Celebrate Good Times...Come On!

Every war has winners and losers. Every threat faces force or appeasement. Most often as history has shown, appeasement eventually leads to more force, more destruction and at least initially, less control over who and what is destroyed. But only modern America can simultaneously win and lose a war, a war started through force and ultimately ended for appeasement which will always make a democracy weaker.

The Vietnam war saw American military might defeated, not by the North Vietnamese, but by...Americans! 58,000 American deaths that were viewed by many as unnecessary were suddenly cemented in complete irrelevancy. They were reduced to historical insignificance by a constant and growing drumbeat of deception, moral confusion and broadcasted negativity. The left likes to point out that Iraq is like Vietnam...and they wouldn't have it any other way.

As anti-war crooner John Fogerty moans, "It's like deja-vu, all over again."

As anyone here might know or guess, I do believe in this war. I believe it's long term impact will be positive. I believe in the military and I believe that the Bush administration does have honorable intentions (no, I don't subscribe to the insane tinfoil-hat theory that a group of people have decided to see to it that thousands are killed and the world is thrown into turmoil in order to turn a buck and actually get away with it).

So my question is: if we, as a divided nation, are in an internal conflict over the reasons, direction and destiny of this war then is it good news to some when bad news is reported?

If the goal of the anti-war fanatical ultra-left (or AWFUL) is to discredit this war and remove ourselves from it regardless of the consequences, then isn't it a good thing when it goes wrong?

I know what the gut responses will be to this, so hear me out please.

The goal of the cesspool of 'insurgents' or terrorists in Iraq is to get the Americans out. The goal of the AWFULs is to...get the Americans out!

Really, does anyone think that from Osama bin Laden on down, that any leadership in Al Quaeda thinks for one moment that they can defeat the American military through force? If you say no, and I hope you do, then the next question is...does anyone think that Al Quaeda is knowingly and willingly entering Iraq to try and completely self-destruct? I would say most likely not. They want power and despite their policy of killing off low-level Jihadists in efforts to take other peoples lives, I doubt that they want to be institutionally destroyed. So then...how do they plan to defeat the infidels? What motivates them into thinking that they have a chance?

It's as much a war of propaganda as it is a war of guns and bombs. One key battle in that propaganda war is a civil conflict here at home. And I'm sorry to say, fellow conservatives and Republicans - we are losing miserably and the country is losing its resolve along with it.

Enter the AWFULs. Anyone can be an AWFUL but the biggest agents of self-defeat are in the media, both the mainstream and the left-wing alternative and of course, politics. The rest, in my opinion (as someone who has been cleverly referred to as a 'Busheep') are simply parrots who like what they hear and run with it, not because they necessarily desire to see the United States defeated, but because they desire even moreso to see Republicans, namely the Bush administration, decimated.

In many war debates of recent, the AWFULs love to bring up shortfalls in military recruitment, ignoring of course that those goals are heftier now and that re-enlistment is at an all-time high. This is part of the defense of their anti-war positition and they want you and I to know that even though it is considered a loss for the nation, it is a victory for their cause. Thus, it must be good news. Right? Certainly a higher-than-expected enlistment would show that young people believe in this war, which would mean then that their three year anti-Bush propoganda campaign had failed. So how can anyone say that lower interest in the military isn't a good thing for their agenda?

The insurgents, in an effort to Viagra-ize their positions in Iraq have changed their tactics somewhat to focus on softer targets, knowing that the anti-war segments may not differentiate (in their cause) the attacks on soldiers versus attacks on civillians (AWFULs propagate this by constantly touting the asinine and unsupported statistic of a hundred-thousand Iraqis killed by the invasion). Of course, civillians don't shoot back. So while Islamic thugs bob in and out of the shadows and still target military personnel, they have spent much more of their energy in the last year targeting the defenseless instead. They stoked a compaign of abduction and executions and then moved on to the relentless murdering of bystanders, women and children. It has become Arabs killing Arabs to try and...um...defend Arabs!

This type of brutal and inexcusable warfare can go on indefinitely. And it will. Because back at home, we have people whose influence and sole purpose is to turn public opinion against the war, strengthening the very people we should all be rallying against. Again, there seems to be some celebratory theme when AWFULs rush to present polls that show waning support. Waning support means more political pressure. Which eventually could lead to a soft defeat, a pullout and in the long run, more lives destroyed by an empowered Jihad movement. It's not hard to see that the un-intended side-dish of the anti-war menu is to actually pro-long the violence through the never-ending call to come home immediately.

I still to this day take on comments from people who vie for the outdated position of being Saddam Husseins pre-war lawyer. While finding WMDs may have been good inasmuch as it would have empowered the anti-Saddam movement and strengthened our presence in Iraq, it would have been disastrous for the AWFULs. Anyone really believe that they are that upset that WMDs haven't been found?

So what side are they really on?

Which leads me to my final thought, though not mine originally. I don't normally attempt to present other peoples points, but radio talk-show host Michael Medved stirred up the pot last week when he asked a simple question: Can you honestly say that you support the troops if you don't support what they are doing?

If you believe and have always believed that this is an illegal and immoral war, then isn't it correct to say that you don't support the troops? Sure, you may wish them well, you may sympathize with them, you may even feel sorry for them for being dupes and mindless pawns being manipulated (I can feel the love!), but can you actually say that you support them? And if not, (back to my point), then bad news in Iraq must certainly be a good thing.

And that is just awful.

Posted by The OttO Show at August 29, 2005 4:57 AM