Not getting the point

Christian Science Monitor brings us this.

Expanding the size of US armed forces could be an expensive and lengthy task - in essence, a redoubling of the national effort to grapple with the challenge posed by Islamic extremism.
The move would be irrelevant in the Iraq war, say some critics, because by the time more troops are recruited, trained, and deployed, the conflict there will probably be set in its course.
But in calling for such an increase, President Bush said the US military must be positioned to deal with terrorists for a generation to come.

I never think more military is a bad thing, being a militant nationalist conservative myself. However, I don't think increasing troops is really what we need. What good is an extra garrison of troops going to do us if they still have a seven step Rules of Engagement code at military checkpoints and a ban on going after al-Sadr? Then we simply have more men over there in danger because the politicians are rendering their warrior spirit impotent.

Instead, Bush billed a larger US military as essential for the security of today's children and their children.

That is patently true. Now we simply have to change our doctrine and subordinate the will of the Iraqi government to our own military strategy. We have to win before they can govern anything at all.

Democrats remain wary, however, that Bush's call for a larger military is a means to make more politically palatable a separate decision to increase troop strength in Iraq. That is a move many of them oppose.
"More troops would get us in deeper and is a military response to a political problem," said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, incoming Senate Armed Services chairman, in a statement.

The Dems just don't understand a damn thing. We're already in deep, and the reason we have political problems, is because of POLITICIANS like Senator Levin looking over our soldiers' shoulders. They are trained to be vote whores, not to conquer.

Gates sworn in

And everyone talks of a new direction.

I couldn't be more in agreement. So far, the basic building blocks seem to be there. The man knows what a dirty word retreat is, and seems to have his head in a realistic place as concerns the consequences of such cowardice.

What concerns me, however, is whether or not he has the balls to execute this war like a war, and not a police action. Are we going to aggressively go after these desert rats or are we simply going to use the Vietnamesque tactic of containment and defensive, reactionary fighting. As far as Robert Gates is concerned, he hasn't let on one way or the other. With all his talk of change, there hasn't been a very concrete definition of what that's going to be.

Further, the word from Tony Snow is that the White House will not be releasing any sort of new plan until the new year. So will it indeed be a new plan, or the same strategy repackaged complete with stacks of bullshit recommendations passed forth by the Iraq Study Group?

What we need is a good old-fashioned, unadulterated American show of power. Our military functions best as a lean, fit fighting machine. We're adaptable, highly specialized in a variety of tasks and able to tackle any situation using the best technology on earth. What were are not is a wall designed to keep out the hun. If we are to win, we must kill. Men who oppose our establishment of Iraq's government must be brought immediately to the table or they must die. If you are not with us, you are against us. More importantly, if we do not win, we lose.

Though any sort of realistic, workable solution to the Iraq problem wil be crippled by constant media coverage and moral grandstanding.

Well worth your attention

Straight from the mouth of an American soldier, and exactly what I've been lamenting for three months on this blog now.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/roe_rules_of_en.html

I stand by everything said. A military is designed to kill, not police actions and not "winning hearts and minds".

But on the bright side...

CNN shares some tragic news with us. Tragic, at least from their perpective.

Coalition forces killed 20 people they identified as insurgents, destroyed weapons caches and arrested seven suspected terrorists in two security sweeps in Iraq on Friday, the U.S. military said.

Yikes. Let's see now, how can CNN spin this story to make it one more cog in the machine of negativity coming forth from Iraq?

The identities of those killed were in dispute, according to wire reports. The mayor and police in al-Ishaqi village, where one raid took place, said that civilians were killed -- including women and children, according to The Associated Press. Reuters also reported that police said 17 civilians were killed.

See, these are what I call "but" stories. "Yes yes, this went well but..." Never underestimate the tag-team champions of liberal bullshit, the AP and Reuters. When you look at the news story in context, this paragraph occurs directly after the one quoted above. So, though the headline is that our boys are making headway, let's take a nice long look at how the tone of the rest of this article goes.

Three U.S. soldiers were killed Thursday, all by roadside bombs, the U.S. military said. Two were part of a Multi-National Division -- Baghdad patrol that was responding to a report of a bomb south of Baghdad. A roadside bomb exploded, killing them and wounding two others, the military said. The military had earlier reported another U.S. soldier's death, when a roadside bomb exploded near his patrol in the capital.
Since the start of the war, 2,926 U.S. military members and personnel have died in Iraq -- 36 so far in December.

To be interpreted as "Reminder! We're losing, our soldiers are dying!" Hopeless, these journalists.

There's something about Gates

CNN gushes over him.

President Bush's nomination of Robert Gates as defense secretary headed to the full Senate Wednesday for approval, a day after it sailed through the Armed Services Committee.
Gates was confirmed by the committee 24-0.

Wow. Why migh this be?

When asked by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, incoming chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, if he thought the U.S. was winning the war, Gates replied, "No, sir."

Oh. Yes I imagine Levin might have liked that answer. The funny thing now is that Iraq now has the Democrats' name on it, and they also have to take a bite of the sandwich if it's later found to contain shit.

Later, he clarified his remark, saying the United States wasn't losing either and that his comment pertained to Iraq as a whole, not just as a military endeavor.
"Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost," he said.

If you are not winning, you are losing. There is no third direction. We are not losing militarily whatsoever. As Gates points out, we've never given ground to those bastards. What we are losing is our nerve as a public, but that's a rant found elsewhere.

Iran concerns Gates because "their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror -- in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country -- is very real," he said.
But, the nominee said, while the Islamic republic is working against U.S. interests, "I think they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq."

Every time I start to get on the same page with this guy, he goes and craps out a stupid comment like that. Iran could be doing worse, so why bother with them? Wake up Gates! Read some of Churchill's letters! The same goes for our entire government, that Islamofascist government is invested in our failure and demise, and the extinction of the Jews. Accept the fact that we must go for their jugular in some way very soon.

Stupid news item of the week

MSNBC shows why Kofi Annan is the unequivocal master of the obvious:

The level of violence in Iraq is "much worse" than that of Lebanon's civil war, outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in an interview aired Monday.

How illuminating.

Last week, when asked by reporters whether the fighting in Iraq could be considered a civil war, Annan said "almost."
"I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there," he said last week.

Please tell me when precisely the U.N. has attempted something "drastic" that has had a positive result? Let's see, how about when they made the drastic move to chastise Israel and castrate them in the midst of a purge against Hezbollah? Yes that was quite drastic. How about when they made the impulsive decision to intervene in the Rwandan genocide? Oh wait, they didn't do a damn thing.

In the BBC interview, Annan agreed when it was suggested that some Iraqis believe life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein's regime.

Let me spell out the subtext that the BBC reporter was trying to get across: Iraq is worse, and its because of the evil United States. Sure, in alot of ways things are more bloody and violent, but it is because of bureaucrats and the media tying our hands so we can't obliterate the murdering filth that festers in the Iraqi swamps. That's what so many of these liberals morons can't seem to get through their skulls.

Peace, but always through strength.

Boom

MNF-Iraq brings us joyous news.

Coalition Forces killed eight al-Qaida terrorists today in an early-morning raid near Baqubah. Acting upon numerous intelligence sources, Coalition Forces launched an operation to detain individuals running a known terrorist cell. At the objective, Coalition Forces received enemy rifle and machine gun fire. Due to the heavy volume of enemy fire, Coalition Forces also engaged the terrorists with aircraft. Coalition aircraft fired rounds neutralizing the enemy threat.

The only good terrorist is a dead one. That is how you fight a war. Your enemy hides in a building, you blow it to hell with air assets. Blammo, wrath of God, shock and awe and all that glory. They cannot stand against our technology and air superiority, SO USE IT.

Upon a search of the objective area, they found two female local nationals who were killed during the firefight.

A shame to be sure. Their blood is on the hands of al-Qaeda, we have only just begun to avenge them. God rest their souls.

Animals.

CNN's dealth cult brings us this one.

Sunni gunmen stormed two Shiite homes in Diyala province overnight and slaughtered 21 men in front of their families, Diyala authorities said Saturday. Since the Sadr City attack, enraged Shiites have retaliated by burning people to death and torching Sunni mosques, witnesses told CNN.

I don't care what someone's greivance is. This method of warfare is completely lacking in any sort of honor. I don't want to hear about other cultures. Human beings do not execute fathers in front of their children or burn people alive. There is something fundamentally wrong with these people, and it stems from a lack of humanity.

A simply disgusting display.

Should I be worried?

According to Fox News, we're about to have a sitdown with the insurgents in Iraq. Well, Prime Minister Maliki is, anyway.

Nouri al-Maliki’s government has asked insurgent leaders to send intermediaries to a national reconciliation conference, marking a new domestic drive to bring peace to Iraq.

I have to admit, when I first read this I was already getting fired up. We're negotiating with the enemy now? Then I read the following:

The summit will not include outside terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. It will address the question of Shia militias, but controversial groups such as Al-Mahdi Army will not be included — because the Shia-led government believes that it can deal with them within its own communities.

That's at least one point of relief. At least we're talking about the sectarian violence and not the goat-molesting 12th century barbarians that are streaming across the border. I'm still worried that certain concessions will be made that won't bode well for the sovereignty of the new nation, as I can't imagine mere words will stop the fighting, or even abate it.

Mr. al-Hakim, an agricultural engineer who belongs to perhaps the most influential Shia party in the government — the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq — said he wants to intensify the dialogue with the Baathists.

Whoops. There goes my cautious optimism, flushed right down the toilet. Read over the name of that guy's party. Alright, now what other nation do you know of that experienced "Islamic revolution"? I'll give you a hint: it's lead by a genocidal madman with a penchant for brown coats and nuclear weapons.

I don't think I'd be hugely out of line by saying that this looks bad indeed.

War is NOT an X-box game

*May be disturbing*
It's cruel, and brutal and dark. Listen as the marine prays for deliverance and he and his budies and holded up. I can only guess as to what that horrible crumping noise is outside the building.

That is what our guys are facing over there. It's no movie, and its no game. Out there, you can feel the devil bite your ass. So, if you see your congressman or senator voting to defund the war, remember that they're taking protection and equipment away from these soldiers, and be sure to vote their asses out so quickly their head spins.