What Do You Call Such Folk?

I have (for the most part) refrained from writing about contemporary issues of any real importance during the college football season and am hesitant to pontificate on an issue right now that my "blood is up." I would much rather focus on the big game tonight pitting Oregon and Oregon State; the Civil War I believe they call it in the great NW. This one is for the Roses.I am almost just as interested in the outcome of the Arkansas State/Western Kentucky match up. Will the Hilltoppers (what a great name) pull one out of the hat to gain their first win of the season. Will the Indians, sorry I mean the Red Wolves, cap off their disappointing season with a victory. We will know tonight. I am not real interested in Tiger Woods apparently getting himself a little strange, but it is kind of funny. What does interest me is the fate of our troops in harms way in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, etc. etc. I am also interested and appalled at some of the attitudes of American citizens toward those same service people. I will try to refrain from using insultingly foul language when I get to that point in my diatribe.

The President of the United States has apparently authorized a troop build up in Afghanistan, but I fear that it will not be enough. Think about it. 30,000 troops would not even begin to fill up by half a good many stadiums in major college football. That is not a lot of people. If the troops authorized are combat troops, and allowed to fight properly, then perhaps they will be able to get the job done. What job? Killing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I did not say converting them or capturing them to be tried as "battlefield suspects." I said killing them. As many as possible by whatever means necessary. Does that bother you? Sorry. Battlefield suspects? Does that phrase bother you? I actually heard a television "journalist" calling these vermin that. Have you ever heard of such a thing? Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, along with Hamas, etc. etc. do not even qualify as legal prisoners of war in my book. What a crazy time we live in.

Michael Moore has predictably said that President Obama is straying from his base and that we should pull out of Muslim lands. That is predictable as I just now stated. President Obama has probably learned by now that his so called "base" is seen by the vast majority of the people in this nation as childish fools. Putting his eggs in their basket is a sure way to lose any minute hope he may have of being elected to a second term. Now that is all well and good, but what is bothersome about Moore and his ilk is this. Do they not remember people jumping to their deaths from the Twin Towers to escape being burned alive? What a choice they faced! Does Moore and his type not want revenge (yes I said it) on those responsible for their deaths and those that supported the guilty? Apparently not. I wonder what Moore's attitude would be if it was one of his loved ones that faced the choice between burning or leaping to their death. Mr. Moore you might be an idiot and you most certainly are a pussy. I knew I would have to use that word at some point. Nothing else would do.

Now we come to Chris Mathews. Did he not call West Point enemy country? He did and the evidence is readily available. Now the question remains - Did Mathews mean that the military was the enemy or just that they are perhaps the political enemy of Obama? If he only meant that the armed forces are the political enemy of the President, then he chose his words stupidly. That is not too hard to imagine as Mathews is a stupid man. If he meant that the military is the enemy of this country then he goes far beyond stupid. Either way Mr. Mathews is a fool and a pussy to boot. There's that word again.

Have you ever heard of a blog called Brilliant at Breakfast? It is a maddenly "progressive" (whatever that means) blog. Jill, the main contributor and the webmistress I believe is so liberal that it makes my eyes hurt. She is however infinitely more intelligent than either Mathews or Moore and makes a rational case for most of her arguments but she is usually so off base as to be unbelievable. (There is another contributor on her blog that calls himself "Jurassic Pork" and so far he has not posted anything concerning the troop build up. I put him in the same category as Moore, Mathews and Olbermann. He is truly a twit. Oh well, no matter.)Jill in her latest post is comparing Obama to Johnson and apparently comparing the Taliban to the Viet Cong. The inference here is of course that this is an unwinnable war and that Obama is making the same mistake that Johnson made when building up forces in the Vietnam era. There are a couple of things wrong with this scenario. The Viet Cong and NVA had never to my knowledge been responsible for attacking this nation on our home soil. Technically the Taliban has not either, but they sure supported those that did. I submit to Jill that there still is an awful lot of payback owed to those vermin. Jill has also mentioned in earlier writings that our military should not be used to kill "brown men." I assume she means Middle Eastern and Afghan Muslims. I submit to Jill that our military has not killed near enough of them yet. Jill apparently believes the war to be not winnable. I disagree. To my knowledge the Taliban have no commander as brilliant as the Vietnamese General Giap. Giap could be considered perhaps one of the premier military leaders of the second half of the twentieth century. He also had the advantage of jungle terrain to conduct operations. The two wars and the personalities involved can not really honestly be compared. Now it is true that the Soviets were not able to win in Afghanistan in the 80's. This may (or may not) be an anomaly. Soviet troops for the most part were unmotivated conscripts and American and Nato troops are motivated volunteers. Also I would submit that if there was committed political will in the Soviet Union during their "stay" in Afghanistan, then the outcome might have been different. It is also interesting that historically Russian and Soviet troops have been of no real account except when the fighting is on their soil and they have overwhelming manpower superiority. Now, no insurgency can ever be completely destroyed as long as there are those willing to fight, but it can certainly be brought down to very manageable levels with a pragmatic and quite honestly, a justifiably brutal use of military force. Now I must give Jill credit where credit is due. She may be right about the war being unwinnable considering the current political administration. Our troops must be given the tools and the green light to do what is necessary to win. If they are not, and I suspect they will not be, then I guess we should declare victory and bring everybody home. Then all those that died at the hands of the Mohammedans on 911 and the troops that have lost their lives fighting them since will have died in vain and we can all sit back and await the next 911.