Some commentators agree, but go further, saying that we are not fighting the war to win, but are allowing the Iraqi government to handcuff us in our conduct of the war and pursuit of certain enemy factions.And some people foolishly claim that there are parallels between the Iraq war and Vietnam.
. . . Are we really forcing our troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? If so, why? Is it because the administration believes that unleashing our forces will militate against Iraqi sovereignty? Even if so, isn't it time we reconsider the opportunity cost of such deference: that this war is dragging on longer than the American public is willing to tolerate?
Will going brutal lead to victory in Iraq? I suppose that depends on what we are trying to achieve there. I would think if our goal is to win their hearts and minds, more indiscriminate slaughter and less concern over civilian casualties would hamper that goal. If the goal is to create the illusion of peace so that we can leave and claim victory, such a strategy might succeed. But if that really is our goal at this point, what a paltry and pathetic nation we've become.
Limbaugh claims our goal is to train Iraqi forces so that they can protect the Iraqi government (which we would prefer to be democratic, but we aren't picky about (according to Limbaugh).
On the plus side, when we pull our troops out, Limbaugh already knows who is at fault - wimpy liberals who failed to allow our troops to kill more Iraqis. If only we had been more brutal, if only we had been allowed to be more brutal, we could have won. Yeah that sounds familiar.
No comments:
Post a Comment