Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Past Definition of War


Today George W. Bush vetoed the Iraq War Bill that was designed to fund the troops with conditions (including pork that has nothing to do with the conflict) attached.

In Bush's speech where he explained his decision to veto the bill, I agreed with the President across the board.

Because of this position I have been called a war monger, occupier, rightwing loon, etc. And over at Sky Dive Rick's site, Tom the banned liberal commenter and Rick have been going back and forth over the issue of the war. I've been paying attention, fascinated by the interplay, and surprised at how often Tom dragged me into the discussion.

Tom accused me of not taking a specific position, or answering his question regarding how the war should be run.

So here's my answer:

Political Correctness has everyone worried about what they say or what they do to the point that even the Bush Administration has fallen victim to it. The liberal Democrats have pounded it down our throat so much that we have forgotten the history of America that has made this nation so great.

It seems to me that the past definition of war was not what it is now. Today's definition is heavily influenced by Vietnam and the hippies that marched against it. Before the Vietnam War was fought war was waged in a different way. We went in and fought the enemy. We didn't dance around politics.

Right now we are essentially dealing with a termite problem by waiting for the termites to show themselves before we blast them. We fear attacking the problem because a few other bugs may be wiped out as well.

From the beginning we should have gone in with guns blazing, destroyed a few cities, turned some sand to glass, allowed for collateral damage, and showed the world that if you screw with the United States your nation is going to suffer. We should have went in from a position of strength. We should have went in as the Superpower that we are.

Now, with us tippy-toeing around all of this politically correct B.S., we have lost the war because we have refused to fight it. Bush has allowed himself to use rules of engagement that handcuffs our troops because he's worried about what the Left may say. And we have allowed the Media and the Left to dictate the direction of the conflict, and to prosecute our troops through court martials for them doing their job.

Screw the Left, screw political correctness, and fight the damn war! Don't quit until victory is achieved!

That's my answer.

Oh, and yes, for those of you that give me grief, I do think you are unpatriotic for calling a war a lost cause as our troops fight it. To say otherwise would be like tossing a life preserver to a person in the water, and then telling them it doesn't matter, because they are going to drown anyway.

I have a post about the MayDay Immigration rallies at my Right Angle site.

This post is cross-posted at SkyDiveRick's.

22 comments:

kris said...

My only comment to the "we should have levelled the place" is that we did: that presumably what "shock & awe" was about.

This war has been mis-managed from start to finish. Field discipline has gone out the window-enough to ruin any pretence of a "hearts and minds" operation (no doubt it was an unofficially winked at policy al la Rumsfeld) and spoiled our reputation around the world.

But the left does not offer any solution. Oh sorry, their solution is to leave the Iraqi people high and dry - the same way the Marsh Arabs were hung out to dry after the last Gulf War.

I watch american news programs and the "debate" has descended into a slanging match and I am afraid I've abandoned any hope for a positive result- in that country or the US.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MDConservative said...

Hey Doug, am I allowed to curse? Never mind. Why waste my time.

All I say is good grief.

"It is those who support this war based on lies who are unpatriotic."

You just called just about all of congress unpatriotic. Including the dems.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Odeen said...

Kris is 100% correct. And sadly it's Rummy's fault and we should have taken a different approach! Maybe showed some superior fire power.

MDConservative said...

“…nor are they substantially involved in terrorism.”
- Ok so tell the left to stop complaining over those “minor” bombs in the marketplace that happen.

“It's obvious that you cannot wage a military campaign on a tactic.”
- Ok, so you just let them go? Do as they wish? Or do you promote treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue? That worked really well. Using intelligence you can track down leadership and hotspots for terrorists. Then KILL them. The State Department doesn’t do that. The FBI doesn’t. The U.N. doesn’t. Who does? Come on…say it with me…who has missiles, bombs, bullets that kill people? THE MILITARY.

Obviously most people that are so critical of the military don’t realize how much they do for the people. Be it training, construction, security, or just general relations.

Unknown said...

Like I've been saying all along. Screw Liberals.

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Tom, I deleted you, but I will make a response to your idiocy: The mission has not been accomplished, there are still Islamic Radicals bent on the destruction of our way of life running around. Iraq was involved in 9/11 in many ways, they just had nobody in the planes, you would have complained that Germany was no part of Pearl Harbor - Any war we won, how was it won? Fire power! Hitting them quick and hard. Not this silly crap that Bush is doing under the pressure of trying to be careful so as not to piss off idiots like you. Shameful. Argue with Rick. Don't argue here - oh and it was quite conceited to decide it was directed at you - the post was directed at the entire idiot Left!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Odeen said...

Using blogger its rather hard to ban a commenter outright. But if Doug went to Statcounter.com and used that he could ban you from their very easly.

Stat counter is a great tool and counter, very usefull info, and very easy to ban folks you wish too!

MDConservative said...

Or the places that use Haloscan. I don't believe there is a way to ban using blogger alone. So I'll let Doug speak for himself but I don't think he "isn't banning" you to be nice.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MDConservative said...

Awww heck, I will feed the troll.

“If it's ok for Jenn to write ‘screw liberals’ why isn't it ok to for liberals to write ‘screw Jenn?’"
- Because “screw liberals” is appropriate and true. It is a necessary approach for the survival of the country. “Screw Jenn” is just being nasty. Didn’t you learn from Imus. You can bash the hell out of general groups, it is only when you mention specific people that you cross the line. Hey those are the liberal rules, why don’t YOU live by them.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ortho said...

Douglas, this is a great post. It's too bad some of the comments have gotten off topic.

I would love read more of your posts on war. Have you theorized what 21st-century wars shall look like? Of course, I think they shall be multifront, non-seqential, and planetary. They shall be fought by small, mobile, techologically sophsticated, horizontally-structured guerrilla groups.

You might find these two blogs of interest:
"Dreaming 5GW" focuses on 5th generation warfare, which it defines as: "An emergent theory of warfare premised upon manipulation of multiple economic, political, social and military forces in multiple domains to effect positional changes in systems and achieve a consilience of effects to leverage a specific goal or set of circumstances."

"Global Guerrillas" focuses on "Networked tribes, infrastructure disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. An open notebook on the first epochal war of the 21st Century."


I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on war and the future of warfare.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.