Sunday, March 23, 2008

4,000...

...of my former fellow military brothers and sisters have been killed in Iraq, and no doubt some Contrarians will try to use their blood for political gain.

I warn Liberals not to do so...our troops are politically limited in how they can speak back to you and so you would only be taking advantage of the troops. Don't feign concern for our troops only so you can turn around and exploit them for your political purposes. You have done that long enough and you've never earned that right. If you want to complain about the war, do it without mentioning casualties of those with whom you never served and rarely agreed. And if you still can't figure out why we're in Iraq, you should start HERE.

As for me -- I honor the courage of the troops fighting to exterminate the vermin in Iraq -- driving the extremist rats into extinction. I especially look at those who signed up after this war began, but I honor all. The choices to join and reenlist in massive numbers occurs within the ranks of those who really know what is happening in Iraq. Compare that to air-headed bimbos like Medea Benjamin who think freedom is lost when Starbucks runs out of soy milk and she has to settle for skim on her way to a Code Pinko protest.

I reject these bloviating morons who have never served. But, can these simpering fools find former service members to speak against the war -- sure -- however that is not the majority, or even a strong minority. In every walk of life you have 20% of your people who do 80% of the work and 20% of the people who do 80% of the bitching (see Pareto Principle). Code Pinko and their political ilk rely on the latter 20 percenters.

To really put this number (4,000) into perspective, we must look to history - which is, tautologically, history's only purpose. And since we have been fighting for 5 years, let's compare this to another war that the Dhimmicrats like to cite - Vietnam.

Point 1: The Iraq War averages 800 deaths per year (do the math 4000/5 = 800), so how many did we lose during 5 years of Vietnam warfare? Here are the numbers:

Vietnam
1966 -- 6,144
1967 -- 11,153
1968 -- 16,589
1969 -- 11,614
1970 -- 6,083
TOTAL: 51583

Iraq
2003 -- 548
2004 -- 998
2005 -- 813
2006 -- 840
2007 -- 801


Hmmm... just a small difference between Vietnam and Iraq -- only about 47,583 more died in the jungle in five years. But Libtards simply won't give our troops credit for their proficiency and ability to keep themselves safe while fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

The reduction in collateral damage is just as pronounced (unless you read debunked liberal reports like in The Lancet).

Point 2: For another parallel between Vietnam and Iraq, let's look at Libtard Logic. Liberals claimed that Vietnam was being fought for imperialism, corporations, and other bogeyman of the Lefties. President Kennedy and others claimed the fight was to prevent the Domino Theory from being realized. Would communism spread in Southeast Asia if left unchecked? More in a moment...

Mooonbats claim Iraq is being fought for imperialism, big oil, and Halliburton. President Bush claims he is trying to stop the spread of Islamic Fascism. Will Islamo-Nazism spread if left unchecked in Iraq?

In the case of Vietnam, was the Domino Theory hypothesis true? Let's look back at what we learned after the Vietnam War --
"The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism."
We certainly prevented Communist expansion in Southeast Asia simply through our show of force.

The question is now, can we stop Islamic Radicalism by showing that we will punish anyone who participates or harbors terrorists?
The answer - we already have. Libya was the first to give up its weapons programs (programs we didn't even know existed), thanks to this action.

We also reduced the spread of Al Qaeda terrorism in the region by killing them in Iraq. They came to us to fight in Iraq and reduced their own manpower and capabilities to fight elsewhere.

Since they were already on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, the war in Iraq had no effect either way on that area. What you may not have known is that we had bases in Pakistan until 2003. Most of the jihadists now in Guantanamo flew through Pakistan to get there. Musharraf began feeling the heat from his own people and we had to leave. That limited our ability to strike within Pakistan and so the war in Iraq had no impact on hunting Al Qaeda in the border region. Politics in Pakistan was the greater Limiting Factor in hunting bin Laden, not Iraq.

Yes, war is bad. But it would be worse having to go back into Iraq or Yemen or Oman or Qatar or the Emirates.... It's time to kill the radicals now (I mean the ones in Iraq, not Washington DC) and demonstrate that we will not let this vermin rise again.

7 comments:

Brooke said...

The MSM is disgusting. Out of one side of their mouth, they pound the number of troops killed, and when you point out that that number is so much less than in previous wars, out of the other side they will shriek that this isn't about numbers, it's about lives.

LEB said...

I'll only add the following - battles are won by troops. Wars are won by the collective will of a people.

The growth and spread of Islamic fundamentalism (or any form of fundamentalism) is the fertilizer that feeds the growth and spread of radicalism - and breeds terrorists. The two are intertwined.

While Iraq was never an epicenter of either (being the only secular state in the middle east), it has become a flash point for Islamic militants, and, per your point, is drawing them into the theater.

But the sources of their origin are madrassas in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. And the principal funding sources for these schools teaching radical, fundamentalist Islam and acting as recruiting stations for terrorists are being supported principally by the Saudis.

And to put it in a nutshell, to keep all these bad boys focused on somebody else, they need an external threat - of which the United States is a very convenient, prominent target.

We could end up fighting for decades in Iraq, so long as there's an inexhaustible supply of fanatic fundamentalists paid for, however indirectly, by the House of Saud. They'll keep coming - and we'll keep fighting. There will be only one thing, and one thing only that will stop this vicious cycle, at least in Iraq.

When we leave. That is, when the Iraqi people find a calling and a desire to rise above their tribal, feudal society underpinnings, and start policing themselves of fundamentalists, of extremists, and support the secular rule of law - themselves. And it is a very critical question as to when they are going to do that, or more to the point be capable of doing that. But in the end, will they rise above their tribal roots or not? That's the ultimate question.

This is precisely what the South Vietnamese did not do, and the reason that they - not the United States - lost their war. It was not our war to win in the first place; it was theirs, and they gave in.

We can only hope that the same thing doesn't happen in Iraq. It's ultimately up to them, not us, no matter how many American troops die in the process. Vietnam taught us that.

In the end, though, the War on Terror must be fought down to the madrassas - the source of militant, Islamic fundamentalism. And that war has yet to be fought - principally, because it is not yet the will of the people. Ours or theirs.

LEB

Rogue said...

Brooke, I think you're on to something there.

LEB, well put. The goal from "Day 1" has been to get the Iraqis up to speed so they can secure their own future. We may stay in an advisory role for 100 years, but we won't be doing the fighting.

cary said...

Good post, rogue.

Rogue said...

Thanks cary.

Rogue said...

Wacmagnet,

Since libtards champion abortion, you'll be glad to know that I used one of the Sacraments of the Godless to remove your post (an electronic abortion).

This post was not for you and yours to intrude upon. Unlike my other posts, this is one where I will not allow unthinking liberals to trot out their 20 percenters and try to claim moral high ground.

Begone foul thing...

Doppelganger said...

'Libtards'?


That is not even very clever.

But yeah, 4,000 dead Americans, no big deal.. More were killed in other wars, so we have no reason to be upset. I'm sure the families of the lost will agree.
Not that it would matter, I suppose.