...but there are alot of things the guy has done terribly wrong, like eroding domestic civil liberties, increasing the size, scope and spending of every branch of government, appointed an unqualified friend who then screwed the pooch on helping Louisiana in the face of Katrina, awarded wartime contracts to the businesses of friends, who then went about profiteering mercilessly, not providing soliders with adequate arms and armor, allowed the prosecutiuon of Colonel Chessani and his men for a "slaughter" which only occurred in the minds of a Time magazine writer, seems to have done little about oil prices, which is suspicious considering his family's and friends' "Oil men" backgrounds.

He did a great job in light of 9/11. But there are real problems. The guy was no Roosevelt or Lincoln or Calvin Coolidge.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Because, about 30 to 40 years from now, or even less, human history will celebrate the man they’ve despised and whined about for almost his entire tenure as one of the greatest American Presidents to occupy the Oval Office.

And he’s not their guy.

History will remember him as the American President who, when faced with a direct attack on the United States (and the West in general), led the nation, and her allies, in a bold, decisive response that changed the world for the better. He implemented a strategic vision that has brought the chance of liberty and freedom to (so far) over 61 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has set conditions to make it possible to realistically imagine the eradication of the cancer that is Islamo-fascism. He’ll be remembered for doing so despite his critics best efforts to delay, obstruct or outright stop him. He’ll be remembered on par with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt as the right man, in the right place, at the right time. They’ll be recalled as marginal notations to Bush’s accomplishments, if they are mentioned at all. He’ll be remembered as the man who brought real change, while lesser men preened and complained.

He’ll be remembered, and celebrated, worldwide, as one of the greatest humanitarian US Presidents of all time; a visionary man, who after carefully studying the problem of AIDS in Africa, launched the largest and most transformational public health initiative the world has ever seen, which not only directly assisted millions in need, but changed overall conditions, to try and break the cycle of infection threatening to decimate the continent. He’ll be remembered as the man who brought true hope, while others fretted and dawdled.

He’ll be remembered as a man of great accomplishment, steadfast resolve, underlying decency, abject humility, and respectable honor, while his contemporary critics will be remembered only as a part of the distractions and obstacles he had to deal with along the way. 30 or 40 years from now, millions and millions of schoolchildren - in America, The Middle East, Africa, all around the world, will know his name, and remember him as a truly great man. His critics, opponents, and detractors of the present day will simply be remembered, like the Tories or the Copperheads, as people who harassed and obstructed a great man at his finest hour, but ultimately did not deter him from carrying out his good works. In the case of his humanitarian works, he will be lauded for his ability to bring together fractious and contentious political opponents to work for a greater good.
Vision, with the ability to transform it into tangible action. Courage, to do what his convictions told him was the right thing to do. Leadership, providing a steady, resolute hand to guide a nation through a very difficult time, without being distracted by, nor succumbing to, the fear of the moment, or the day.

So far, I’ve only touched on his foreign policy achievements - without even really listing all of them. He’ likely also be remembered for doing pretty well on the domestic front, when the people reviewing the record are generationally distant from the partisan power struggles of the day. Despite enduring the unprecedented attack of September 11th, to the perceived heart of the nation’s financial nerve center, Bush and his administration helped calm people’s fears, and mitigated the shock to our economic markets, preventing the economy from tipping either into deep recession or depression. Likewise, dealing with the unprecedented natural cataclysm of Hurricane Katrina, the future will have no trouble sorting out the sources of the most egregious missteps and mistakes that added to the misery, with a less than favorable view of the actions of local and state officials than they’d probably credit themselves, and conduct case studies of how irresponsible media coverage can severely worsen an already very bad situation. The one criticism that may be made of President Bush’s handling of the situation is to point out his failure to recognize or deal sooner with those more interested in demonstrating who or what they were or were not in charge of while they panicked and flailed ineffectually with the actual emergency at hand.

People will also remember that President Bush took definitive action to lessen pressure on the American consumer and the economy as a whole from overheated oil and gas prices by lifting the executive branch restrictions on additional exploration and drilling for resources in the 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf that an ill advised and agenda driven Congress had placed off-limits. That while others only talked about things that would make the prices actually go up, with the only benefit being the perception of a chance to divert more money into government coffers, President Bush was walking the walk to back up his talk about his desire to see people hang onto as much of their own money as possible - in this case by helping to create an adjustment within the existing market framework to reduce the overall costs to the American people, rather than using events as an excuse for expanded government intervention, taxes, and regulations. And he’ll be recognized for retaining a cool head in the midst of near hysteria whipped up by charlatans with an agenda using deception, suspicion and fear mongering to push radical environmental positions which would devastate Western economies.

Yes, the left hates George W. Bush for all of this, and more - because he’s not their man, he’s not of their party, and history will remember that. That a Republican president actually has delivered more concrete results and helped more people in more ways than any of their narcissistic, power
hungry yammering ever has, or likely ever will.

But then again, he’s a great man, of historical proportion. And they’re just forgettable, hardly remarkable also-rans, forever condemned to be overshadowed by the man they love to hate.

In the future, people will chuckle at contemporary suggestions this man is a failure as the purely impotent projection and shallow sniping they actually are. Because that much is plainly obvious even today.

(From http://silentrunning.tv/) July 19th, 2008
And a link from Not PC today.

The leading Dem candidates are now warning voters that THEY won't be leaving Iraq anytime soon, either...

We all agree a bigger effort is necessary. Doesn't make the present effort "immoral," grounds for "cut-and-run," Bush "evil," or mandate voting cut-and-runners across the board. So "today's crisis" can be ignored because of this looming Christian theocracy in America?

Don't you see that "today's crisis" would not handled much differently by a "Dem-Scum" President? Are you really taken in by the political rhetoric and interest-group manipulation?

... even though I know you'll go on ignoring:

We all agree a bigger effort is necessary. Doesn't make the present effort "immoral," grounds for "cut-and-run," Bush "evil," or mandate voting cut-and-runners across the board. So "today's crisis" can be ignored because of this looming Christian theocracy in America?

What's "beyond disgusting" is an open-ended commitment in Iraq that shows no signs of dealing with the real enemies directly.

We all agree a bigger effort is necessary. Doesn't make the present effort "immoral," grounds for "cut-and-run," Bush "evil," or mandate voting cut-and-runners across the board.

So "today's crisis" can be ignored because of this looming Christian theocracy in America?

I'm just astonished at what otherwise intelligent folk can propound.

Not to rally behind your president in the current context, albeit while retaining the right to urge more KASS upon him, but instead trashing him as "evil" and urging folk to vote blanketly for the white-flaggers is beyond disgusting.

Linz

All the logic that supported our going to Iraq also supports a much bigger effort than Mr. Bush has offered -- and, for the last time, this has almost nothing to do with Peikoff's voting advice. That is focused on what you cannot conceive as being possible right now -- something more important than today's crisis.

Jesus wept James!

Those were Royal Navy rules of engagement! Are you seriously blaming the Bush government for the operating procedures of a British armed force?

And they couldn't blast the Iranians out of the water. The RN Frigate in question allowed the civilian ship to mask both it's boarding team and their attackers. In addition the ship's helicopter was refueling rather than covering the boarding team.

And finally the boarding team only had pistols and rifles against the Iranian's heavy machine guns and rocket launchers mounted on multiple boats. Basically, the Brits screwed up. Bush had nothing to do with that.

"what is it that justifies blanketly voting for those who flat-out oppose action against Iran and want to cut-and-run from Iraq?"

Not since Osama has suggested a tax cut.

Sorry for the prolonged absence.

I hope you're better, James. That bastard recurring thing again?

Bush lost all cred with "those who matter" -- i.e., the American people, who, I believe, would still be supporting a proper assault on Jihadism.

See Osama's latest. Al Qaeda went to work on public opinion, via Dem-scum, Hollywood and the media. Aided and abetted by Peikoff's fatwa.

And, yeah, his choice of JUST Saddam is part of it, and, though worthy as he was for being taken out, he was hardly the greatest threat in the region -- and his "secular" look made him "safer."

Do you think Bush didn't genuinely believe Saddam had WMD and was developing the means of delivering them? That Iraq is not now the crucible of the battle?

The "misidentification" is a much broader matter, a PHILOSOPHICAL one that Bush couldn't i.d. if landed on his nose.

So which President identified it better?

Which "rules"? How about the ones that allowed British marines to (even temporarily) fall into the hands of mullahs when they could have blasted those guys out of the water?

Which rule was that? Again, I've posted them below. Which one?

As for the Pentagon's plans, they may even have one for the invasion of New Zealand -- a contingency plan almost as likely to be executed.

That would be good, and almost as necessary. But treasonists don't rule Objectivism here, at least.

So, let me ask again, as I shall continue to do:

And since the question has never been answered, I'll keep on asking till it is: what is it that justifies blanketly voting for those who flat-out oppose action against Iran and want to cut-and-run from Iraq?

Linz

NEW DELHI

India is downplaying the significance of the biggest-ever multinational naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, saying that it is merely an enlargement of the war games regularly held with the U.S. Navy.

A B-52 bomber

flew the length of the United States last week loaded with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles in a major security breach, US military officials said Wednesday.

The advanced cruise missile is a stealthy, longer range version of the air launched cruise missile first deployed in the early 1980s.........

They carry W-80 warheads of up to 150 kilotons, ten times the destructive force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima."

Music to my ears. Great message George. Received loud and clear.

Sorry for the prolonged absence.

Bush lost all cred with "those who matter" -- i.e., the American people, who, I believe, would still be supporting a proper assault on Jihadism.

And, yeah, his choice of JUST Saddam is part of it, and, though worthy as he was for being taken out, he was hardly the greatest threat in the region -- and his "secular" look made him "safer."

The "misidentification" is a much broader matter, a PHILOSOPHICAL one that Bush couldn't i.d. if landed on his nose.

Which "rules"? How about the ones that allowed British marines to (even temporarily) fall into the hands of mullahs when they could have blasted those guys out of the water?

As for the Pentagon's plans, they may even have one for the invasion of New Zealand -- a contingency plan almost as likely to be executed...

all week!

I especially like this bit:

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

The question is, will he authorize their use.

If he does, I'll bet that the Dem's will vilify him for being a warmonger and the ARI will chastise him for not vaporising Tehran.

Dubya has plans for Iran.

"The US has already been in Iraq longer than the entire war with Japan."

So what? Had the Manhattan project been a flop, the US would have launched Operation Olympic and invaded the first of the four Japanese Home Islands - Continuing until the Unconditional Surrender was given. Which given the abject disregard for human life shown by the Tojo-led government would have probably when the very last Japanese male had been shot dead during a Banzai charge.

The war in the North Atlantic went from 1939-1945 and like the desert war (1939-1943) the fortunes of these campaigns ebbed and flowed from heady victory to bitter defeat. And not once did the British and Commonwealth forces (and their eventual American Allies) suggest that they should pack it in and go home. They were in a fight to the death and knew it.

The ARI is suggesting the same is true of the War against Islamic Fascism is it not? Isn't that the reason for the call for Total war?

And if that's true and it's also true that the enemy is elusive and not based in one single country, then they must be fought where ever they appear. They are in Iraq. The means by which they came to be there may be unfortunate. But they are there now and must be destroyed. If you mean to put the 'Total' in Total war (aka WWII style warfare), then staying in Iraq is a given.

Unfortunately the ARI talk about Total War but they forget the another lesson from WWII:

If you want to destroy a fanatical armed opponent such as Iran & Al Qaeda or Germany and Japan, you've got to break their military before you can destroy their will to fight. Merely destroying their bases and cities isn't (and wasn't) enough. While they have some means to hit you - fanatical nut-jobs will fight on in the hope of victory no matter how long the odds (See the Battles of Saipan, Iwo Jima, Phillipine Sea, Leyte Gulf, The Battle for Berlin etc. etc. ad nauseum.)

That is a lesson that WWII ought to teach anyone who marvels at how long it took to bring down the Japanese Empire and the 3rd Reich (both of whom were as fanatical as Iran and Al Qaeda). You can't break Al Qaeda's military strength by retreating a the battlefield they are fighting you for.

I'm going to leave this thread blue-stickied forever if that's what it takes to get my questions answered. How fascinating there are no takers. Reminiscent of the Turandot Challenge.

Meanwhile, how beautiful to see the brave and decent Dubya being cheered by the brave and decent boys and girls in Iraq. Such a change from being backstabbed by dirty, filthy treasonists at home.

Linz

Yes, it would be interesting to have those questions answered. Especially the question on misidentification of the enemy.

I will say this one more time, Linz: Peikoff voting Dem does not turn on this crisis of the moment -- well, of the "a-lot-longer-than-a-moment" now, thanks to Mr. Bush.

As I understand it, it turns on a looming Christian theocracy. And since the question has never been answered, I'll keep on asking till it is: what is it that justifies blanketly voting for those who flat-out oppose action against Iran and want to cut-and-run from Iraq?

The "political capital" that he lost was from those who matter, here in the U.S. -- not some Euro-Weenies.

Whom do you mean by "those who matter"?

And the other unanswered questions from my previous post:

"Do you mean Saddam?"

"Well, I posted those rules [of engagement] further down. Which ones are absurd exactly?"

I will say this one more time, Linz: Peikoff voting Dem does not turn on this crisis of the moment -- well, of the "a-lot-longer-than-a-moment" now, thanks to Mr. Bush.

The "political capital" that he lost was from those who matter, here in the U.S. -- not some Euro-Weenies.

Robert-
I appreciate you bringing in background on particular battles of WWII, and the approach of particular battles being questioned in the larger war is one of the best I've seen. However, the analogy to Iraq falls short in a couple ways.

Even if not exactly tactical vs. strategic, there is a significant difference in scope. The US has already been in Iraq longer than the entire war with Japan. The WWII actions you mention would be more akin to focusing on the battle of Fallujah rather than the entire Iraq war.

Trying to move to an even bigger picture of a 'war on Islamic jihadists' poses a different problem. Saddam's Iraq is arguably a valid target in its own right - but a distraction or counterproductive in that even larger war. Despite most Iraqis also being muslim, Saddam's regime was secular, and liberal and condemned by the Islamic fundamentalists. Toppling it and killing Saddam since he murdered 100,000 of his own people was morally defensible - but provided a vacuum for Iranian, al Qaeda, etc. extremists to fill. An appropriate WWII analogy would be if Japan had attacked the US - and we responded by fighting and toppling Chiang Kai Shek's China. He murdered at least 1.5 million of his own people and it would certainly have been morally defensible to kill him and destroy his government - yet would have been clearly a distraction from or counterproductive to defeating Japan.

"He misidentified the enemy from the outset -- he squandered the political capital of 9/11 -- he crippled our efforts with absurd rules of engagement -- and, now, he negotiates with Iran about its murderous activities against our own troops..."

Which is why Giuliani is needed in the Whitehouse and not Hillary or Obama.

He misidentified the enemy from the outset

Do you mean Saddam?

-- he squandered the political capital of 9/11

You mean he lost the "goodwill" of cowardly Europeans, Dem-scum and their ilk once the going got tough? That would never have lasted whatever Bush did.

-- he crippled our efforts with absurd rules of engagement

Well, I posted those rules further down. Which ones are absurd exactly?

-- and, now, he negotiates with Iran about its murderous activities against our own troops...
Thanks, George.
So, don't hold your breath waiting for some action against Iran by this President.

We'll see.

So again, then, what is it that justifies blanketly voting for those who flat-out oppose action against Iran and want to cut-and-run from Iraq?

The answer, btw, is not "Linz sucks Bush's dick."

Linz

Look, I predicted Iranian intervention in Iraq at the outset of the invasion. I figured that our wise leaders had anticipated this obvious problem, too, and were preparing for this contingency. It is now quite obvious that they had no such plans. Speaking of "high level" discussions, we are now ~ discussing ~ the situation in Iraq with Iran -- even as the mullahs' devices are exploding in the faces of our soldiers and allies. As to our own "high level" discussions about this -- whatever the plans being made -- such concerns are coming way too late. Moreover, Bush has so botched the domestic politics of this war, that the general assumption is that America is already "over-stretched" -- in both morale and resources -- yada, yada, yada...

He misidentified the enemy from the outset -- he squandered the political capital of 9/11 -- he crippled our efforts with absurd rules of engagement -- and, now, he negotiates with Iran about its murderous activities against our own troops...

Thanks, George.

So, don't hold your breath waiting for some action against Iran by this President.

I think that within the year that there is a very good possibility there will be an armed confrontation with Iran. Regardless of what one may make of Bush's tactics in Iraq, I think that it is a strategic move in more ways than one that we are still in Iraq, specifically because of the growing Iranian threat and the eventual conflict that WILL ensue. It's possible that you could see a coordinated military effort between the USA, Iraq, and Israel on some level to keep Iran from becoming fully nuclear. Between the top military commanders, CIA, NSA, and other agencies we all know that they are devising a plan to deal with the threat of an unhinged nuclear Iran, and have had many HIGH level meetings to discuss ALL options.

Simple! Don't come back.

You're right, James V. and Casey do add value to this forum. You, on the other hand, add none. And I site this, your only post in recent times, as an example.

I'd hoped that when Linz banned Phyllus we'd have no more pointless parade pissing for the sake of parade pissing. I seem to have been mistaken.

Without James V. or Casey this forum would have little value. I come back to check up on it and what do I find: Lindsay and Robert still cheerleading for Bush and the Iraq War. Oy Vey.

Iraq is a watered down version of Vietnam only with a lesser body count. Its a self-sacrificial war that has little to nothing to do with defending America and civilization. Ayn Rand would throw a shit fit if she could see the bullshit, pro-conservative nonsense many Objectivists spew these days.

Its difficult for me to even read Lindsay's and Robert's NeoCon lovefest crap. I just skim it and wait for Casey and James V to rip it to shreds. Without the ARI, Objectivism would be lost. All the "SoloPassion" in the world can not replace logical thinking.

Proud Member Of The "Bomb-Them-Into-Oblivion" School Of Foreign Policy

I am mighty glad that you did take about 2000 words to write your views - those words managed to convince me.

This is war-time! NO president isn't going to show his whole hand in public. And that counts double in the current anti-war climate.

Bush may be everything you say he is. But niether of us is privy to all the information pertinent to this issue. And what does objectivism say about making judgements on insufficient information?

From a moral perspective, I am glad you pointed this out.

I say that when you are fighting an elusive enemy you kill him where ever he shows his face. That shouldn't preclude attacking his source of supplies either. And I have seen no evidence that Bush has abandoned that course either.

WWII was indeed about smashing the enemy until he surrendered unconditionally. And that strategy was pursued with every tactic available. Including hitting the enemy where ever he appeared. I say this is what Iraq is now. I say that clearing Iraq of Al Qaeda and securing it from Iranian influence is worth the price.

*Now* I understand where Bush's speech is coming from. For anyone like me who struggles to understand this war and the US's tactics amidst it all, this is a vital distinction that underscores the President's comparisons to WWII.

..compared to the alternatives.

Action against the savage mystics was long overdue. (I'm hoping there's collateral damage to christianity too).

To criticise and find fault with Bush is easy and gutless.

He's not as stupid as he sounds, neither was Reagan.

Back the heroic Bush - and Blair for the support. Future generations will thank us for it.

Peikoff's reasons for voting against Republicans are not focused on the issue of foreign policy at all.

As I have said many times, the internal goings-on in the West are of FAR greater concern than this war against the Jihadists. I don't know how much more terrorism it's going to take, but once America decides to fight a real war, these savages will be much, much easier to deal with than were either the Nazis or the Communists. And we will still be left with the self-inflicted damage from all of this. And, we will still be left with our own ideological battle for the future.

This, too, shall pass away, Linz...

When it does go, it will happen with the response of a vigor unknown to Mr. Bush and Co.

Absent the application of such vigor, we will continue to slowly bleed.

[edit: btw, selectively quoting Rand can never turn her into a peacenik - despite Libertarian fantasies to the contrary.]

Errol Flynn was a neoconservative communist sympathiser and orchestrated World War 2 with his films?!?! wtf?

The real lesson of WW II was not to trust a socialist president. See footnote 20 and the text it refers to in the new ARI Watch article:  Relentless Propaganda: Redux for Iran.

Before Pearl Harbor there was the Flying Tiger affair, which was a direct U.S. (if deceitfully off the record) military attack against the Japanese in China. FDR also froze all Japanese assets in the U.S., and he had the U.S. fleet block oil deliveries to Japan from Indonesia. That the U.S. was just minding its own business and that Pearl Harbor just came out of the blue is a myth.

Another myth is that FDR was aggrieved over Pearl Harbor. In fact he had yearned and hankered and pined for an attack, and was as happy as the Neocons over 9/11 when it happened.

The worst myth is that Pearl Harbor was a surprise to him. FDR purposely left the fleet concentrated and unguarded (the aircraft carriers left the week before) while knowing from decoded messages that the Japanese were going to attack.

If the US had kept out of the war the Third Reich would have imploded from its disastrous Russian adventure. Even some of Hitler’s own generals were trying to kill him by that time.

Hitler never had the ability to invade the U.S. and he never intended doing so. Consider the disparity of land mass and population between Germany and America. How would he have even begun to do it, even setting aside holding down France, Belgium, etc, and the Germans strung out to die in Russia?

Nazism, or any form of totalitarianism, is impractical and won’t work in the long run. A totalitarian state won’t survive even against nature by itself. In this case Hitler, like Napoleon before him, was doomed once he invaded Russia.

One evil consequence of America entering WWII is that it enabled Stalin to conquer all of Eastern Europe. Another was the creation of the OSS, which was later renamed  Drugs ‘R’ Us  CIA, only the drug part is kept hidden.

Ayn Rand herself was against entering WWII.

See also The America First Committee by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute.

Personally, all this is a change in my belief since going to school, not to mention growing up with John Wayne, Errol Flynn, etc. Hollywood propaganda movies where you are indoctrinated with half-truths and lies.

FDR and the Neocons have a lot in common. We survived FDR, but there’s only so much of the pie you can give away before it’s gone.

Yeah, that's probably my fault. You've basically said in two sentances everything I tried to say in about 2,000 words.

Maybe I should stick to my day job

"Now Bush is "evil" (the Hsiekovian view) because he hasn't demanded "unconditional surrender." By whom, I wonder? Has it escaped the Hsiekovians' attention that Islamo-Fascism is not a country? Rather, its forces are coalesced in a country from which the Hsiekovians' pin-up politicians want to cut and run: Iraq."

Bravo!

I note with interest how the argument keeps shifting and a central question for Objectivists keeps being avoided—how does any of this justify the fatwa?

Now Bush is "evil" (the Hsiekovian view) because he hasn't demanded "unconditional surrender." By whom, I wonder? Has it escaped the Hsiekovians' attention that Islamo-Fascism is not a country? Rather, its forces are coalesced in a country from which the Hsiekovians' pin-up politicians want to cut and run: Iraq.

Here's Bush the Evil, beginning his very latest speech a few hours ago:

We meet today at a critical time for our country. America is engaged in a great ideological struggle -- fighting Islamic extremists across the globe. Today I want to talk to you and to the American people about a key aspect of the struggle: the fight for the future of the Middle East. I'm going to explain why defeating the extremists in this troubled region is essential to our nation's security, and why success in Iraq is vital to winning this larger ideological battle. (Applause.)

He goes on to spell out exactly what Iran has been up to and assure his audience it WILL be stopped.

He concludes:

One day years from now, another president will be in a room like this. That president will look out upon a sea of caps worn by those who show a quiet pride in their service. Some in that audience will include people who won the fight against fascism and Nazism and communism. You'll be joined by younger veterans who have fought in places like Kandahar and Ramadi. And just like you, the new generation of veterans will be able to say proudly they held fast against determined and ruthless enemies, helped salvage an entire region from tyranny and terror, and made a safer world for the American people.

Not if the Dem-scum treasonists and their Hsiekovian supporters have their way!

Linz

I say it's a strategic & tactical military as well as a political issue as well.

All are screwed up in this instance. And it's the political aspect that is the key. The fact is that there is no political will ~ANYWHERE~ in the USA for going after Islamofascism no-holds barred.

And in the West it's the political dog that wags the miltary tail.

You castigate Bush for misguided philosophy on life. And you are correct, I've never denied that.

But unless somebody else, with their philosophical head screwed on straight, steps up to the plate, Bush is the best you're going to get. And I've argued that objectivists need to enter politics consistently from day one.

And I'm unrepentantly going to tweak some tails again by pointing out that those who voted for the Dems in the last round of elections rejected the idea that this war on Islamofascism was vital. Has that changed?

If so, then who are you going to vote for this time around if not the Republicans (seeing as it's 'too early' to pitch objectivism in the political sphere.) Because if you vote for the Democrats (or vote for no one and allow the Democrats to win by default) then your actions and your words are not in synch.

Back to this thread: I say that the issue on this thread has always been mainly a tactical one. Saddam was always a threat to the US. And I doubt that the ARI has any strategic objections to his removal and death. Nor do I think they would object strategically to a democratic Iraq if it could be obtained different tactics than those employed at present.

Am I correct in these assumptions?

The issue then is one of tactics in pursuit of a peripheral strategic goal. You say that the goal isn't worth the tactical cost. And if that were the only consideration - I would agree.

But it wasn't. Initially Saddam appeared to be a greater threat long-term than Iran and appeared ripe for the picking. He was. Unfortunately Iraq was not. That wasn't apparent to Bush and he and his advisors are rightly castigated for that lack of forward thinking.

But now we are in this place the situation has changed and
I say that there is a vital strategic goal that you are forgetting. A goal that has come to the fore only recently, namely: fixing the REAL enemy in place and destroying them.

The REAL enemy is coming to Iraq to fight the US. I say that that hasn't been factored into the ARI's assessment. The pursuit of this goal is consistant with the ARI's philosophy and it is worth the cost of these tactics in my opinion.

I say that when you are fighting an elusive enemy you kill him where ever he shows his face. That shouldn't preclude attacking his source of supplies either. And I have seen no evidence that Bush has abandoned that course either.

WWII was indeed about smashing the enemy until he surrendered unconditionally. And that strategy was pursued with every tactic available. Including hitting the enemy where ever he appeared. I say this is what Iraq is now. I say that clearing Iraq of Al Qaeda and securing it from Iranian influence is worth the price.

And if that is Bush's only plan - then I agree it is insufficient.

But again, no one here or in the ARI has the security clearance to know for certain whether Bush has more than one plan or not. You are judging him on what he is saying in public, which not the whole story. It can't be, because if it was then the problem wouldn't be Bush, it would be awful operational security.

You keep talking about tactics. This is a strategic issue, not a tactical one.

It's not about what military goal we are after, it's about what political goal we are after. The military goals are constrained by the overarching political goals.

If our men are sent in to secure Iraq so they can vote in an Ayatollah of their own, then by God our fighting men and women will accomplish that goal from a tactical POV. But what is the strategic point of that?

The military can be extremely efficient at whatever goal they are set -- whether that goal is altruistic and counter-productive or whether that goal is in the best interests of the United States.

The goal during WWII was to smash the enemy into unconditional surrender.

The goal here seems to be to win militarily and then let them do whatever they want, put conditions on our involvement, put conditions on what we are allowed and not allowed to do, put conditions on how much we can ask from their new government, etc. And we are tip-toeing around that process while taking fire at the perimeter and stemming the tide of Iranian and Syrian and Jordanian and Saudi jihadis BECAUSE we have invited that kind of behavior by not insisting on unconditional surrender. This kind of post-victory behavior has only encouraged these other states to intervene. And our guys are paying the price on the ground.

As Camille Paglia recently said: "if the United States makes a strategic retreat from Iraq, we may well be returning in a decade or two, this time with regional allies. But things will be vastly different: no more happy facade of pacification and reconstruction; no more corrupt protectionism of commercial contractors; no more costly police or military training of volatile, faithless local recruits; no more intrusive neighborhood patrols with our soldiers blown to smithereens by cheap booby traps. It will be real war, heavily applied by air force, with maximum damage inflicted at minimal cost to our troops."

And THAT kind of war will scare the crap out of anyone from interfering because THAT kind of war we can take straight to Tehran or Riad or Damascus at any time without overtaxing and overexposing our military. That kind of war says "FUCK WITH US AT YOUR PERIL." That kind of message will be loud and clear. The rest will be up to them. We'll just supply the incentive.

Look, the main reason we have not been attacked since 9-11 is that the political calculus was established as too prohibitive for terrorist-sponsoring states to be involved with anymore. The straight up equation -- you attack New York and Washington, and the rulers of Afghanistan and Iraq are gone. Who's next? And nobody was next. The more we dither around and tie up our troops and overextend our military, the less viable that very real threat becomes.

I would love a western style democracy emerge as a beacon in the Middle East -- but you don't get there by putting warring tribes and leaders corrupted by 35 years of dictatorship IN CHARGE of the constitutional convention. America has consistently shied away from using its own experience with building such a system of government in the aftermath of the Soviet Union and now here. And both are falling apart due to ideological drift and wishful thinking on the part of Americans who are too embarrassed by their own system to even attempt filling the void left in either country. This is a failure on the ideological level, not the military level. We need to cast off this political correctness that is afraid to demand the correct politics from a moral plain. We have surrendered the moral high ground. No matter what the troops do, as long as that is the case they are fighting against themselves, and dying in the process.

So you want him to give specifics? Timetables for invasions, flight routes for bombers, projected troop movements, supply levels and such? Just how much detail about secret battleplans do you want your president (Bush or whomever) to announce publically?

You say he's only talking to Iran. True, but he's also talking to others about Iran as well.

When the US takes on Iran Bush (or whomever) is going to need three things:

(1) Domestic Political support (Bush has none)
(2) To isolate Iran from weapons suppliers like Nth Korea, China and Russia.
(3) To draw on as much military support as it can muster so that the US military isn't carrying the whole load in addition to fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and holding Nth Korea, Russia (who is sending Tu-95 bombers over the Nth Pole again) and China in check.

That takes time. And even President Yaron Brook would take the time because "Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general (and the War-time Politician), the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."

So they are talking to Iran. That doesn't mean that Bush or anyone else isn't simultaneously oiling up the big stick in preparation for an almighty arse-whipping.

And here's the thing, civilians without a top secret rating (like you, me, and Yaron Brook) aren't going to be let in on the latter...

So just because the NY-Times hasn't released the US battleplans for bombing Iran doesn't mean that there are none. That 'Bush is a immoral coward because he's talking to Iran rather than nuking them' won't hunt.

This is war-time! NO president isn't going to show his whole hand in public. And that counts double in the current anti-war climate.

Twenty years from now when all this is declassified is the time to declare unequivically that Bush is a coward. Right now he is unable to defend himself against that charge without giving away military secrets.

Bush may be everything you say he is. But niether of us is privy to all the information pertinent to this issue. And what does objectivism say about making judgements on insufficient information?

Casey: "What if we end up with a theocracy, a thugocracy, or worse in Iraq? We're letting them settle that issue. It's not like Bush is on top of that. In fact, he's using the military to guard the process that takes that outcome out of our hands. All those soldiers' deaths are no guarantee of an outcome favorable to the United States, and those deaths should not have been asked or given under any other pretext. If this is victory, who needs surrender?"

So what's the alternative, Casey? Setting up our own government there? Is that going to save more American lives, or will it do nothing but attract every jihadist in the Middle East there to bomb this or that? Blowing them up, leaving, and let the Baathists return to power? I do not know what the answer is, but I agree with you what the answer ISN'T, and it ISN'T prosecuting Marines for being too aggresive in protecting themselves, or imposing stupid, passive, suicidal rules of engagement against enemies who follow no rules.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

James wrote: "Our unprecedented concern for "collateral damage" has crippled our efforts. "

There was a phenomenal radio interview of an American bomber crew member from WWII, who recounted flying over Germany on a bombing run. "The sky was black with flak" he said, explainig that they shoot metal up into the air to cripple the attacking aircraft. They men got about 8 weeks or training before actually flying--this was before computers, sophisticated technology, gps. They had to use a map, compass, and refer to reference points on the ground.

He went on to explain that there were no smart bombs or laser-guided anything back then. You flew over your enemy, you dropped bombs as close to target as you could figure, and if there were civilian casualties, it demoralized the enemy, if it hit factories, their production was hurt, and best of all, direct hits on military was the goal.

But they didn't lose any sleep over civilian casualties because the object of the battle was to win the war--and destroying the enemy's will to fight is the fastest way to win a war, short of a quick kill.

We have high technology, but seem to have forgotten this.

A mosque can be rebuilt. None of the lives lost on 9/11 can be renewed.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Linz wrote: "To subvert the good faith efforts of a decent, brave President in wartime—and 130,000 decent, brave soldiers—is treason in my book. And it makes me sick."

Yep. I'll add that we should have gone in there, wiped out the enemy, wiped out any faction which opposed a secular democracy, including hiders-in-mosques and tough talkers in madrassas. Zero tolerance for insurgents. Those who were left would have had their democracy already.

This is war, after all, and we didn't want to have to be there. Taking care of business and getting out of there should have been the first order of business. Let THEM clean up the mess, even if we pay dollars for it.

The problem is that the vast MINORITY of Iraqis want anything like a Democratic Republic. They all want an Islamic based government, which means a government of jihadists and jihadist sympathizers.

I don't think the picture of the surge is as sunny as Linz says, though I am a big fan of General Petraeus. I think we should have stopped at "eliminating the threat" and forgot about "building a friendly regime." We could have had experts assess the situation and supported, obliquely or overtly, the faction we wanted to see in power, but only if it had a real chance. If our friendly faction was too weak, then we resolve to going into the country every 5 years and eliminating whatever they build there until they come to their senses. Islam wants for them to live like it is the 14th century, and we could have obliged them. Best of all, a minimum of ground troops. Just devastate their oil production and they'll starve. Couple of cruise missiles, and no American casualties.

Instead the fucking retarded liberals, like the mongoloid Timothy Robbins, who was on Bill Mahr's show the other night, who wants murderers to have their rights at the expense of Americans.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Americans -- TODAY -- are being killed by Iranian IEDs and guns -- and the President does nothin' but FLAP-JAW. He is even willing to flap-jaw with IRAN about it! And although al-Sadr, for one, is taking a breather, for now, he says, he need only bide his time and build-up MORE Iranian support before striking again, and again, and again.

Americans are dying -- right now -- from THIS treachery.

What is this noble President's plan??? To paraphrase Python, "This calls for immediate DISCUSSION! New motion, whole new motion... Resolved: Iraq is 'only one front in the war on "Terror..."'" (Yeah, Linz, I heard the bloody speech!)

Casey,

If you accept that Iraq is part of a wider war then there is no philosophical difference. The US was fighting fascist beheaders (see Japanese War-crimes including the Rape of Nanking) and genocidal maniacs then as now.

And in WWII there were similar debates about the battlefields chosen by the politicians. For instance:

-US invasion of Tunisia and North Africa.
-US invasion of the Italian Mainland.
-US support of the British 14th Army as it attempted to recover its old colony Burma.
-British invasion of Vichy French-controlled Syria (using Indian and Australian troops!).
-British occupation of Iraq
-British invasion of Vichy French-controlled Madagascar
-New Zealand's and Australia's involvement in the Greek & Crete campaigns. Both of which were decisive defeats that cost Australia and New Zealand dearly.
-US invasion of the Phillipines. That one was basically to keep a promise. Strategically the Japanese Garrison on the Phillipines could have been left to wither on the vine.
-US/Australian activities in the Solomons. After the destruction of Rabaul there wasn't much point.
-US support of Nationalist Chinese forces fighting the Japanese especially given the level of disinterest the Nationalist Chinese had in actually using US weapons and air-power on the Japanese, as opposed to their Communist Chinese rivals.

Should I go on? Because I can.

None of the battlefields I listed here was vital to the overall goal of defeating Germany and Japan. Other than the fact that fighting there tied down the enemy troops and fixed them in place so that they could be destroyed.

In other words the ends - Victory over the fascists - justified the means: these battles in places peripheral to the decisive arenas of the war.

Wars are fought in this way.

The US is currently FIGHTING Al Qaeda and Iranian proxies in Iraq. They are FIGHTING & DEFEATING THE RIGHT ENEMY in the wrong place. The former is more important than the latter.

Why? Because your enemy may not decide to fight you in the place of your choosing. This Jihad crap appeals to the best some of the best minds in the Muslim world - as the attack on Glasgow by Muslim physicians shows. These guys aren't stupid. They aren't going to just line up and let you gun them down like ducks in a shooting gallery!

Has it occurred to you that attacking Iran may not solve the Al Qaeda or even Iranian Terrorist problem? Has it occurred to you that you may actually have to invade, occupy and ferret the terrorists out of the place?

And if that's the case, is it not better to deplete the potential pool of suicide bombers first by finishing up in Iraq using seemingly altruistic, but successful, tactics Yon et al. describe? To reduce the size of you opponet by showing those Iranian civilians - who survive the type of assault that the ARI is in favor of - that you aren't as bad as the Mullahs or Saddam?

If your philosophy dictates that Al Qaeda and Iran are the enemy there is no other choice but to fight them whereever they appear and with whatever tools & tactics are appropriate to victory - even ones that appear to be altruistic to civilians back home.

That, for better or for worse, encapsulates the reason that persisting Iraq is important.

I think the point where we differ is that I see Iraq as part of the war on Islamofascism and you consider it to be separate. And unless we sort this out, we will never agree.

I concede that it may have been correct to consider the two separate in the beginning. But when Iran and Al Qaeda joined the party that view became incorrect IMHO. And that's an opinion that Bush and I (and Linz too, I would guess) share. It seems to me that yourself, James and the ARI hold the former view. And were it not for the fact that the US is now fighting people formally aligned to the 9/11 terrorists and Iran, I would concede that your logic is unassailable.

And I respect very much what the soldiers are accomplishing from a military perspective.

But it does make a mockery of everything they are doing if the country ends up a client of Syria or worse. And if you don't have the moral confidence to absolutely impose a western system of progressive values, individual rights, and constitutional democracy, for both men and women, and then fight for THAT, then what the hell are you doing? Getting a bunch MORE Americans killed for Islamic fascism or creating another safe harbor for Islamic terrorists?

Once again, I don't disparage the troops but I lament that they are working so hard, so well, so bravely, so self-sacrificially for something that may be the antithesis of what America ought to stand for.

If you can't see the difference between now and WWII, if you can't see the philosophical difference, and discount the argument against the current war as mere treason, I don't know what else to say.

We'll have to disagree -- my disagreement with the war is tentative, however -- I condemn what can still change and make the war valid. But the philosophical roots of the Commander in Chief give me serious doubt about whether that change and that focus is on his agenda where it absolutely must be for me to consider this war moral from a strategic point of view.

No, that is war. And quite often in war a battleplan will go awry and you will face defeat. As Napoleon stated 'No plan survives contact with the enemy.' Which is to say that if you want VICTORY you've got to adapt to the situation at hand. Day dreaming about do-overs or retreating at the sight of a dark cloud leads to defeat.

Seeing as everybody is trumpeting the US victory over the Japanese Empire, perhaps it would do you good to recall the risky battles entered into in the initial stages of the war. Battles where US sailors, Marines and Soldiers didn't run and hide when defeat stared them in the face. Instead they redoubled their efforts, adjusted their plans, played their luck and prevailed!

-The Battle of the Coral Sea.
-The Battle of Midway.
-The Invasion of Guadalcanal (dubbed Operation Shoestring).
-The naval battles of 'Iron Bottom Sound' fought to defend the Guadalcanal beachhead including the 'Solomons' and 'Santa Cruz' carrier engagements.
-The Invasion of Tarawa.

With the exception of battles for the possession of Henderson Field and Port Moresby, none of these battles was fought for possession of strategically vital territory. At the time that battle was joined, the outcome of each of them was NOT garanteed. The commanders took a risk and fought their enemy where they could find him. And there were times in each of the battles of Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Midway and Coral Sea that the US forces came within an ace of being decisively routed or destroyed. Midway especially!

Each of these battles were fought because the enemy had been located and was willing to stand and fight the Allied forces in the vicinity.

Likewise Iraq.

Al Qaeda is there now. Iran has announced its intention to enter when the US leave. How does gifting Iran all that territory and all those oil-fields figure into your plans for defeating Iran?

This campaign in Iraq, whatever it started as, has BECOME part of a larger war. You don't win wars by retreating from contact when yours is the superior force.

No this isn't an ideal option. But at any given time in war you have to play the hand you are dealt. There are no do-overs. There are very few ideal options in war. And if you sit around waiting for them you're going to move so slowly that your victories are likely to be Phyrric ones.

Ever heard of a timid US General called McClellan and the story of how he got is arse handed to him by Robert E. Lee leading a force half the size of McClellan's army? It's called the Penninsula Campaign and is an object lesson as to what can happen if you resolve only to fight battles you can win easily.

Which is an incredibly long way of pointing out that 'No battleplan survives contact with the enemy.'

And if you don't like that aspect of war - don't fight them. Learn to appease and lick boots like the French do.

I quite understand what you are saying, Casey, but we are dealing with 'real' situations here.

However much we may like the idea of a quaint 19th century 'village life'...it is 2007 and President Bush is in office, and troops are in Iraq.

Robert makes a valid point about the Democrat party controlling the US Congress.

I watched the 2006 election coverage on Fox News and as the returns came in electing the Democrats, I proceeded to get extremely drunk and depressed, which is unlike me.

In a drunken rage I said that the game was up, funding would be cut off about January 5th..(give everyone a chance to get sworn in, and that Pelosi female to finish measuring up for curtains in her new office)...and the good people were basically f**ked....before keeling over and waking up the next day!

Instead of getting drunk and morose, I should have realised that leopards do not change their spots ...and the wimpy, spineless, limp dick Democrats were never going to cut off funding..(or implement any of their other policies)...and indeed swallowed an increase in troops like lambs

I can recommend reading the reports of Micheal Yon. An ex-Green Beret and independent journalist reporting directly FROM the war zone.

In one instance he actually entered combat to defend a wounded US Colonel.

Given their relative proximities to the war I'm inclined to believe him more than the ARI.

I, for one, if I'm one of those Hsiekovians, am not saying Bush isn't putting the troops safety first, equipping them, trying to minimize deaths.

I'm merely asking: WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING (AND DYING HOWEVER MINIMALLY) FOR!?

You say, "No one can predict what the Iraqis will or won't do." And this is VICTORY?

We damn well fought a war to predict exactly what the Japanese and Germans would do in the future in very, very specific ways. In fact, that's why we fought the war rather than sit back and not predict what they were going to do. You can do that without fighting!

If we don't fight to make damn well bloody sure what a country is going to do with respect to our interests, then why in hell would we fight a war?

In response to James, I said:

Strange. Every time I've heard Bush declare what's at the top of his agenda it's been "victory," not maximum American casualties. Yes, the rules of engagement are disgraceful, but that doesn't make the engagement immoral or mandate disengagement.

The Hsiekovians are putting it about that Bush is wallowing in blood and sacrifice for its own sake, and that this is more important to him than victory, and that he's forbidden American soldiers to defend themselves, just so that, presumably, more of them will die and better satisfy his lust for sacrificial blood. This is not just fucking crap, it is fucking crap on stilts.

I thought I'd better check the rules of engagement that even I had accepted were as disgraceful as the Hsiekovians have been saying. Here they are:

_____________________

Appendix E: Rules of Engagement for U.S. Military Forces in Iraq

Issued by U.S. Central Command Combined Forces Land Component Commander

A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq.

CFLCC ROE CARD

On order, enemy military and paramilitary forces are declared hostile and may be attacked subject to the following instructions:
a) Positive identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact your next higher commander for decision

b) Do not engage anyone who has surrendered or is out of battle due to sickness or wounds.

c) Do not target or strike any of the following except in self-defense to protect yourself, your unit, friendly forces, and designated persons or property under your control:

Civilians
Hospitals, mosques, national monuments, and any other historical and cultural sites.
d) Do not fire into civilian populated areas or buildings unless the enemy is using them for military purposes or if necessary for your self-defense. Minimize collateral damage.

e) Do not target enemy infrastructure (public works, commercial communication facilities, dams), Lines of Communication (roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, railways) and Economic Objects (commercial storage facilities, pipelines) unless necessary for self-defense or if ordered by your commander. If you must fire on these objects to engage a hostile force, disable and disrupt but avoid destruction of these objects, if possible.

The use of force, including deadly force, is authorized to protect the following:
Yourself, your unit, and friendly forces
Enemy Prisoners of War
Civilians from crimes that are likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, such as murder or rape
Designated civilians and/or property, such as personnel of the Red Cross/Crescent, UN, and US/UN supported organizations
3. Treat all civilians and their property with respect and dignity. Do not seize civilian property, including vehicles, unless you have the permission of a company level commander and you give a receipt to the property’s owner.

Detain civilians if they interfere with mission accomplishment or if required for self-defense.
CENTCOM General Order No. 1A remains in effect. Looting and the taking of war trophies are prohibited.
REMEMBER

Attack enemy forces and military targets.
Spare civilians and civilian property, if possible.
Conduct yourself with dignity and honor.
Comply with the Law of War. If you see a violation, report it.
These ROE will remain in effect until your commander orders you to transition to post-hostilities ROE.

AS OF 311330Z JAN 03
____________________________

Disgraceful? I think not. Argue that mosques and hospitals and civilians should be bombed to oblivion if you want and can show good cause (such as self-defence, which is already permitted) but "disgraceful" not to?

In the world of philosophy, one has to set aside the real world choices and look deeper, in order to guide future choices and consider which of the ugly mix of available choices might be better or worse.

If you started, on a philosophical level, saying Bush is better than Kerry or Gore, that would be pure pragmatism. There'd be nowhere to go from there in analyzing the underling philosophical issues. The point of x-raying philosophically the available alternatives is to be able to fight for the proper values regardless of what a mixed bag available candidates represent. Sometimes such criticism of even the best candidate can help inform and correct his vision -- free speech works in a democracy like America because the President is exposed to it and hears it, or his constituents do and swaying enough of them can exert pressure on the President. Free speech is not just a rooting section applauding or booing. It's much more nuanced and powerful than that.

(I hope that makes some sense.)

No one can predict what the Iraqis will or won't do. Just as no one predicted that the Patreaus strategy would succeed as far as it has. Nobody gave him a snowballs chance in hell, let alone the miltary genius' at the ARI. It would seem that they still don't. And yet military progress is being made.

And no matter what the reason was for attacking Iraq, the truth is that Iraq remains, in Dennis Miller's words, a Iraq is a psychotic salt lick for terrorist to come to do business with us.' Whomever is to blame for the US & UK being there, the situation on the battlefield ISN'T the same as it was in 2003.

Iran and Al Qaeda have entered the equation. Are you suggesting that the best way to defeat these threats is to retreat from them? Defeat in or retreat from Iraq is NOT going to be good - the Iranian President basically announced is intention to annex Iraq when the US leaves!

Iran needs to be dealt to. Syria too. But thanks to the current political climate there is no way in hell that Bush is going to be able to strike either.

Tell Yaron to deal with that reality and cry over the 'milk' that Bush spilt later. Better yet provide a genuine alternative to the Dumblicans.

And another thing, why are they getting a free pass on this 'immoral' war? Why is the Democratic Congress not getting hauled over the coals when they could end the war by defunding it. They have the power and have declared the intent to do so.

This is complete one sided BS. The ARI seems to be suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I can never understand is this view of the World which seems to imply certain events can be "dis-invented".

1. President Bush is bad (they say)

The disinventing of President Bush means 'President Gore' (the thought of which had Democrat party leaders shuddering on September 12th, 2001)..or..ummmmmm...President Kerry.

Are these options being seriously entertained by people? Al Gore running the show? John Kerry (in between windsurfing holidays) as President?

2. Iraq.

How on Earth is that meant to be dis-invented?
Saddam murdering people? Saddam giving sanctuary to terrorists and Drug barons?

3. World Trade Centre attack.

I will be greatly interested in the dis-invention of this one!

What does it involve? ...warm fluffy wankfests with sociopathic murderers would have prevented that?!?!

Give me a break!

in what this war has turned out to be. It was there all along and is now expressing itself like a genetic disorder. A war needs to be about fighting for YOUR values, including for yourself. When a war turns into sacrificing yourself for other values than your own, for the enemy's values, something abhorrent has happened, and war becomes a human abatoire, a sacrificial pyre.

When I ask myself is a war moral, I have to ask myself what I would think if I was on the front lines. With American soldiers sent into mortal combat I have to ask are they being placed in a position where they are fighting for their values, for themselves. Or are they being forced to lose their lives to defend just another corrupt semi-Muslim semi-totalitarian state (colluding with the likes of Syria). Because America is so bent on appeasing the mysticism and martyrdom of our enemies by demonstrating its Christian willingness to bleed, too, not in conquest but in surrender, I have to wonder what I'm doing there on the front lines, what my life really means, and what my death is supposed to mean.

Islam demands martyrdom in the cause of conquest. Christianity demands martyrdom in the cause of self-sacrifice, to one's enemies if necessary. That combination is a recipe for blood. Blood for the sake of blood in a bleeding contest to show who is more willing to martyr themselves for their religion.

Jim's right, that's no kind of war Patton would approve of. And with the willingness to let American soldiers die while Iraqis cobble together whatever Frankenstein monster of Islamism and thugocracy they choose to create, is precisely what uses our soldiers like human sacrifices and makes this war immoral, not just to us sitting at home but to the soldier taking fire, which has to be the first standard in deciding such an issue.

To take away a soldier's right to fight for himself, for his country, for his values, his family, his life, his liberty, his security, is to turn him into fodder. It's the pivot point on the morality of a war, for me.

What if we end up with a theocracy, a thugocracy, or worse in Iraq? We're letting them settle that issue. It's not like Bush is on top of that. In fact, he's using the military to guard the process that takes that outcome out of our hands. All those soldiers' deaths are no guarantee of an outcome favorable to the United States, and those deaths should not have been asked or given under any other pretext. If this is victory, who needs surrender?