September 05, 2006
Pacifists kill 10,000 a week...
Penraker on Darfur...
10,000 dead a week. That is the latest estimate of where the death toll in Darfur will be at the end of the year, if nothing is done...
...Do you understand the magnitude of cynicism this represents? For a month or so, we were treated to pictures of dead babies being held up in Lebanon. "People are DYING!" shouted Juan Williams at his fellow panel members on Fox News sunday, frustrated with the Bush administration for letting it go on. The media was filled with loud and passionate condemnations of the death toll. And this was when it was at 300 or so.
But infinitely more people were dying in Darfur. The same Arab Nations that were howling with compassion for the people of Lebanon have refused to let in a peacekeeping force that would stop the death in Darfur.
This is the most disgusting spectacle I have ever witnessed in my life...
There's only ONE WAY that the genocide in Darfur can be stopped. That is if the United States of America (probably enjoying the assistance of the few decent nations in the world, i.e. the Anglosphere) steps in and stops it with military force. There's no other way.
And at this time that solution is not possible, because the Administration has to use every penny of its political capital to keep the WoT going against the non-stop opposition and obstruction of leftist appeasers and "anti-war" Copperheads, and the UN, EU, Russia and China.
We could do this job with ease. A couple of battalions would be enough, if they are allowed to use deadly force without having their hands tied. "Oh no! That would be murrrrder! That would be un-Chrisssstian! That would be WARRRR, instead of the happy happy peace that we happily enjoy so happily now!"
Putting it that way just emphasizes once again how the word "war" means something very different than it used to. Wars are now to stop slaughters. Wars are now to protect the innocent. Wars are to bring peace. And the people who opposes them are the real "warmongers."
Posted by John Weidner at September 5, 2006 08:02 AMA-frickin'-men.
If we have a couple battalions to spare for combat ops, ought we not use them in Iraq?
Posted by: andrew Cory at September 5, 2006 11:45 AMNo. That's what we are training the Iraqi Defense Forces for. Freedom means fighting your own battles...
Posted by: John Weidner at September 5, 2006 05:44 PMI don't _disagree_, but... are you saying that we have all the forces in Iraq that we need? More than we need? less? I tend to think that we have less than we need in there right now, myself...
Posted by: Andrew Cory at September 5, 2006 06:02 PMWell, it depends on what you mean by "enough", Andrew.
Most of Iraq is quiet. What's grabbing the headlines is unrest in and around Baghdad, which also happens to be fertile ground for dead-enders and other troublemakers being funded and egged on by Iran. (And the fact that most of Iraq is quiet, and that the troublemakers are backed by Iran are two facts the MSM doesn't tell us, quelle surprise.) We have enough troops to lock the region down, if we wanted to, but I think the idea, as John notes, it to let the Iraqis do it themselves, the better to learn how to do it. It's their country, and they should be the ones running it when we leave-- not Iranian-sponsored thugs.
We could be bringing some troops home now, I suspect, except we have unfinished business with the Syrians and the Iranians. The velvet glove of diplomacy is nice, but it's meaningless if you don't have the forces on hand to provide the iron fist inside that glove.
Posted by: Hale Adams at September 5, 2006 06:51 PMMy guess--of course it's just a guess--is that numbers of troops is not the problem. Intelligence gathering and the right political moves by the Iraqi government are what's needed. And more and more of the actual combat is being done by Iraqi units
I think one of the most important things we are doing is, by just being there we lend our credibility to the Iraqi government. And our presence is tacitly saying, "Don't even think about a military coup or a (real) civil war."
Posted by: John Weidner at September 5, 2006 08:14 PM
