Saddam's Torture Chambers
The next time one of the liberal "lovers of mankind" asserts that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, or that Saddam Hussein wasn't really a threat or a madman, refer them to this account of his torture dungeons. (HT: Hugh Hewitt).
Please pass this on.
Please pass this on.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:33 AM
3 Comments:
To answer Dodger's query at the top, Gulf War I was darned near perfectly executed both politically and militarily. On the political side, it is doubtful any politician other than Bush the Elder would have been as successful.
President Bill Clinton lead the country when we stopped one focus of ethnic cleansing and removed an evil dictator from the heart of Europe without losing a single American serviceman.
"Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy."-- George W. Bush, On When to Use Military Force, Presidential Debate 2000
Dodger, the problem is not that mistakes happen--the problem is that the administration of Bush the Dimmer were aware of the items required for military success and chose to ignore them.
We attacked a country that was not a threat to our nation or our friends. This was not a war thrust upon us, but a war of choice.
The understanding of our mission was so clear that the Bush administration has chosen a half dozen or so different missions over the past three years. (Even now Carol is trying to make this a war about Saddam's torture.)
While we have the best soldiers in the world, the Bush administration chose to send them to war lacking sufficient armor (for both humvees and the troops).
Finally, the President choice of repeating the phrase "Stay the course" does not count as an exit strategy.
The result of the criminally negligent choices made by this administration is to give a blueprint to any ragtag mob of ne'er-do-wells of how you tie down and slowly chew up the US military.
General U.S. Grant was criticized for his tactics during the Civil War. He was called a butcher because he refused to back off from the battle. When pressed to remove him, President Lincoln said something to the affect of, "I cannot afford to lose this general. He will fight!"
Once given command of all the Union Army, Grant was tasked with facing the brilliant General Robert E. Lee. In a matter of weeks Grant had lost something like 60,000 Union soldiers in battles with Lee's Confederate forces.
Again, Grant was called a butcher. Certainly 60,000 lives lost over several weeks is horrific. But in the prior years other Union generals had lost over 100,000 lives and gained nothing. Their problem was that when casualties mounted, they retreated. Grant, on the other hand, "stayed the course" and continued the fight.
In those incredibly costly weeks, he defeated Lee and ended the Civil War.
Which was better, 100,000 lives lost via retreat with no end in sight? Or, 60,000 lives lost and the war ended?
"Staying the course" may sound mundane to those unconcerned with victory. But "staying the course" may be the most effective and direct course to ending the war.
Post a Comment
<< Home