#9 About time. I wonder if they read this passage from this essay?
A Tale of Two Vases
May 31, 2004
While we are on the topic of roadside attacks, there is another issue that usually goes without comment, save for a few remarks by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (U.S. ARMY retired) on FOXâs âThe OâReilly Factorâ last month: The ghoulish celebrants that gather at the site of practically every wrecked Coalition (re: U.S.) vehicle must be punished. In the Middle East, perception is everything. And scenes of heavily-armed Iraqis hamming it up for the cameras while American vehicles (and on some occasions, bodies) burn only serve to goad would-be Jihadis and insurgents alike. These images convey American weakness and embolden the enemy. From the outset we should have made it clear in Arabic-worded leaflets, radio and televised broadcasts, and posted-signs that any persons seen celebrating at the scene of any damaged or destroyed Coalition vehicle would be considered hostile and dealt with in a most pitiless and ruthless manner. Whether its Hellfire missiles, .50 caliber rounds, time-on-target mortar or artillery fire, M1A1 tank fire, Bradley 25 mm cannon fire, or 5.56 small-arms fire, these miscreants should be mowed down without mercy. If you are going to gloat over American deaths, do it in the privacy of your miserable hovel. It is particularly galling to watch Iraqi barbarians brandishing AK-47s and R.P.G.s dancing, singing, and shouting Islamist victory slogans with complete impunity. War is Hell, so why not make it so for your enemies? I have yet to read or hear a single compelling argument against this proposal. Spare me the nonsense about it âgenerating more enemiesâ or âinciting more hatredâ; I saw plenty of hatred on September 11, 2001 when not a single American soldier was inside Iraq. This admittedly SS-style harsh policyâs payoff comes in the form of fear and respect, and yes, scores, perhaps hundreds of dead insurgents. A few clear messages get etched in stone: âYou dance, you dieâ and âyou mess with us, you die.â Think these are the ravings of an armchair general? Think again. No less than Walter Russell Mead and John Lewis Gaddis expressed similar sentiments. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Adam Wolfson noted justifications for the Iraq War in his review of several post-9-11 books:
âAnd still yet another rationale was that of ending a brutal and sadistic tyranny and spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. These were all acceptable reasons for war, but largely left out was the vital argument that, as Mead writes, âthe United States needed to make a powerful statement to its enemies in the Middle East. . . . This was a war, and the enemy had to learn who was the strongest and, if it came to that, the most ruthless.â In partial agreement with Mead, Gaddis comments that a deeper purpose served by the Iraq war (like the earlier Afghanistan campaign) was, possibly, âthe psychological value of victory--of defeating an adversary sufficiently thoroughly that you shatter the confidence of others, so that they'll roll over themselves before you have to roll over them.ââ
Right now, with each and every unpunished post-IED attack celebration, the insurgents, Jihadis, and Al-Sadr-inspired scum roll over themselves in laughter.
|
U.S. warplanes and helicopters bombed two villages near the restive city of Ramadi, killing an estimated 70 militants, the military said Monday, though witnesses said at least 39 of the dead were civilians.