
We cannot change people’s hearts but we can change their borders.
tommy1 on August 9, 2006 at 10:27 PM
From the heart of FDR to your mouth. Amen.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 9, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Yeah, I hear that a lot. If we just had more free-fire zones, it would all melt away.
I don’t mind telling you I’m starting to doubt it.
Allahpundit on August 9, 2006 at 10:31 PM
I also have to agree with those who are stating we have waged too much of a “sissy” war.
I say bring back summary executions for those who fight out of uniform, bring back the punitive measures we were willing to employ against hostile civilians harboring Nazi guerrillas in the aftermath of WWII, bring back the old methods.
In the end, we probably will. I just wonder how many will die in the meantime.
tommy1 on August 9, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Drama queens? Go back and read through the archives at my old blog–www.junkyardblog.net. I started studying up on the anti-war movement in early 2004 to get a fix on Kerry, and across the way discovered that the same strategies that killed us in the 70s are being used again. I also noticed that our government hasn’t learned to fight a post-modern war yet, the very kind of war we’re in now and the very kind we lost in Vietnam. Unless you’re just content to snipe and call us drama queens, you’ll bone up on what that term–post-modern war–means and how it relates to our current predicament.
Maintaining total optimism in the face of a mounting threat that the world is so far not serious enough to face down is not smart. It’s suicidal.
As for Japan, it’ll re-arm. It’ll go nuclear if things keep going they way they’re going. I’m all for it, and have been behind the idea since, oh, 2002 or so. A strong Japan is good for us and the Japanese, as it might help deal with North Korea. But it’ll also scare the South Koreans and the Philippines and several other smaller countries to death, which might push them closer to China and therefore further from us. Things like re-arming a currently responsible state but once ruthless imperial power don’t happen without unintended consequences.
Bryan on August 9, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Bryan is right. Japan is going to be key in this.
Allah is not wrong either. I confess to moments of sheer absolute terror and despair. Then I listen to Ray Charles singing “America”, to Toby Keith singing “The Angry American” and finally I play “Have You Forgotten”..and I remember and am refreshed and resolute.
And maybe I am a Pollyanna..but I dont think so. I think many are doubting and a bit afraid, but when the time comes and we all have to stand up and count..we will.
labwrs on August 9, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Bryan: I remember Vietnam, I fought there, so did my brother, brother-in-law, father-in-law and many friends. We are going through exactly what we did then; a powerful anti-war movement that will cause us to get out of Iraq prematurely, just like we did then; with our tails between our legs, crawling away from those who gave their limbs and their lives in defense of liberty for the people in Iraq and our own security at home. Many of the actors on the stage are the same ones back then, only older, with more grey hair, along with the new leftists.
We had the means to win decisively in Vietnam, we have the means to do so now; but we are trying to wage war with our hands tied behind our backs because of political correctness gone stark raving mad! If we are to engage in this war, we better stop worrying about what the world thinks and do whatever it takes to win.
While I believe in America, I agree that this optimism stuff will get us killed and throw the world into absolute chaos. We better wake up before its too late! We are at war with an enemy void of conscience and incapable of understanding western values; they are dedicated to dominating the wolrd for the Mahdi and Allah, and they will never play by our rules or ever be appeased!
Umnumzana on August 9, 2006 at 11:04 PM
Allah/Bryan – I have the greatest respect for you both, but I think that you’ve been staring a little too deeply into the Palantir. This will be long war and we will have need your talents for all four quarters.
My RX: 1 x bottle of your favorite alcohol, 1 x volume of your favorite Churchill. Administer simultaneously and then sleep for 24 hours.
MarcH on August 9, 2006 at 11:13 PM
JUST a suggestion as I agree with MarcH..how about an hour, a halfday, something just devoted to absurdity or sarcasm or some kind of levity?
We all worry and surmise and worry and ..worry. Y’all at HotAir are more deeply involved than the rest of us and we rely on you!
I think it can be wearying to be so involved. But we THANK YOU. Still….how about some Boltonmania or Guillermania or SOMEkindofMAINIA?
labwrs on August 9, 2006 at 11:22 PM
My turn to agree, Umnumzana.
Savage on August 9, 2006 at 11:40 PM
Not true, Allah. Israel made an adjustment, and it isn’t as if that has never happened before. I don’t have inside information, but perhaps they felt they had a better man with a better plan? Besides, my comments were more targeted at the people who polled that they don’t support the war against terrorism anymore. Do you too believe we might lose to the terrorists?
BTW, I never would insult you that way. All I do is to tease you about the rampant crush you have on Ann. :oP~~~
I personally believe that America is in an excellent position to do grave harm to Iran. I believed that was a major consideration when we went into Iraq, but to do as I envisioned would take a major shift in the circumstances of the Middle East. Israel is reacting to such a shift, but does America have a leadership bold enough to take advantage of this situation? I sure hope so.
DannoJyd on August 9, 2006 at 11:48 PM
EFG has the right idea, and if terrorist sympathizers were to try to attack us on the border we would finally have a clear shot at them.
Iraq just might settle down when seeing that we don’t scare off easily, and such a bold move would wake them up to that fact.
DannoJyd on August 9, 2006 at 11:56 PM
This is what I’m thinking too. But (1) Bush dares not x, where x is anything else not nice, as a political reality, and (2) If we are moving chess pieces around a board into position, it’s by definition a slow grind, and people will get tired of it.
This will take a second wind. It will take another president to finish it, or dramatic events to shift the political realities around for the current president.
Axe on August 10, 2006 at 12:13 AM
I’d take all the above’s (Lowry/Lileks/Allah–all those who might as well be up there like Steyn) WWIV/GWOT strategies more seriously if they’d be clear that the first line of defense is a comprehensive, hardhearted moratorium and then overhaul of the legal immigration system.
If it’s so obvious why isn’t the right shrieking about it more? One notable semi-mainstream voice and other than that all I hear are complaints about the gaps in the southern border.
Well, it’s not the southern border, it’s the whole thing. “It is immigration policy that has imported foreign ethnic conflicts, created impenetrable ethnic enclaves and mafias, diluted vetting procedures to the point where mass murderers can learn their skills here on student visas, overwhelmed the law enforcement agencies and – we will almost certainly learn – reduced the citizenship oath to a sick joke.”
Yeah, I know, it’s just the very beginning, it’s no panacea, the enclaves already here are largely unmovable–after that first line of defense I’m right with you at the rock bottom on out. But that’s how they got us on 9/11, that’s how they’ll get us with the dirty bombs, and there’s been too much evasion of the topic and too much wooly-thinking (take up the Liberal Man’s Burden, freedom for all, etc) from our rightwing commentariat leadership of the last five years for me to trust anything more without starting from there.
I’m sick of hearing Lowry, Steyn et al play The Great Game with nothing but the occasional bromide about the unguarded Mexican border on the side. Like Steyn says, the main weapon against us isn’t WMD, it’s demographics—but he never talks about American Muslim immigration. (He doesn’t actually call for stopping European Muslim imm. either!–just wants the Euros to have more babies and cut welfare.)
If there’s a way up from this “rock bottom” it’ll be our brilliant war-writers taking a genuinely retrograde view of things, not inspiring us with the Liberal Man’s Burden for the benighted Muslim world.
And, sorry, but the Muslim world is too tribal for liberalization. You can’t have a nation-state until you’re a nation and, thanks to polygamy and cousin-marriages and such, there’re no nations Over There, just tribes.
Alex K on August 10, 2006 at 1:13 AM
Remember when the U.S. had a special relationship with Israel? Generally you can count on American politicians to be pretty pro-Israel, if they want to get anywhere beyond the fringes, right? God has numbered the days etc… We’ve imported the UN.
Alex K on August 10, 2006 at 1:16 AM
People are better at fighting wars when we’re permitted to enjoy killing and to display our enjoyment openly. We wage ware more productively when we don’t have to expend time and energy distinguishing whom we may kill and whom we may not. Enemies submit out of fear, and we excite greater fear when we not only destroy and kill precisely, but destroy and kill widely rather than sparingly. Moreover, we cause more fear when we not only destroy and kill, but also pillage and rape, indeed, when we deliberately terrorize in fresh and unpredictable ways. We’ll know we’ve achieved greater military virtue when photographers no longer have to stage and manipulate photos in order to portray us as devils.
Kralizec on August 10, 2006 at 1:58 AM
That should have said, “We wage war….”
Kralizec on August 10, 2006 at 2:10 AM
The subject of the WoT is extremely serious and I understand most of your concerns, including the commenters’. Now let’s get going and impact that which we can. Leave the WoT strategies, tactics, secrets, weaponry to those who know more than we do. No, not on blind faith and credulity. We’re not in the bad shape the media and Nasrallah et Co. would like us to believe.
If I were Michelle, I’d give you both a paid week off, with the proviso that you spend a great deal of it with your favorite sex-object/s or whatever relaxes you the most. You have both been working too hard, at odd hours, on deep subjects. Every start-up is challenging and it will not get easier. The next few years will be grim and challenging and you will report them. You need your testasterone back too!
Then I’d guide you to focus with all your brilliance on only one major topic, Nov. 2006, the mit-terms, with other happenings and lighter subjects in between. Nothing else is more important than that at the moment. Nothing!
I could have told you a week ago that the Israelis will march up to the river. This is very significant strategically. It is very important to now have proof that the Iranians are fighting with Hezbollah. IDs were found by the Israelis. The Admin. is ‘playing’ along with the EU and the U.N. for time and to have ‘negotiation’ cover. Iran knows its place and the U.S. will not allow it to go further. Syria is weak and dying to talk to the U.S. The EU, even France, give the impression that they are against the U.S. when in reality they help much against terrorism. No, I’m not an apologist for them. This is true.
This war will last a very long time. If Kos reads this thread, they think they won already and America is defeated. Ahmadinejad is now President of the World. What they still don’t know is that in such a scenario they’d be executed first.
But back to us – we need to make sure that Kos, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, etc. are not influencing foreign policy, ever!
Here are one of our major obstacles – we need to fight them, and you have been doing a great job on this so far:
If the Admin. doesn’t have a good ‘propaganda’ or communications dept. we need to take over, with all means. The time is now! We need to not only analyze false pictures, but extensively expose and shame headlines and lies, no matter how large or small. Give and solicit ideas – we need to transform them into tasks.
Philosophizing is great but it can’t be applied in practice. It’s also much more pleasant in a democracy and in time of peace. We all are entitled to down times, or gloom times. Then we need to snap out and fight. I for one can shoot really good. Bull’s eye every time. However, we can do much before we all have to actually shoot. I try hard every day not to start a civil war with the Left. Been tempted many times. Believe it or not they are scared too. A bloody leftie PhD colleague turned morgue-faced when I told her about the 11 missing Egyptians the other morning.
None of the above is meant to be a lecture – au contraire – I’m ready to participate, whatever it will take. Sincerely,
Entelechy on August 10, 2006 at 2:40 AM
Of course I menat “Nov. 2006 mid-terms”…
Entelechy on August 10, 2006 at 3:01 AM
Now I’m really bummed – because I can’t spell “meant”. Go to sleep Entelechy! Somewhere in the world still el sol estan briando.
Entelechy on August 10, 2006 at 3:03 AM
Alex K,
I’m replying to your comment made “on August 10, 2006 at 1:13 AM.” I think you’re mistaken if you suppose Mark Steyn considers himself obligated always to set everything he thinks down in writing, for publication, and to state all his points with equal frequency, clarity, and emphasis. He depends on the acceptance of his writings for publication for his living. He doesn’t have the luxury I have, and that I gather you must have, to write very nearly anything that comes into one’s head. If you want to know more about what Mark Steyn thinks, you can probably make much progress in understanding him by giving the most attention to some of the things he says least often, or with the greatest subtlety.
Kralizec on August 10, 2006 at 6:12 AM
Axe, thanks for backing me up on this, and I sure do understand your thinking as it is close to mine, but I also believe that this might be a case where we have no other choice due to the high rhetoric level, and the real nuclear threat that Iran is posing today.
At the very least, a bluff is called for. IMHO, to do nothing of substance is to be a sitting target.
DannoJyd on August 10, 2006 at 6:34 AM
So if we did take the gloves off, what sort of things would we do? I’m beyond having any qualms about “nuke ‘em all” but it’s too vague. Anybody got more specific ideas?
dhimwit on August 10, 2006 at 7:08 AM
Massive strikes on all known military targets on any nation that knowingly sponsors terrorism, especially if its civilians support terrorist tactics, and all done from the air. Not one troop on the ground. Just have the country wake up one morning and realize that their military bases are gone, their soldiers are dead, and America did it from the safety and comfort of home. That’s what I’d like to see.
Savage on August 10, 2006 at 8:32 AM
It does not help that the Administration has done a very poor job of conveying its goals in this fight to the American public. Unfortunately many people need to be reminded every damn day of just what is at stake here.
And yes, the Administration should ask & expect more from the American people than they have. Explain, educate & get people involved. Make them understand what they stand to lose. It is the best way to counteract the MSM’s poison.
Abigail Adams on August 10, 2006 at 9:19 AM
Perhaps raining MOABs on Fallujah after the Blackwater 4 incident would have been a good start. At the very least, we should have taken out that bridge.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 10, 2006 at 9:35 AM
These MOABs, could they take out a country’s government, powergrid, transportation hubs, drinking resevoirs for example?
It seems to me we need a one-two, to make it worth it. Remove the regime and give the rest something more pressing to think about than disturbing the peace of the world, even in the name of their god Olly.
dhimwit on August 10, 2006 at 10:30 AM
I’m pretty sure they could.
We have it in place; we just lack the will to deploy it.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 10, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Savage has it correct. But to be even more politically
incorrect we also need to take out all of the mosques.
it is the same as hitting a military target in this case.
If you preach it be prepared to reap it. We cannot afford
to play games anymore. It is time to just lay waste to them
and leave those who are left to pick up the pieces.
No money from us to rebuild afterwards, they will remember
it longer if they have to deal with the aftermath.
If it means one American life saved, I say level the
enemy’s entire country. I don’t want to see our guys get it
just because we try to fight a limited war.
Gooch on August 10, 2006 at 1:23 PM
What a difference a few hours make! Much more to be revealed in the next few months. We’ll see who controls the news: the MSM or the Administration/s?
Entelechy on August 10, 2006 at 1:24 PM
The war in Iraq was a big mistake. The war against Islamic Fascists/Jihadists (of which Saddam was not one–the jihadists considered him worse than an infidel, a non-practicing Muslim) is what we need to be concentrating on. I would be delighted to make sacrifices to win this war. Isn’t it up to the leadership in the country to ask us to make those sacrifices?
Thus far, no draft, no increase in taxes (first time in our history we’ve gone to war with tax decreases–how nuts is this?), no real pain to wean us off the oil jones that is part of the underlying problem.
We need a comprehensive plan articulated by our leadership, it’s way overdue. The first thing is to define the enemy–radical Islamists who want to convert or kill us. This includes several governments and several elected parties in several countries and an assortment of terror orgs e.g. Al Q. , as well as their allies (NK, Venezuela) The catch-all of “war on terror” is too limiting, let’s abandon it.
The second thing is to line up our allies. (I suggest canning the UN and coming up with an expanded NATO-like org.) Look up definition of ally, as opposed to satellite. Develop diplomatic skills.
The third thing is to wean ourselves from oil, period.
The fourth thing is to implement a 2 part offensive: the enemy is to be fought thru military, intelligence, propaganda. If this means profiling, we need to hold our nose and do it. But at the same time, we need to launch an effective campaign for the hearts and minds of the majority of Muslims whose main interest is a better life for their families. (I know, this is seen by many of the right wing as pussy. They are wrong.)
Rant over.
honora on August 10, 2006 at 1:55 PM
I fervently hope it’s not the administration!! Mother of God!!!! Talk about fascist…
honora on August 10, 2006 at 1:57 PM
Gooch has the right idea. The enemy isn’t “terrorism”, its Islam. Islam is a destructive philosophy totally incompatible with western life, no matter what the apologists say. Until this fact is accepted, and understood, there will never be a halt to Islamic violence.
The problem is that our PC non-judgemental brahmins can’t grasp the fact that not all religions are created equal. Their moral equivalence is really crippling us in this fight.
The Muslims feel that our citizens should accept punishment for the “sins” of our leaders, why aren’t we making their citizens feel the pain for their leaders? Its not a pleasant thought, but when we’re talking survival, all bets should be off.
Iblis on August 10, 2006 at 2:49 PM
First to say one religion is better than another is foolish. Admittedly the Muslim world (the non-terrorist, moderate part) is not covering itself in glory, but I am betting Catholics would prefer not to judged by the Inquisition nor the Jacobins nor its complicity with the Nazis.
Second, the idea that we should pattern our behaviour on the behaviour of our enemies is clearly problematic. And not simply because it puts us on their moral level. If I can find it, I was reading an interesting article the other day and will post it. Basically it gave a short history of the idea of “limited warfare”–meaning the idea of trying to spare civilians.
It’s a relatively modern notion, initially Cromwell’s, later embraced by Frederick the Great. Now if you know any history, it will hit you that these are not two chaps noted for their compassion. They both, shrewdly, deduced that limited warfare was, in the end, the best means of obtaining the fastest and most lasting peace, as it kept civilians at arms length from the “passion of war”.
honora on August 10, 2006 at 3:24 PM
I keep hearing about the majority of Muslims who just want a
better life for their families, but I have yet to actually
hear this from any of them. There is no condemnation of
these jihadi actions from anywhere. If I went to church and
heard this kind of hatred from my pastor, I would need to
seriously reconsider my religion. Or at least try another
church. Their silence is deafening, they can’t all be scared. I have questioned my pastor on things in the Bible
that I didn’t agree with.
So the obvious conclusion is that the majority agree with
their religion not the other way around.
They may just be smart enough to not say anything so as not
to piss us off before their numbers are great enough here
to be a threat to us and not the other way around.
Gooch on August 10, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Gooch: are you forgetting what the Taliban did to the Afghans who didn’t adhere to their brand of Islam? Or before that, the Iranians when the Shah fell? Not to say this completely absolves them, but the comparision you make with your situation with the hypothetical pastor and church isn’t apt either.
honora on August 10, 2006 at 3:51 PM
I have always been one to stand up to a bully.
So if you truly want a better life for your family don’t
cower in the corner, do something about it. If this was what
I had to deal with here, I would not go quietly. I for one
would gladly die to make sure my family had it better.
As many in this great country have done in the past, and as
I hope some will do in the future if the need arises.
“Give me liberty or give me death”
Time to go home!
Gooch on August 10, 2006 at 4:05 PM
Well I would like to think I would do the noble thing as well. As I am sure I don’t have to point out to you though, talk is cheap.
Let’s pray for ourselves, our families and our country. We surely need it.
honora on August 10, 2006 at 4:10 PM
dhimwit, just for you. Part of the Iran Attack Plan. Use news that is current to appropriately adjust the plan, and figure for troops to be moved to the border where deemed necessary as I believe it is well past the time for us to decide where the fighting will take place.
My Navy Captain friend knew tactics much better than I ever will, but common sense tells me that these ideas are being studied.
I used to have a respect for people of Arabian descent. That respect is being sorely tested today, yet I will not blame Islam for being the problem. Religion doesn’t kill. It just gives people the excuse to kill that they were looking for all along, and I doubt if so many would be so easily misguided if given something to live for. Offer them heaven on Earth if they are willing to work for it, and watch what happens.
DannoJyd on August 10, 2006 at 4:12 PM
Ah moral equivalence. honora, by bringing up the inquisition, and your tremendous ignorance of what it truly was, you prove that it is not foolish to compare religions, and in fact is necessary. The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians believe human beings are created in the likeness of God, and Muslims don’t. It is from this concept of the human having intrinsic sacredness that all of the Western World’s ideas of human dignity, rights, and sanctity of life emerge. Compare that with the modern muslim world, where slavery is still legal, women have no rights and are treated as chattel, mutilation is common form of punishment and sexual coercion, and the non-muslim is a non-person. That doesn’t even cover the historical depredations of Muslims, their invasion of India puts the real and imagined depravity of the Crusades to shame. To say nothing of the genocide of the Armenians, the oppression in the baltics, the depopulation of the Jews etc.
Iblis on August 10, 2006 at 4:35 PM
Balkans, not Baltic. sorry
Iblis on August 10, 2006 at 5:01 PM
I’m curious: under what sort of breeding is a comment like “your tremendous ignorance” considered appropriate? When did this sort of personal–not to mention unfounded–nastiness become ok? PS after 12 years of Catholic school and 6 years of college and grad school with Jesuits, I know a little about the inquistion and comparative religion. You are being very selective in your examples.
honora on August 12, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Well considering I have 23 years of Catholic education, including 2 years of Grad school with Christian Brothers and 5 with Jesuits (not to mention the 4 I spent with them in HS), I think you’ve still got a lot to learn. And if you truly were educated by Jesuits, you’d know that it is not nasty or personal to call “tremendous ignorance”, tremdous ingnorance. Its an act of charity.
I’m only selective due to constraints of space. And if the Inquisition is the worst crime of the Church, it was really the Spanish Crown, by why quibble, approx. 4000 trials & executions over approx. 400 years. I’ll happily stack that up against Islam’s record.
Iblis on August 14, 2006 at 2:39 PM
Comment pages: