Or, A Word From The Fearless Leader
- Guess who railed about the “lessons of Viet Nam.’
- Guess who railed against wars of choice vs. wars of necessity.
- Guess who rallied under the war cry, no blood for oil; who railed against war on terror, was on islam, etc.
So now here it is, yet another war (sort of) of choice (not necessity), and guess who pretends to be leading the charge…
Let’s get one thing straight.
Who the hell cares if one band of rabid muslims kills another band of rabid muslims? We should rejoice, not interfere. If it’s a problem to “moderate” muslims, if there are any, if anything like that is even possible, well, let them handle it. There are far more of them than us.
George Washington warned us against foreign entanglements. Here is one that’s a real doozy. He told us the best way to keep the peace is to be prepared for war. Here is a perfect example, again. Guess why this is happening now. Guess who has been urgently disarming us.
Thomas Jefferson showed us what to do if they become too much of a problem. Send in the Marines, bash some heads, AND COME HOME. Do it again but harder, if they haven’t learned the first time. And none of this idiocy of “proportional response,” either. We have enormous technological superiority that we can bring to bear, without risking a single life — of ours, not theirs…
That’s another thing. THEY see no difference between combatants and civilians. THEY don’t bother with uniforms, never have. A civilian is just a combatant who hasn’t planted a roadside bomb or chopped off a head yet. So why should WE care about “collateral damage”? THEY don’t. THEY seek to create as much collateral damage as possible. THEY use THEIR civilians as human shields. WE should care?
The US Constitution is clear. Only Congress can declare war. NOTHING in the Constitution authorizes piddling military “action” for years and years. Identify the national interest that’s at stake. Let’s have the debate. What is our national interest in Syria and Iraq? Do we care if we preserve that British myth of an “Iraq,” or if we let it break up into its three naturally separate parts? Don’t the Kurds deserve a country of their own? At least they are willing to fight for it.
But if we decide we have only one choice, to act now or die at their hands later, then throw everything at them and get it over with once and for all. Just think. Are we still nibbling at the fringes of Nazi Europe, 75 years after the outbreak of World War 2? Hell no.
Today’s enemy has been at war with the West since 632 AD. THEY are prepared for war for another 1400 years. Are WE? We’d better be, but… Why would we be willing to fight on their terms, on their timetable?
Our fearless leader wants to keep nibbling. 150 sorties in 5 weeks…? Who’s kidding whom? How about 150 sorties an hour? ISIS fighters are said to have world class training. Where are they getting that training, from whom? How about IDENTIFYING and WIPING OUT their sources of money and weapons, their support and supply lines? Why are THEY safe from retaliation? THERE IS NEVER ANY MENTION OF THAT IN THE NEWS. Why not?
Well, do let’s learn from the lessons of Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan:
- No more “police actions.”
- No more “limited wars.”
- No more cowering in fear of “another 9/11. “
- No more “nation building.” Let them build their own nations.
- No more using “national security” as the excuse to erode our constitutional rights.
- No more sending our kids into the meat grinder, asking them for the ultimate sacrifice while we live safe and high on the hog here at home, beating our chests like gorillas.
If it’s important enough to engage in military action, then it’s only moral to declare war on the enemy and get it over with. Fast and furious. Shock and awe. Nothing short of total victory. Or don’t bother at all.