Texsanity

Friday, April 09, 2004


MORE ON THE IRANIAN THREAT AND FUTURE SACRIFICE

Wretchard of the Belmont Club, as usual, sees the situation clearly:

"About three days ago, I suggested privately to a reader that the retention of some units scheduled to rotate to the US was really a contingency against possible Iranian involvement. Ralph Peters, in the New York Post, is openly claiming Syrian and Iranian involvement. This would create, for the first time, the basis for guerilla war. Many posts ago, I recalled that the three requirements for guerilla activity are: sanctuaries, a source of logistical support and a national front. If the Syrians and Iranians are involved, these now exist. They did not exist for Saddam's stay behinds, who the Press called guerillas. They were wrong then and they do not see it now, when the prospect actually exists.

In a way, it fulfills the strategic goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom far better than hoped. Iraq has forced a decisive showdown between the US and the enemy in the Middle East. Even Kerry will find it hard to back down now. In a sense, George Bush has won his gambit to set up a winner take all confrontation. The basic plan now must be to hammer down the fighting, which is contracting faster than expanding. Kut nearly down and Fallujah down for military all purposes. Then the US must switch gears to shift this engagement to the political arena.

The problem is that the occupation has made Sadr the only Iraqi politician by default. Therefore all Arab forces will instinctively rally to him. The problem can never be corrected until an Iraqi government, even a nominal one, takes control. Then, there will be two Arab power centers grappling for control. Relative moderates like Sistani have cast their lot with the Council. If the Council's accession is now delayed or indefinitely postponed he will have no role and will probably take to the streets himself to prevent an erosion of support to Sadr.

To recapitulate. The press has got it absolutely backwards. There is no crisis in military capability. The real problem is political. There are now huge strategic opportunities and dangers. But the first step is to put the revolt down, and this is near to happening, and to install the Iraqi Governing Council as soon as possible. Then we should focus on how to turn the tables on the Syrians and the Iranians. The crown sits none too easy on their heads."


This is why the polls clamoring for a postponement of the transfer of power are all wrong. Forgetting the fact that it was the UN and Europe who pushed for a swift transfer, postponing now would be a disaster. Just because we hand over political authority to the Iraqi Governing Council doesn't mean that the United States won't still be in control of the security situation.

We need to be prepared (and actually very pleased) to garrison 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next decade. This force, after the next year or so, will not be required to provide Iraqi internal security but rather to threaten its more intemperate neighbors (Iran and Syria). This should not impose too much of a burden on us considering that we no longer need to station troops in Europe (the EU should be told to, at a minimum take care of their own security needs post Soviet Union).

Complications could arise that require the United States to gear up its economy for war: Iranian expansionism, North Korean insanity, or Chinese opportunism. We will have to deal with those scenarios as they arise. And each of those situations will demand a disruption in the US economy regardless of the situation in Iraq.

This generation of Americans has not been asked to sacrifice (beyond the deficits incurred to bankrupt the Soviets) to any large degree for our freedom - that is about to change.


IRANIAN MEDDLING

The Iranian Government had better be careful...

From "Healing Iraq":

"a friend of mine told me today that he had been in contact with some clients who were members of Al-Mahdi Army, he said that they all received salaries from Sadr's offices throughout Iraq in US dollars. I asked him where he thought the money came from, he gave me a wry smile and said what do you think? "Iran?" I offered, and he nodded back in silence."

I also saw pictures of Ayatollah Khomeni being waived about by soon-to-be-dead insurgents on the news this morning.

How long before the CIA works with Iranian students to destabilize the mullahs in Tehran?


MORE ATTEMPTS AT INTIMIDATION ILLUMINATE THE IMMORALITY OF THE ISLAMOFASCISTS (AS IF WE NEEDED REMINDING)

But maybe we do need to be reminded of why we fight. I heard a couple of imbeciles on the local Pacifica Radio station talking about conscientious objectors to the war this morning. They repeated the canard about people dying for oil and killing people who "don't deserve it". I suppose they had these people in mind: "
A previously unknown Iraqi group said it was holding three Japanese hostages and threatened to "burn them alive" unless Tokyo withdrew its troops from Iraq within three days."


People of the world had better pay attention. What is happening now in Iraq will next happen in Europe if we don't stop it now. Islamofascism is a political and religious movement that is the equal of German Nazism and Soviet Communism in both the fervor if its true believers and the ruthless brutality it uses to attack non-believers.

The leftists in the west must recognize the evil of our enemies and necessity of this war and, indeed its morality. The terrorists are only emboldened by the partisan, imbecilic ravings of political has-beens like Ted Kennedy and ex-Klansman Robert Byrd.

And what is John Kerry's solution - go to the UN. Earth to Kerry - the UN cut and ran when its aid workers wereattacked last August and Security council staff were abusing the oil-for-food program not to mention their history of horrible failures in other peacekeeping missions (Rwanda, Ethiopia). Given the history or the organization, I fail to understand why Kerry and the American left believe that it has greater credibility in the region. And the fascists have already attacked UN workers and other coalition aid workers so I'd like for him to explain why he believes things will be different now.

The current insurgency is the third battle in the war against Islamofascism. Many of the usual suspects are aligned against us: Hezbollah (Iranians), Iraqi Baathists, al-Qaida, Syrians. Meanwhile, the terrorist attacks around the world are aim to intimidate foreign governments by turning public opinion against involvement.

Before this war is over we will have to change the governments in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria (whether by war or by internal subversion). If we stop before the task is finished and the radical Islamists total destroyed then they will grow back and become stronger while Europe becomes ever more infiltrated and weaker and the United States becomes more isolated. Ironically, if we stop short of finishing them off now the possibility of a horribly destructive world wide conflict where WMD are used by both sides grows substantially.

We can suffer hundreds of deaths now or millions of deaths later when we are comparatively weaker. This is the issue that leftists want to ignore. Those of us who see the danger more clearly must make a persuasive case to the rest of the nation who are being misinformed by the media and opposition party leaders. The stakes are just as high as they were during the Cold War.


Wednesday, April 07, 2004


MORE PERSPECTIVE ON CASUALTIES

This quote, as was the one in the previous post, is from Michael Lind's Vietnam: The Necessary War:

...the United States losses in the Korean and Vitnam wars - fifty-six thousand and fifty-eight thousand respectively - compart to U.S. losses in th bloodiest single battles in World Wars I and II. In forty-seven days in the fall of 1918, the U.S. Army suffered 26,667 dead as part of 120,000 casualties in the Meuse-Argonne campaign. In World War II, 23,000 American soldiers of the Twenty-eighth Infantry Division died between November 2 and 16, 1944, in a disastrous attempt to divert German forces from the Rhine River....(during the Civil War) On June 3, 1864, at Cold Harbor, 7,000 Federal troops were killed in half an hour."

War is brutal and vicious. And our enemies are always more willing to shed blood and sacrifice innocents than we are. But if we run every time we suffer ten combat deaths in a day, we will lose because they don't care how many of their own die. Hell, they strap explosives to children and send them into crowded malls to murder other children.

This revolt will be crushed and in six months all of the predicitons of another "Vietnam" will be forgotten - but they shouldn't be. The anti-American pricks of the left need to be held accountable at the ballot box for their shrill, addle-headed whining.


ONE MORE FOR TEDDY

While Teddy D. and his radical left buddies are tossing around accusations about the administration's "misleading" case for the war (and their more disturbing subtle charges that Bush somehow knew about 9/11 and did nothing) they should take this into account:

"...during the Cuban missile crisis, Attorney General Robert Kennedy had speculated about arranging an incident as a pretext for a U.S. invasion of Cuba: "[we] should also think of...whether there is some other way we can get involved in this through...Guantanamo Bay, or something...or whether there's some ship that, you know, sink the Maine or something."

President Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion and Attorney General Kennedy suggested the intentional sinking of a U.S. warship as an option to allow diplomatic cover for an invasion to prevent the installation of Russian missles that the Cuban government wanted.

I understand Robert Kennedy's statement - sometimes options are explored in private that would never be admitted publicly. But what I don't understand is why Ted Kennedy doesn't have a better grasp of his responsibilities as one of this country's senior legislators (ughh) and a little better perspective on foreign policy given his family's (ahem) history.


EARLY GOOD FRIDAY STORY

The grotesquely obese drunkard and senior Senator from Massachusetts is shooting his mouth off again. A little reminder of his shameful past:

"The Kennedys behaved as though they were invulnerable and had nothing to fear. Palm Beach was their seraglio, a place of licentious pleasure. It was there that they could drink themselves into a state of drunken senselessness and turn sex into a power game of seduction, manipulation, and control."

"Perhaps [Ted] was hoping that his young son and nephew could help a drunken, grossly overweight, middle-aged man get lucky again that night."

As it turned out, the two younger Kennedys each brought a woman back to the compound late that night, which happened to be Good Friday. Willy took his companion, Patty Bowman, to the beach just outside. There, according to Bowman, he raped her. What's more, she told a police detective that the senator must have known what was going on.

Klein describes the conversation: "'When [Willy and I] went to the beach, [Ted] was there, and I was screaming, No! and Stop, and I remember thinking, 'Ted Kennedy is here. Why doesn't he come down and stop this man?''"

If Ted Kennedy didn't hear Bowman, perhaps it's because he had become Peeping Ted. His son was in his bedroom with Michele Cassone. At the trial, Cassone spoke about what happened: "Patrick and I were ... making out, kissing. ... About ten minutes at the most later, the senator emerged through the door from inside the house ... and at this time he only has on a button-down oxford shirt. He has taken his slacks off. I didn't see if he had any Jockeys or boxers on [because the shirt] came halfway down the thighs. He was standing there, wobbling, and had no pants on. ... And I was just really freaked out."

Around this time, Bowman says she escaped from the clutches of Smith. She ran back into the house, hid, and then called friends on a cordless phone. They came and picked her up. Then Bowman reported what happened to the police.

Klein describes what happened next: "Teddy appeared to get himself tangled in a web of lies and contradictions." Many of his statements didn't seem to jibe with what others were saying about that night at the compound. "What's more, Teddy stonewalled the police and, at times, interfered with their investigation." When the police came to the compound on Easter Sunday, for instance, one of the senator's henchmen told them that Ted and Willy weren't there — even though they really were. Later on, the Kennedys leaked unflattering information about Bowman to the press, even though liberals aren't supposed to "blame the victim." NBC and the New York Times even used her name, despite Florida's rape-shield law.

Willy, of course, was eventually acquitted — rape convictions can be difficult to secure, especially when one of America's most powerful families has a vested interest in protecting their members. Yet it's impossible to read Klein's account and not think something awful happened that night — and that Ted Kennedy, that hero of Chappaquiddick, was a party to it.

Keep it in mind the next time Kennedy take to the floor of the Senate for a lecture on social justice.


Very courageous of you Ted. Staggering around drunk while you family ran amok. And of course, you've done worse.

Sorry, but it pisses me off every time I see that lying SOB stand in front of a camera and speak...about ANYTHING.


BRILLIANT BLOGSTAR

You must read this.

I find that I am almost always in agreement with The Belmont Club.

The battle is enjoined. Let us not falter.


HISTORY REPEATING

The war casualties mount as the Islamofascist forces of the former regime along with al-Qaida fanatics and Shia thugs unit in a desperate attempt to prevent a successful transition to a democratic, non-theocratic Iraq. Their strategy is clear - if they cannot defeat us militarily (and they clearly understand that they cannot) then they will defeat us politically by draining the domestic support for the war and helping to defeat George Bush.

Our enemies use ignorance, intolerance, and tribalism of their followers to motivate them to sacrifice themselves for the greater cause of Islam. This is an old story. More than one hundred million people have died as the result of similar tactics over the last century - only those pawns followed Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Ho, and Pol Pot.

Yes, it is the same ideology but with a different name. Communism, National Socialism, Fascism or Fundamentalism Islamism - all absolutist religions whose clergy preach hatred of the other whether it be the capitalist, the Jew or the infidel. And the strange thing is that the radical left in America has harbored sympathy for all these abominations.

I've been reading Michael Lind's, Vietnam: The Necessary War and it has been timely because , although written before the resumption of hostilities in the Gulf War, he points out that every war since the Mexican-American war has been criticized as illegitimate:

"...in February 1941, the progressive isolationist Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota claimed that the Lend-Lease law gave Franklin Roosevelt the powers "of a dictator" and " the power to take this country into war." Nye declared" "I am now more alarmed by the encroachments upon our constitutional state, ...than about possible aggression against us by potential, but not necessarily probable, foreign foes." The California progressive Hiram Johnson claimed that Lend-Lease was "founded upon hypocrisy and put over by misrepresentation." (pp211)

Sound familiar?

Further:

"The fascination of the American left with the Tonkin Gulf incidents echoed arguments in previous generations that McKinley had deliberately sunk the Maine to trigger the Spanish-American War and that Wilson had arranged the sinking of the Lusitania. The historian Charles Beard....accused Franklin Roosevelt of having staged Pearl Harbor to drag the united States into World War II....Beard declared that as a result of Roosevelt's alleged abuses of presidential war powers "constitutional and democratic government in the United States is at the end of its career.""(pp 211-212)

Indeed.

And then more recently:

"Several members of Congress introduced a measure calling for the impeachment of Bush (G.H.W), who, like Johnson and Nixon, was falsely accused of violating the U.S. Constitution....former attorney general, Ramsey Clark, a longtime radical critic of U.S. foreign policy: "As evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt, the United States planned its assault for years, and provoked Iraq to invade Kuwait to justify a U.S. reaction."....President Bush and the officials of his administration were found guilty in absentia of war crimes by an "international War Crimes Tribunal" that met in New York City...novelist Kurt Vonnegut declared that "our leaders committed war crimes in the Gulf War no less surely than Nazis committed war crimes in World War II." (pp 212-213, emphasis added).

Perhaps they need a new script?

Just because someone is an American citizen does not mean that they honor the country and what the majority of us believe it stands for. A non-trivial portion of U.S. leftists believe that we are a greater evil than the forces that we fight. They believe that no battlefield death is justified unless it is on U.S. soil defending ourselves as bullets whiz by the burning hulk of the local (anti-labor, fascist) WalMart (funny things happen when you search "Jesse Jackson Wal Mart").

Socialists (Michael Moore), Marxists (Noam Chomsky), pacifists and drunken idiots (Ted Kennedy) have joined forces with the Islamofascists (al-Qaida, the Taliban, al-Sadr) in an all out effort to bring the evil (in their eyes) American empire to its knees. The question is whether the U.S. electorate will be deterred by 700 military deaths in a year.

You may ask if I am questioning their patriotism - fair enough, I am (at least the patriotism of American hysterics). And it is completely valid to do so when it can be demonstrated that they, in fact, are not patriots.

Let me remind you (as if anyone needed reminding) that we lost three thousand people in one day to the Islamists on September 11, 2001. If we cannot sustain 700 deaths in one year while prosecuting this war when more than 40,000 people die in traffic accidents each year then we are a weak and dying society just as bin-Laden suspected when he attacked us.

Every unnatural death is a tragedy whether that death happens in a gang conflict or a car accident or in a war. But if freedom and liberty are to be maintained here and expanded to other areas of the world, then wars must be fought to destroy the forces of oppression. The radical leftist are wrong...America, even with all of its flaws, was vastly superior to the evils of Communism and National socialism and was justified in fighting sometimes brutal wars to defeat Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Sometimes it is necessary to respond with horrible brutality to a foe that will stop at nothing to defeat you and bring the curtain of intolerance and repression down upon you.

John Kerry doesn't understand this. If he did, he wouldn't have described himself as a war criminal for fighting against the Soviet Union, China and North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. If he understood, he wouldn't have voted against the Gulf War in 1990 (amusingly enough, after the United Nations voted to defend Kuwait). Worst of all, our enemies would view Kerry's election as a victory - he could prevent this by expressing his support of the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and pledging that a Kerry administration would not leave until the job was done (but really, who would believe him now after being on both sides of the issue).

This election is a pivotal point in the war against the Islamists. A Kerry victory would be shake the foundations. For all the Democrats protestations, Bush has been reassuring to allies because he has used force against our enemies as they expect of a great power. If he is defeated over 700 war deaths, what country will ever trust us again?


Monday, April 05, 2004


I've finally set up a computer at the house so I'll be back.

A few notes on recent events:

The attacks in Iraq over the past two weeks are a part of a campaign that began with the bombings in Spain. Just further evidence that appeasement breeds encourages further chaos and violence.

The Islamist and Saddamite forces in Iraq are in a desparate battle to influence American public opinion. If, as bin Laden maintains, we are disuaded from the battle by a steady trickle of body bags (not to make light of the deaths but more on that later) our enemy may yet win this first battle. It has not taken very many battle casualties for the rabid left to make inroads with the centrists - if Bush does not carry the day in November things could get much worse.

If America retreats from this fight now, the Islamo-fascists will have succeeded where Soviet Russia failed - creating a neutral Europe. Strange how things change. Europe resisted Soviet tanks and missiles from 1946-1991 but now seems ready to surrender to the reactionary Islamist minority in their midst - those armed only with fertilizer bombs and the willingness to die for their perverted cause.

The American left - including the Democratic nominee - seems only slightly more resolute than their European counterparts.

I was able to watch part of John Kerry's performance (in 1971 I believe) on the Dick Cavett show on CSPAN last week. His remarks (and his Congressional testimony that proceeded it) were stunning in their contempt for the United States. Kerry maintained that he felt he was guilty of a war crime by participating in "free fire" zones and also repeated the now discredited remarks of his VVAW cohorts about American atrocities in Vietnam.

Fast forward to 2004 when the former militant anti-American activist is now running for President and claiming kinship with his "Band of Brothers" from his Vietnam experience. In fact, Kerry's campaing has been making an issue of Kerry's active service versus Bush's reserve duties. Astounding. One of his supporters was on a talk show last week trying to defend the fact that Kerry accused American soldiers of war crimes in Vietnam that did not, in fact, occur by stating that Kerry was just repeating "what he had heard".

My response is that any man who 1) thinks he is commiting a war crime and goes ahead with it 2) accuses his fellow servicemen falsely of war crimes and then 3) tries to present himself thirty years later as a patriotic war hero is a person who doesn't deserve a moment's consideration for the presidency.


Home
Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=