We STAY the Course in Iraq, Glad that's Settled

Last night I sat up and watched the debates and anger by the Democrats regarding a straightforward up or down, take your position, vote by the House of Representatives. 

 

Rep Murtha from PA, a good man, had made a suggestion that Iraqi troops be redeployed.  He has been a supporter of the war effort and the troops. He is a vet himself.  His passion is not in question, his concern for the troops here, returned, in hospital and on the battlefield is admirable.

 

But, his suggestion, which he read, and which was a sensible proposal in purpose, was interpreted by the Mainstream Media as:

 

New York Times:  Immediate Withdrawal From IRAQ

Washington Post: Immediate Withdrawal From IRAQ

and most frustrating:  Immediate Withdrawal from IRAQ  (Al Jazzera)

 

I can just see Al Zarchawi leaping for Joy. 

 

Given the opportunity to say publicly on the record yea or nay the "courageous" left in the House of Representatives nearly all voted NOT to support a motion to withdraw immediately from Iraq.  That settles it.  I don't want to hear any more about it.  They talk big, but when it gets right down to it, they want to be re-elected.  If the populace in this country is as against the war as they say in such unanimity it should have been easy for them to say, "I'm for Immediate Withdrawal". 

 

Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey.

 

Consider this from Discoshaman.  See his earlier post on why Vietnam and Iraq are different. And he wrote this:

 

World War II. The 'last good war', fought by 'the Greatest Generation.'

If we had the current press corps back then, you wouldn't know these phrases. World War II would live in infamy, remembered as a casually brutal, racist and hypocritical conflict in which the Americans were as bad as the Nazis we fought.

The fact is, the Iraq War has been held to a standard that NO war in history could ever meet. It's a sucker's deal for our soldiers. The liberals and media set the bar from the beginning so high that our troops were destined to 'fail' at the bar of "enlightened opinion".

In this war, soldiers are arrested for assaulting captured enemies. In WWII, according to one military historian (John Keegan), as many as 10 percent of surrendering enemies were killed outright.

In this war, the media and the Left are hysterical that some white phosphorous might have been used during a fight. In WWII, we firebombed Tokyo. Think on that a moment. We firebombed civilians living in paper houses. Over 100,000 people died, more than died from the atomic bombs.

In this war, we not only try to minimize civilian casualties, but during the invasion we actually consciously minimized enemy military casualties as well. Has that happened before in history? In comparison, in WWII we carpet-bombed much of Europe. (Dresden anyone)

In this war, we're so religiously and racially sensitive that the military launches investigations into Koran-abuse. In contrast, military historians say that the Pacific Theater in WWII had a heavily racist component. While in WWII they interred Japanese-Americans, we won't even search Arabs at the airport on more than a random basis.

None of this is said to enoble some bad things which have been done during the Iraq War -- prison abuse, military obfuscation, etc. It is said to provide perspective.

More important, none of this is said to denigrate the service or accomplishments of the men and women who served in WWII. NOTHING EVER COULD. And that's the point. These incidents cannot detract from the honor due the overall war effort. These men saved millions of lives, rescued nations from a vicious dictator, and restored human rights to countless people.

Hey, that sounds a lot like our troops in Iraq.