Why we may lose this war…

Posted: November 1, 2006 in Rants, Religion of Pieces, The Mass Media, Utter Inshanity!

If for no other reason than this:

If the insurgents lose 100 fighters in a month, well, it’s just the cost of doing business.  They praise them as Holy Martyrs, and renew the calls for others to join in, “avenge their blood” and “honor their sacrifice with one of your own.”  Yada.  Yada. Yada.

If WE lose 100 fighters in a month, it’s a “soaring death rate” resulting in a “grim milestone” which brings “Bush’s failed policies in Iraq” into “stark relief.”  Losing 100 is an “indictment“, a “terrible waste“, which brings calls for resignations and impeachment.

And the insurgents watch our news.  Listen to our rhetoric.  And as Al Jazeera publishes call for renewed Jihad, our media is awash with horror stories of failure, a “struggling administration” trying desperately to maintain “bipartisan support” against increaingly “grave concerns.

Our enemy is not stupid.  Sometimes foolish, yes.  But not stupid.  They have to know that they have only to wait until the partisan cries and table pounding drive the American public and our elected leaders to move to the call of public whimsy rather than strategic necessity.  And then we leave, the fledgling government collapses, and Iraq turns into Somalia, descending into incessant tribal warfare and creating a humanitarian crisis worse than in Sudan or Ruwanda.

You can argue whether our strategies and tactics in Iraq are right or wrong, but I challenge you to argue that our policies at HOME are any better.

  1. Cranky Putz says:

    People seem to want to forget that wars whether right or wrong are messy acts and people die. The US broke it and now its commited to fixing it, and all the cries of they don’t want us there, or its all a big oil conspiracy are a bit silly.

  2. Joe says:

    How silly of us Americans to lament and regret the death of Americans troops fighting in someplace they never should have been in first place.

    Maybe if we could become as heartless as the insurgents we wouldn’t care about the loss of life.

    Horsehit. Bush got us into a war we never should have started. Even one death is heartbreaking.

  3. Steve B says:

    Dude. It’s about context. About comparing the relative committments to the cause.

    Yes, every death is a gut-punch. but portraying 100 deaths out of the roughly 164,000 people “in country” as some sort of catastrophic failure is just disengenous.

  4. Joe says:

    But, it’s not just 100 deaths. I read recently that we’ve lost more people to this war than we lost on 9-11.

    But, dude, Bush rocks and loves God, guns, and momma…so let’s send more troops to fight his bullshit war. Amen brotha!

  5. Steve B says:

    Question: Please explain how the number of casualties on 9/11 and the casualties in Iraq and Aghanistan have any real correlation to one another, other than as a handy talking point/slogan? Was there some sort of a-priori limit on the number of dead we were allowed to incur in our “revenge” for 9/11? And if we hadn’t won by the time we hit 3,000, well then we just had to pull the plug and go home?

    How about Pearl Harbor and WW II?

  6. Joe says:

    There’s no quota on the number of deaths. And there is no revenge for 9-11 to be had in invading Iraq. In fact, we just should have never been there in the first place.

    Just showing the stark realities of what this insane little war has cost us in talent and treasure.

    Can we pull the plug and go home? Probably not. Bush got us into a real mess in Iraq and he does not know how to get us out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s