Why Moran Is More Contemptible Than The Left

Some might think I have been too harsh on Rick Moran, just as I have been harsh in my commentary when addressing others who have abandoned previous positions in support of the Iraq War. That's because I view said converts to some form of a Democrat appeasement strategy as being much more contemptible than the Left itself.

Unless one's military is soundly and fully defeated in military terms, something the terrorists in Iraq could never achieve, warfare boils down to a very basic test of wills. It is as simple as that.

The Left, and even many Democrats who voted for the war out of political expediency more than anything else, most likely never really had the will to fight a difficult war, let alone declared that they did over an extended period of time. So, their will has not been broken, it didn't actually exist to start.

Moran and others who are now getting all about "changing their minds," adding unnecessary nuance to their positions which are, in fact, a reversal of their point of view, are more quitters than they are losers, to be sure.

This is not Monopoly, where your brother over at ABC has hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place, so you get to throw up your hands in frustration and simply walk away. War is a much more serious endeavor than that.

And where is Moran's morality? He suggests we should re-deploy ... let the Sunni and Shia fight it out. Oh, really? Well, factually, who is it that started all that? We did, that's who. There is no defense for the position that the United States can march into a country, tear it apart, and then simply walk away, as the cost has grown too great.

At the onset of this war, Colin Powell invoked the China Shop example - you break it, you bought it, he told Bush ... and America, as well. Well, you can hate Bush all you want, you can mourn our honorable dead from sun up 'til down. But you bought it, America - with overwhelming public approval and lopsided votes in Congress. As God is your witness, you most assuredly did.

And any notion that America can do anything other than continue to fight, bleed and die in Iraq until that nation is something close to being back under control is morally indefensible.

If America is to behave in any way even close to the great nation it had the tremendously good fortune to have become, then there is only one answer to what is today its most crucial question: What do we do about Iraq?

We fight, that's what we do, politically, militarily, diplomatically ... we fight and we don't stop before we and the world are certain of one thing - we have won. Anything else is not only morally repugnant, it would be a betrayal of everything America has worked for hundreds of years to become.

I read the headlines ... I hang my head in despair and scratch it in confusion. But, God dammit, I do not quit. And if you are the type of individual like a Rick Moran, who, when tested, does - then, don't link my blog. Because all you'll get back is a heapin' helpin' of F*ck You.

Comments

[Charles Warren]

So I repeat LOL's question before you lost your brain.

Are you willing to send 300,000 American troops there for a generation ?

Guess what ? The American people flatly will not. Protecting ourselves does not require conquering and ruling the Muslim world.

[Charles Warren]

"If America is to behave in any way even close to the great nation it had the tremendously good fortune to have become, then there is only one answer to what is today its most crucial question: What do we do about Iraq?

We fight, that's what we do, politically, militarily, diplomatically ... we fight and we don't stop before we and the world are certain of one thing - we have won. Anything else is not only morally repugnant, it would be a betrayal of everything America has worked for hundreds of years to become."

Really ? Who told you that we have some kind of moral right never to fail at anything ? Who told you that we have some kind of divine right to rule Iraq ? Who told you that it is our duty to shape their destiny ? Who told you that we are invincible ?

Nations can fail. Empires can't afford to fail. They must always seem invincible. They must always inspire fear. That is why they always overextend themselves in quagmires that they are too pigheaded to cut their losses and get out. They can't afford to lose face.

I think the American people have had enough 'empire' for one generation.

[scarshapedstar]

"Unless one's military is soundly and fully defeated in military terms, something the terrorists in Iraq could never achieve"

An undefeatable military? Gee, I've never heard that one before. Except for maybe that one guy, whatshisname, Teutoberg McWaterloo.

[Zifnab]

"This is not Monopoly"

You'd never know it, the way Bush spends our money.

[Fred Beloit]

Do I hear whispering? No. Just the sound wind makes in someone's pants.

[Terry Gain]

"Protecting ourselves does not require conquering and ruling the Muslim world."

Warren

Get a clue, or an honest bone in your body. No one is suggesting any such thing and you know it.
Protecting ourselves does require destroying al Qaeda - which (you apparently don't know) is being done at a terrific rate in Iraq. Sunni tribes have joined us in the pursuit of al Qaeda. Sunni tribes! This is a development to be embraced, not shunned, however to understand that you would need to see beyond the end of your leftist nose - a physical impossiblity. Iraq is indeed a quagmire-for al Qaeda.

[Jim C]

AMEN Dan!!! However, I will sway that the thing that bothers me so much about the politicians on the left is that they are turning their backs on the Iraqi's, the troops, and their mission for political reasons. Remember Reid's comment about picking up seats because of the war? Remember their barely disguisable glee at that little observation?

Jim C

[Doug]

"Well, you can hate Bush all you want, you can mourn our honorable dead from sun up 'til down. But you bought it, America - with overwhelming public approval and lopsided votes in Congress. As God is your witness, you most assuredly did."

No I didn't, Dan.

I went up to D.C. and protested the war before it started. I prayed every night that it wouldn't happen. I wrote and called my Congressmen asking them to put a stop to it.

So no, I DIDN'T buy it. And fuck you right back, you immature, turd-witted coward.

[Andy]

You make several faulty assumptions. First, you seem to assume that this is a typical nation-state war. It is not. Secondly, you assume that the only factor required for success in war is the will to win, It is one factor among many.

The foundation for success rests on providing security for the Iraqi people. The US military has not been able to provide security for four straight years. Iraqi security forces have been trained but have questionable, at best, loyalty. How long is the American public expected to wait, particularly when this war was advertised as relatively quick with little needed from America once Saddam was overthrown? Wars of choice simply do not sustain popular support for long periods of time in democracies.

Once the surge is done, US forces will have to draw down to preserve the force and rebuild what is becoming a broken Army. We simply can't sustain 160k troops in Iraq indefinitely. Even 100k troops is questionable. The question becomes, what happens if violence isn't quelled by 2008? How do we "win" then, with fewer forces and Iraqi's that won't step up to the plate? No matter how much you may want or will it into being, you cannot escape these fundamental facts. If we had an Army that could sustainably deploy 300-400k troops for the next 5-10 years we might be able to generate success, but we don't have the forces. The question the armchair generals can't seem to answer is how to provide security and suppress a civil war when we don't have the troops available to do so. We couldn't stop AQI from initiating a sectarian civil war. If we couldn't prevent that, how are we going to prevent the multifaceted civil conflict we're now in? All the platitudes and talk of treason, surrender, and patriotism don't answer those fundamental questions.

[Joe Smoe]

Rick Moran also bans anybody that questions his new schtick. I might rethink my own life if Juan Cole agreed with anything I did.

[Charles Warren]

Andy, you did something unforgiveable. You used logic and intelligence.

For all his blather about 'America' fools like Dan don't understand that America is not an honor/glory culture. We are a mercantile culture. We weigh benefits and count costs. Our wars are based on self-interest, not open ended committments, not vendettas. We bailed in Vietnam and we are bailing now because it is not in our self interest to carry losers.

People who talk of 'will' have an honor/glory mentality because when you turn a conflict into a question of your manhood you lose all sight of intelligent self interest. It becomes personal, not a matter of business.

In December 1965, LBJ's economic advisers told him that he could have three of four things.

1. A war in Vietnam.
2. Expensive social programs like Medicare and the war on poverty.
3. No tax increase.
4. No inflation.

He knew that option #1 was at the bottom of everyone's choice. He chose not to raise taxes because he knew that the American people wanted Medicare and prosperity more than they wanted a Vietnam war. Similarly Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld lied to themselves and lied to us about the magnitude of the committment they were taking on. Had they faced the fact that Shinseki spoke the truth and accepted that truth, no way the American people would have signed off on 350,000 men in Iraq for a generation. The cost would have been completely unacceptable to the American people.

[Charles Warren]

Terry, it is in the interest of the Sunni clans to prevent al-Qaeda from becoming too powerful. But should the Shiite government try to enforce its authority in al-Anbar, or should we linger too long it will be in their interest to re-ally with al-Qaeda.

Don't be so naive.

[Charles Warren]

"Unless one's military is soundly and fully defeated in military terms, something the terrorists in Iraq could never achieve, warfare boils down to a very basic test of wills. It is as simple as that."

So short of a Dien Bien Phu scale military disaster, Dan the dunce is willing to think that a treadmill is progress. Hey, American lives and American money are limitless so what the hell !

[Dan Riehl]

So no, I DIDN'T buy it. And blah blah blah.

Welcome to democracy, half wit.

[Terry Gain]

"Terry, it is in the interest of the Sunni clans to prevent al-Qaeda from becoming too powerful. But should the Shiite government try to enforce its authority in al-Anbar, or should we linger too long it will be in their interest to re-ally with al-Qaeda.

Don't be so naive."
Charles,

I'm delighted to see a liberal who is not only prepared to acknowledge that al Qaeda is in Iraq but also that they are so powerful they have convinced Sunni tribes that they must be opposed and fought against.

Charles please call the NYT and WP and tell them al Qaeda in Iraq is so powerful that even the Sunnis tribes are trying to cut them down to size. You could turn around this ridiculous MSM position that al Qaeda's not a major factor in Iraq. Don't bother with your party. They are not the least bit interested in the truth. All that matters to them is gaining power. What losers.

On the issue of why the Sunni tribes are fighting al Qaeda I suggest that instead of being so stupidly smug you research what they themselves have said about why they are now fighting al Qaeda (hint: al Qaeda wants to impose their brutal Sharia law on everybody-including you Charles).

You know Chales not everybody is as tolerant of al Qaeda's brutality as you and your fellow BDS travellers.

[Terry Gain]

Warren

Your inability to respond to the substance of my post is noted. Your claim that America is invulnerable from attacks from, to use you word "ragheads", is 5 years, 7 months, 19 days, 12 hours and 30 minutes too late to appeal to anyone but liberal morons.

It's noted that your BDS affliction keeps you from acknowleging the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. Your choice of words is revealing. Why should white boys die for ragheads? That's really your position isn't it Charles.

[Terry Gain]

Warren logic: Iraqi forces alone will get rid of al Qaeda even if American and Iraqi forces fighting together are finding this a difficult task. Delusional leftard.

[Terry Gain]

And of course Warren you completely ignore the consequences of an al Qaeda victory in Iraq. Better call for the boys to be withdrawn from Afghanistan because al Qaeda will be going back there if America concedes Iraq to them. Five years of sacrifice down the drain because people like you believe the real enemy is Bush.

al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. Clinton ignored the declaration; 9/11 ensued. There will be many more 9/11's if al Qaeda is handed a victory in Iraq.

[Terry Gain]

"What Iraqi forces ?"

Duh? Cluelessly uninformed. No wonder you're a liberal.

In 2006 the Iraqi Army suffered more casualties at the hands of Qaeda and the insuregency than America did.

[seekeronos]

"If you want American boys to die ad infinitum for a pipedream, that is a position the American people recognize the foolishness of. It is, quite simply, not in our national interest."

How very foolish this is! It is EXACTLY in our national interests to have a foothold in the Middle East, aside from Israel.

It is not about a "pipe dream" but a "pipe line". And "oil wells". And "refineries". And ultimately, keeping gasoline under $10 USD per gallon at the pump.

We are there to secure the oil resources; emplacing a puppet state (democratic or otherwise) is an admirable goal, but in truth, one that should have been secondary to securing the oil infrastructure for America and the West.

Could we have done a better job? I think so. The so-called "Army Lite" ™ is well suited for a blitzkreig invasion, but not well suited to occupying a hostile foreign nation. And occupation is the bulk of the work.

I think we would have done better to crack down very hard on the trouble areas (much as we have been doing with the surge) from the beginning, and bringing in preachers and missionaries to preach the gospel would have gone a long way to winning souls to Christ.

Therer was much said of the "De-Baathification" of Iraq; rather, it should have been the "De-Islamification" by quickly identifying extremist clerics and their mosques, and offering them a very fast ride to meet their demonic moon god.

[Jim C]

Charles,

To suggest that our culture doesn't recognize honor and glory is ridiculous. Well, maybe not so much for those of you on the left... you know nothing of honor.

[Fred Beloit]

Do you know that Warren used to live near a Native American casino? They made up a name for her. Kind of cute: "Girl with wind in pants."