One week ago tomorrow, the father of a friend of mine was brutally murdered at his home. He had gone outside to confront a burglar who was stealing from his boathouse. He fired some shots into the air, and the thief fired one of the homeowner’s own shotguns into his chest. The criminal then reloaded, and hit him with a second shot.

I should note that the victim was an excellent marksman, had won a spot on the U.S. Olympics team in 1952 for his shooting skill, and had won many awards for shooting during his lifetime. He could have easily killed the criminal, but saw no need to take a life over a few trifles — he merely wanted the man to drop what he’d taken and leave his property. The criminal had no such inhibitions, and my friend’s father lost his life.

This seems to be what is happening in Iraq. We are faced with lawlessness there, but in offering only a limited response, we’re putting ourselves and others at risk. The massacres in Sadr City this week are proof of that.

There’s no doubt in my mind that we could stop the violence if we would stop being so politically correct in the prosecution of this war. We haven’t had a declared war since World War II, and we’ve had all-too few instances of victory since that time:

• The Korean War ended in a cease fire, and the Korean Demilitarized Zone remains the most heavily armed border in the world
• The Vietnam War ended with U.S. politicians and peace-mongers abandoning South Vietnam to corrupt politicians and an overwhelming North Vietnamese force (who can forget the pictures of the last helicopter out of South Vietnam?)
• As part of the multi-national force in Lebanon, our part ended in 1984, shortly after the bombing of the Marine barracks the year before
• The invasion of Panama resulted in Manuel Noriega being deposed
• The first Gulf War resulted in Iraq’s defeat and forced withdrawal from Kuwait, but allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power, leading to the Iraq War
• The war with Afghanistan resulted in the overthrow of the ruling Taliban, but the situation there remains volatile, with coalition forces still subject to bombings and other attacks
• The outcome of the Iraq War is still very much in doubt, as the situation is even more volatile than that in Afghanistan

With our technology, firepower, intelligence, and political will (which seems to be sadly missing at this point), we could easily overcome the problems in Iraq, but it seems as if we’re just “firing into the air” in many ways. This is not the fault of our service members stationed there, but rather of the politicians and possibly the operational planners who designed the force requirements and didn’t see the insurgency/civil war until it was way too late.

Are we to forever condemn our service men and women to ignominious defeats because we lack the political will to kill enough people and break enough things? Has it become a part of the national character that if we cannot overwhelm and subjugate a population within weeks that we must then retreat without further effort?

We’ve lost fewer combatants in this war than we lost in the invasion of Normandy, and that was just getting ashore and solidifying our positions over the following weeks, not liberating an entire country from a murderous dictator.

If we don’t develop the political will to do whatever it takes to win wars, we tell our enemies we are not to be taken seriously. If it’s worth losing one single life in a war, then that war is worth winning.

TD

Said tdillard @ 3:02 pm | Permalink   

1. A man shot with his own weapon… There are times, just a few, when I hate being right, IE- posts under “New York Times on Guns.” If you’re gonna own firearms, have two safes. One for the weapon, and a seperate one for ammunition.

   As for Iraq, what we’re saying is, it’s time to push the button. Show off some nuclear firepower? Or at the very least, eradicate the civillian populace. Break out the Napalm.
   ______________________
   Borat: “I hope you kill every man, woman, and child in Iraq, down to the lizards.” Response from redneck crowd: thunderous applause.
   ______________________

   Sorry, but this is guerilla warfare. These insurgents live amongst civillians. For all intents and purposes, they ARE civillians. How do you fight that?

   Short answer: You can’t.

   Well, you can’t and expect to win.
   Good mornin’ Viet-naaaam!!!!

   Comment by Goshdarnit — 11/27/2006 @ 1:28 am

---

2. Of course I agree with Goshdarnit, now we know we cannot win a guerilla war, all our enemies will always use guerilla warfare , therefor we will always lose every war we are involved in. In fact if everybody used guerilla warfare there would be no ned for wars ever again because no body fighting guerillas will ever win. For those who have not yet figured me out, this is called sarcasm, said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Of course you can beat guerillas. They are organized into cells, fighters (those who plant the bombs and pull the triggers), auxilliary (those who give rides, feed, deliver materials, and support the fighters but do not pull triggers) and underground, (call them spies, collectors of information, message passers etc.) Kill the underground, demoralize the auxillary, and the fighters are forced to act in a vacuum and they die.

   Comment by Richard Nixon — 11/27/2006 @ 8:02 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website