« The Consequences of Failure | Main | The Consequences of Failure II »
June 22, 2006
Outrage
I have't written anything about Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, or Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, Madras, Oregon, the two solders who were captured, tortured, and killed by the terrorists in Iraq because no words seemed adequate. The whole thing was so horrible that words cannot really express what I think or feel about it. Here, then, for what it's worth, are a few thoughts about the situation.
My first reaction was probably the wrong one, that we should "take the gloves off" and do what it takes to defeat the terrorists. Yes we should redouble our efforts. Perhaps we should even revisit our rules of engagement. But to submit to a fit of rage and issue orders to "do what it takes" would be the wrong response, I think.
What's amazing, I think, is that this has not happened before, or does not happen more often. Think about it. We've been there over 3 years and this is the first incident of it's type that I can think of. All similar cases involved civilians. It is a tribute, I think, to our military that they're procedures have proteceted our troops so well so far against this sort of thing.
The behavior of self-proclaimed human rights groups has been predictably abysimal. Most of them took their good sweet time before issuing any sort of statement condemning what was done to the soldiers, and when they did, such as Amnesty International, they seemed more pro-forma than anything else. "Thanks for nothing", as Richard Hernandez put it. Michelle Malkin, as usual, has the full story. Human Rights Watch had nothing on their home page about it as of this writing, but does have a decent report on abuses by the insurgents on their site. Check it out.
The Democrats, except for the lonely Joe Lieberman, have gone completely insane.
Murtha is a disgrace. He is absolutely out of control. I go to Walter Reed to visit the soldiers too so don't try that one on me.
Their are said to be "fissures" in the Democrat Party over Iraq; one group wants to set a hard and fast deadline of July 1 2007 for US troops to be out of Iraq, the other a "phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year." Neither is a war-winning strategy, and both are completely irresponsible.
John Kerry spun his cut-and-run strategy as "empowering" the new Iraqi government. Uh, no.
In Vietnam we decided to "declare victory and go home". Today's Democrats want to declare defeat and go home. Or just go home regardless of consequences.
They act as if we've not no successes at all. But just the other day we killed another terrorist leader, one "described as the group's "religious emir" ".
They insist that we give these terrorist Geneva Convention protections. I've no time for detail now, but I've written before how ridiculous that would be. Andrew McCarthy agrees in a must-read piece on NRO yesterday. The bottom line to this issue, if you read what we wrote, is that to give the terrorists Geneva Convention protections would be to undermine the conventions themselves by rewarding the very behaviour that they were drafted to prevent.
Further, there will be those who draw parallels between Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and this incident. John Podhortz has examples of them doing just this in an NYP editorial. I guess if you're so morally confused that you can't see the difference between the US, who prosecuted those who committed the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and is investigating the Marines who may have committed war crimes at Haditha, and the terrorists who do this as a matter of policy, there's probably nothing I can do for you.
But we can debate our policies on interrogation another day. What we are doing does not bring us to the level of the terrorists, no matter what the lefties say.
And on the other side, no this is not the time to go on a rampage or issue orders to "do what it takes".
By The Way
Did you know that we've found chemical weapons in Iraq? Yes, it's true. Not a small amount, either, although they appear to be pre-1991 weapons. Check it out. Yes I know it's not exactly what we'd expected to find when we invaded. But neither is it unsubstantial. Richard Fernandez offers his thoughts at The Belmont Club, and Glenn Reynolds has a round-up of news and commentary.
No doubt the lefties are busy telling everyone that this doesn't mean anything, that Saddam can't be blamed, and that anyway it's all our fault.
Posted by Tom at June 22, 2006 7:47 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/685
Comments
I agree that their two deaths were shocking and horrible. And it was no suprise to hear Sean Hannity on his radio show state we should take the gloves off (he used the same words) and declare Marshall Law and shoot anyone in the streets on-sight. That is a very emotional response, but again, we need to remember we invaded Iraq to free them from the oppresssion of Saddam, not to control the country with an iron fist. Marshall Law and shooting people on-sight because we lost soldiers is illogical to me, is this really the act of liberators and how would the democractically elected government of Iraq feel about this policy? This is a understandable emotional response, but in reality, it makes no sense to me.
The problem I think (as echoed in 'Imperial Hubris') is that we have become a soft society with a media that uses emotional stories to sell news. No doubt, those men died a horrible death. However, war is brutal, people are maimed, killed etc, that is how it is. I think it is unfortunate that the media play up this story constantly. Not because I don't honor or respect those two who died, but because when the media obsesses over these type of stories, it serves the purpose of the enemy. War is hell, I flew to Alaska last month and sat next to a guy my age who had a fake leg, lots of skin grafts and many other injuries from an IED in Iraq. We talked about his recovery process and he showed me how his prosthetic worked. I don't want to see fellow American killed or tortured, but this is war, and in order to finish the job, there will be worse to come. I think it is too bad the media plays these stories for all they are worth. In WWII, did the nightly news do a special report on the story of each soldier who died in the mud, or who was mistreated by the enemy and cruelly executed? No, we knew the war was horrible and we hunkered down and kept going.
Looked how fast public opinion soured on the Somalia mission once those shocking images were played out all over the media. We could have beat the Somalia's, but those images sapped our will to fight. And today in Somalia an Islamist miltia has just taken control of the country. Like their neighbor Sudan (former home to Bin Laden, current site of janajweed Islamic militias), this region will continue to act a a haven for African Islamist terrorists for years to come. We ignore this area at our own peril (remember the Kenyan embassy bombing?).
It's too bad the media ('left' and 'right' alike)exploits these stories to sell news. This stuff is grisly and horrible, but that is how war is, especially set in a society where cuttting throats is a common occurance at their celebrations. To be honest, I cringe when I watch a goat or sheep have it's throat cut, but in the middle east, it is part of the festivity. Brutality is a part of middle eastern society (read the history of the first 10 Caliphs after Mohammed, most died in a pool of their own blood, throats cut and bodies riddled by knives). It always has been and I bet it will be for a long time, democracy or no democracy. We cannot lose sight of the overall goal in Iraq by reacting emotionally, though it may take strong nerves.
Posted by: jason at June 22, 2006 5:15 PM
I say that I must wonder at those who do express their rage and talk about the inhumanity of the enemy as if it should suddenly change us. Were people that surprised? Are they that afraid? These men are the same men we already knew would act this way.
did we not see the videos of the Taliban executing women in the stadium in front of her family and children for nothing more than escaping her abusive husband? Are these not the same men that deliberately flew air planes full of men, women and children, the elderly, pregnant and disabled into buildings screaming God was Great? Have we forgotten the suicide bombers who blow up children because they are where the soldiers are? Have we forgotten Nick Berg, Ken Bigley and the many others whose pictures have appeared on the internet with their heads sitting on their bodies? Or the hundreds of beheaded Iraqis, tortured, mutilated and killed? Margaret Hassan? The torture chambers of Fallujah?
why are we surprised or any more angry? Why should we change anything but the orders that require no single humvee to be left alone or no squads less than ten to be out without a back up force (things I think already exist and that this unit violated to the detriment of their commrades)?
All this only proves exactly what already we should have known - if you leave the Iraqis, these are the men who will still exist. If you leave Iraq, this is what they will continue to do to the people without much deterence. If you leave Iraq, this is what you can expect from a future Islamist state. This is exactly why we oppose them, nothing more nothing less.
One more example should simply add one more cord of steel to your resolve.
Posted by: kat-missouri at June 22, 2006 6:39 PM
Thank you both for your insightful, reasoned, and tempered comments. I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with both of you.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at June 22, 2006 9:20 PM
The silence of the aggrieved victime class is deafening, as usual. The unfortunate soldiers will be news for a day or two and then its the relentless idiocy of the Marines and others charged with murder and the incomplete investigation into Haditha.
Now you see why in any left or right wing coup, the press is among the first to be rounded up!
Posted by: patd95 at June 22, 2006 11:26 PM
