A cautionary note: "While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force." That's been a theme of many milbloggers. I hope it's wrong, since otherwise it means that we will lose the war as a result of enemy psychological warfare and "lawfare."See, to Putz, we're not losing in Iraq because of incompetent leadership and bad planning and one tactical and strategic blunder after another. We're not losing because Bush didn't ask the right questions before we went in, or Rumsfeld sent in far too few troops. We're not losing because Bremer screwed up the post-war administration in every significant way imaginable, or because we didn't seal the borders or were unable to establish law and order and provide basic services to a restless Iraqi population. We're not losing because the leadership vaccum we created fomented a sectarian civil war that has grown every year since the fall of Baghdad. We're not losing because Abu Grhaib and Gitmo have inflamed jihadists and isolated us internationally. We're not losing because Bush stood the course for 4 years, watching all of this slowly go to hell while insisting anyone who questioned the war was a defeatist who lacked resolve. We're not losing because the civil war in Iraq has no military solution. We're not losing because the so-called surge and brilliant Petraeus strategy has come 4 years too late.
No, we're losing the war because we're too PC, and we're not killing enough arabs.
Remarkable.
No comments:
Post a Comment