| Damian Housman (Skoonj) is a long time denizen of C&S. He forwarded this end of a e-mail correspondence with Barry Farber, and I'm reprinting it because I can't disagree with even a comma (almost). |
 |
Best greetings, Barry |
|
Barry,
I said I would get into the war, and I will. Two wars. Recently there has been criticism of the administration and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is that those who criticize openly question going to war, not the methodology employed. I don't question going to war, though I prefer using other means of gaining our goals where possible. But we are a sovereign nation, and we will go to war when we find it in our interest. Recently there has been some criticism from those who question methodology. This is important, since prior to this you either supported the war and the way it's fought, or you opposed the war, and if you are a Democrat, try to sabotage it. I have read some columns and articles by Ralph Peters, who is saying things I am saying. For instance, he said this after the raid on an Iraqi research institute, in which many were kidnapped: "YESTERDAY,
80 terrorists in police uniforms raided an Iraqi research institute in Baghdad,
rounded up 100-plus male students, loaded them into vehicles in broad daylight
and drove away.
"They couldn’t have pulled it off without the complicity of key elements within the Iraqi security services and the government: “our guys.” "The students probably will be executed and dumped somewhere. Partly for the crime of wanting to study and build a future, but primarily just to step up the level of terror yet again. "What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order. "That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them. "If you’re not willing to lay down a rule that any Iraqi or foreign terrorist masquerading as a security official or military member will be shot, you can’t win. And that’s just one example of the type of sternness this sort of fight requires. "With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight. "Any code of ethics that squanders the lives of tens of thousands and the future of millions so we can “claim the moral high ground” is hypocrisy worthy of the Europeans who made excuses for the Holocaust. "If we want to give Iraq’s silent - and terrified - majority a last chance, we would have to accept the world’s condemnation for killing the killers. If we are unwilling to do that, Iraq’s finished."  This is the
problem in a nutshell. These things continue to happen because we insist on
fighting a politically correct war. We don't KILL the bad guys! We detain
them! I don't know about you, but that wouldn't scare me, and I don't think it
would scare an Iraqi terrorist. We have to KILL them. We should have gone into
the war that way. Uniformed enemy, fine, you are prisoners of war. Not wearing
a uniform and we catch you attacking us? Killed, on the spot. My preference is
to hang the body from a lamp post as a warning to the others. We DID do that in
wars we won, by the way, all the way back to the Revolution. If we didn't
detain them, could there be an Abu Graib? Could there be a
Guantanamo?What is going on is really the Vietnamization of the war. Had we gone in brutally and harshly, and killed the terrorists from the start, the terrorists would never have had a chance to organize into a force like they have today. It would either be over or nearly so. Why do I say Vietnamization? Because, as in Vietnam, we cannot win the way we fight. We can only regulate the rate at which we lose. I sure wish Peters were to be Secretary of Defense instead of Gates. We would have a chance of winning that we don't have today. Afghanistan is an illustration not only of PC war, but of the way I would want one fought. After getting the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters (and leaders) to blunder into a massive martialling of their forces at Tora Bora, we saw we didn't have enough US troops to finish them off. Mistake. The next mistake was allowing our Afghan allies to negotiate a cease fire for negotiations, at which point the enemy escaped through the hills. Stupid on several levels. Let's just wonder why Bush didn't use a tactical nuclear weapon there to finish the enemy. And establish that we will, indeed, use any weapon we feel is necessary. Bin Laden and his pals would not have escaped. We wouldn't be chasing him through the hills and valleys of the back of beyond. It would have been ended. As I've said before, nuclear weapons must be seen as a viable option, and not just a theoretical one. I do not believe in spilling the blood of American troops as a substitute for the use of the best, most appropriate weapon we have available. To do otherwise is military malpractice. Bush is no better than Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter. I just want it clear that to back "the war" doesn't necessarily mean backing the way the military malpractitioner is conducting it. By making PC war, he insures we can never win. I will never back a Republican for president who does not understand the difference between victory in war and waging PC war. And I have seen NO potential candidates coming along I would trust. Damian |
