Political Correctness Now Precludes U.S. Winning A War
By Doug Patton
September 18, 2006

Bill Cosby once did a comedy routine wherein he described the "rules" of the American Revolution. Intoning, as would a referee, Cosby announced that the British had to fight in the open, wearing bright red uniforms, that they must march in straight lines and could fire their muskets only when the order was given. Meanwhile, the colonists could wear clothing that blended into the landscape, could hide behind rocks and trees and could fire at will.

Unfortunately, American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan find themselves in a decidedly unfunny situation that is eerily similar to the comedic description Cosby gave us all those years ago. They are expected to observe rules of engagement that do not apply to our enemy and are guaranteed to get Americans killed.

The recent airing of the ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," gave us all a brief glimpse into the timidity of today's leaders in both political parties. Nearly three thousand people died that day because of our unwillingness to face the reality of Islamic extremism, a foe as evil as any that ever launched an assault against a peaceful people. Over the past two decades, golden opportunities were missed and loyal allies were abandoned in the name of political correctness and military expediency.

Sadly, ever since our self-inflicted defeat in Vietnam (or even, some would argue, since our stalemate in Korea a half-century ago) the unwillingness of our leaders to do whatever is necessary to win seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Apparently, we have accepted the idea that when our enemy hides in a mosque, we must not attack him. While they fly airplanes into buildings, we are expected to "understand" them, try to comprehend why they hate us and not strike back with a "disproportionate" response.

While our enemy kidnaps, tortures and beheads innocent civilians and military personnel alike, we court-martial our own troops and send them to prison for harassing a few prisoners in what amounts to college hazing incident.

While our enemy declares war on Christianity and Judaism, using every cruel, inhumane, cowardly tactic to win at all costs, our soldiers are expected to observe sensitivity toward Islam and never "overreact."

Now we hear of a recent scenario in which American forces had the opportunity to kill nearly 200 known Taliban terrorists attending a funeral in Afghanistan and could not get the order from their superiors to take them out. These are people who will go on to kill our troops in the field. These are people committed to the twisted notion that a radical Islamic state is the only way to govern a nation. And these are people who will stop at nothing to take their jihad to the entire world. To them we are supposed to show respect because they are attending a service in a cemetery? Bury them all!

Can you imagine the response of our generals during World War II if they had a group of enemy combatants in their sights and were told by President Roosevelt's war department they could not attack because it would be insensitive to do so during a funeral?

Our military forces mercilessly firebombed the city of Dresden, Germany, incinerating tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. The newsreels ran the story in our theaters, America cheered and we won the war in Europe unconditionally. We dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more people than had ever died in a single attack in the history of the world. Japan surrendered, unconditionally, and as many as a million American servicemen were spared the bloodiest invasion in the history of the world.

Not since the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese have we fought an enemy who so clearly required death or an unconditional surrender. We have not demanded and achieved unconditional surrender from an enemy since the end of World War II, and we won't unless and until we learn the lessons of 9/11.

Like I said in another thread...nuke 'em all till their turbans glow....

Ex-secretary of state explains public break with Bush
By Karen DeYoung and Peter Baker, Washington Post, September 18, 2006

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he decided to publicly oppose the Bush administration's proposed rules for the treatment of terrorism suspects in part because the plan would add to growing doubts about whether the United States adheres to its own moral code.

"If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions," Powell said in an interview, "whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."

Powell, elaborating on a position first expressed last week in a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), also argued that the administration's plan to "clarify" U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions would set a precedent for other nations that would endanger U.S. troops.

"Suppose North Korea or somebody else wants to redefine or 'clarify' " Geneva Conventions provisions prohibiting "outrages against personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" of prisoners, he said.

Powell's opposition marks a rare public breach with the administration he left 20 months ago. As secretary of state, he repeatedly clashed privately with Vice President Cheney and others who had more hard-line foreign policy views. But since leaving office he has declined nearly all opportunities to publicly criticize even those policies he opposed internally.

Powell has said he regrets that the Iraq invasion was launched on the basis of false intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and Hussein's relationship with al-Qaeda, information that he vouched for in an address before a hostile United Nations. He has also said that he believes the administration should have sent more troops to invade Iraq and provided a better postwar plan.

Powell also allowed his name to be identified among those opposed to Bush's nomination of his former State Department subordinate, John R. Bolton, as Washington's U.N. ambassador.

But he has reserved his strongest opposition for administration efforts to preserve controversial methods for interrogating terrorism suspects, techniques that others have defined as torture. While it is not clear exactly what techniques the White House wishes to keep, sources have said those previously used include nakedness, prolonged sensory assault and deprivation, the imposition of "stress" positions, and water submersion to the verge of drowning. Bush has said none of those amounts to torture.

Al-Qaeda, Taliban prisoners
Powell strenuously objected to Bush's February 2002 decision that the United States was not obliged to adhere to Geneva Conventions rules in its treatment of captured al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. Subsequent scandals over military treatment of prisoners at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and over the CIA's establishment of secret prisons abroad, further cemented his views that the decision was unnecessary in terms of prisoner interrogation and is harmful to the armed forces.

Last fall, over administration opposition, Powell publicly supported McCain's successful effort to ensure that restrictions in the Army Field Manual outlawing torture be adopted as the definitive guidance for military treatment of detainees. His position owed as much to his 35 years as an Army officer as to his tenure as the nation's chief diplomat.

The current dispute is over how the provisions of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions against inhumane and degrading treatment bind the CIA and other non-military interrogators.

The administration has argued that the article is too vague and ties the CIA's hands in extracting crucial information from terrorists. Last week, Powell joined dozens of other retired military officers and former government officials in objecting to proposed administration legislation "clarifying" the article to ensure that certain unspecified interrogation methods can continue.

We have two choices:

(a) Kill them all.

(b) Learn to get along.

"A" doesn't seem to be working. "B" will take a lot of time, and upping the ante on torture will make the road even longer. Makes me feel even sorrier for our troops -- while the Bush administration is playing tough guy in their $5000 suits, the poor people in uniform will be the ones getting their fingernails pulled out.

It's funny how this oft-told advice goes both ways...

If you don't like the way America plays nice and stands for goodness, there's plenty other countries out there having a great time "hardlining" it.

I'll stand by what's right.

Posted by Extensioncord:

quote:

"B" will take a lot of time, and upping the ante on torture will make the road even longer.

"B" requires MUTUALITY; i.e., some reason to believe that the other side also wants to get along. Does anyone believe that? Of course not. So that leaves us with killing them (or, more accurately, killing enough of them to make the survivors give up). That worked with the Germans and the Japanese but it required an enormous amount of killing. The question is whether it will work with terrorists. I suggest that no one knows for sure because we have never fought a war like this one against an enemy that doesn't care who it kills or if its own "soldiers" die. My humble suggestion is to emulate the Israelis - kill the terrorists wherever you find them but deliberately go after their leaders with a vengeance including "assasination". Maybe it will work, maybe it won't - but "A" is impossible (and immoral)and "B" is equally impossible .

The main difference between this war and WWII is that we are not fighting a particular country or countries. In the case of Germany and Japan, their leaders were fighting for the advancement of their country or world domination. We are fighting insurgents and Islamic radicals that are fighting for their beliefs and hatred and feed on sympathy from the Islamic world. Dropping a bomb on any mid eastern country will not stop the war, it will only feed the hate and support for people who would fight the "West". The more we kill, the more will take their place. In their eyes, it is the ultimate underdog story. Anything that would make America appear like a tyrant or morally incompetent only increases the support for their "cause". The war in Iraq only feeds this. It looks like America has other intentions as our reasons for invading were based on things that were not there. This war was lost years ago and will only continue to take American lives until we find a way to bring our troops home. It is a lose/lose situation. You cannot fight an enemy that you cannot identify. We cannot kill innocent Iraqi people because it will only fuel the hate and radical behavior. We cannot build a democracy in a country whose citizens cannot live together leading to civil war. We also cannot leave without some sort of stability. It is a bad situation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ddocman,

quote:

Originally posted by Extensioncord:
We have two choices:

(a) Kill them all.

(b) Learn to get along.

"A" doesn't seem to be working. "B" will take a lot of time, and upping the ante on torture will make the road even longer. Makes me feel even sorrier for our troops -- while the Bush administration is playing tough guy in their $5000 suits, the poor people in uniform will be the ones getting their fingernails pulled out.

"B" is only attainable if we're all willing to convert to Islam.

The "rich" card ($500 suits etc) is about as accurate as the tired old dimocrat argument that Bush will take away the elderly SS benefits.

People aren't buying the "class warfare" act anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by ddocman:
The main difference between this war and WWII is that we are not fighting a particular country or countries. In the case of Germany and Japan, their leaders were fighting for the advancement of their country or world domination.

Now we're fighting Islan which has a similar goal.

quote:

Originally posted by Extensioncord:
We have two choices:

(a) Kill them all.

(b) Learn to get along.

"A" doesn't seem to be working. "B" will take a lot of time, and upping the ante on torture will make the road even longer. Makes me feel even sorrier for our troops -- while the Bush administration is playing tough guy in their $5000 suits, the poor people in uniform will be the ones getting their fingernails pulled out.

It amazes me that people still believe that B is a viable option. To conside this, one must first believe that they can "get along" with terrorist and radicals who disguise violence as religion. How does one get along with people who believe it is their religious right and mandate to kill Christians (often confused as Westerners to these radicals)? We have tried to "get along" for decades prior to the "War on Terror," and if the first bombings of the WTC in the 90's, the Colbart Towers and the US Cole (to name but a few) are any indication that we successfully got along with them, I don't believe getting along can be a viable solution.

By the way, I don't know if it's even possible to "get along" with the enenmy. But I do know this: in WWII, we were fighting an ideology and we wiped it out in a few years simply by killing enough Germans. We've killed a lot of radical followers of Islam and it doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Believe me, if I could pull a switch and wipe out all the crazies in one shot, I'd do it. But it's not a simple "them verus us" situation this time -- something is different. Otherwise, we'd be winning.

quote:

Originally posted by Extensioncord:
By the way, I don't know if it's even possible to "get along" with the enenmy. But I do know this: in WWII, we were fighting an ideology and we wiped it out in a few years simply by killing enough Germans. We've killed a lot of radical followers of Islam and it doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Believe me, if I could pull a switch and wipe out all the crazies in one shot, I'd do it. But it's not a simple "them verus us" situation this time -- something is different. Otherwise, we'd be winning.

We killed several million Germans and laid waste to their cities...then the Russians came in and raped all their women and took back to Russia anything remaining of value. We've killed maybe 100,000 Iraqi scum bags while trying to feed and clothe the other 21 million. not the same thing as total war is it?

I hate to say this but if you kill enough they will all lose their taste for war. We are losing it now because of the troops we have lost. We most empower these people to change. I think the community must understand that they need to take a stand against the radicals or die with them.

This may need to include a war powers act that requires all US nationals of these countries to return home.

Edit: please understand that I know this is not the best way but it is all I know.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: THEMONK,

quote:

Originally posted by THEMONK:
I hate to say this but if you kill enough they will all lose their taste for war. We are losing it now because of the troops we have lost. We most empower these people to change. I think the community must understand that they need to take a stand against the radicals or die with them.

This may need to include a war powers act that requires all US nationals of these countries to return home.

Edit: please understand that I know this is not the best way but it is all I know.

It did work well for Sadamass didn't it.