Thursday, December 23, 2004
Sticking up for Rummy
Victor Davis Hanson sticks up for Rumsfeld, and raises a point I've been stewing over for a while but haven't gotten around to:
The idiots calling for 'more troops' not only haven't a clue where they come from, but also haven't a clue how to employ them.
We could have 500,000 troops in Iraq and not accomplish anything more than we are now. Giving them all security missions would be a waste of time. Security is Iraq's job, now. Not ours.
Our troops should be aggressively going after the insurgents in offensive operations.
Don't give me crap about why we should spend scarce resources hardening mess halls (HA! It was a suicide bomber anyway, dipshits!). Don't give me crap about why we should spend scarce resources on putting an extra layer of armor on a vehicle. We're trying hard to do that anyway.
What I want to hear from the critics is how can we develop our intelligence capabilities to better find the terrorists in their homes? How can we better clobber the enemy where he lives, where he least expects it?
We have the number of troops already. What we don't have is the intelligence.
Because until we can get it, then another 400,000 troops will just be targets collecting a paycheck and eating.
This is the gaping hole in Sullivan's argument.
Fuck what the terrorists might do to a mess hall. Fuck what the terrorists might do to the polls on election day.
I want the public to be screaming about what we're going to do to the insurgents.
All I want us thinking about is how to get close enough to them at a position of advantage and shove a bayonet in their necks and twist it.
Splash, out
Jason
The idiots calling for 'more troops' not only haven't a clue where they come from, but also haven't a clue how to employ them.
We could have 500,000 troops in Iraq and not accomplish anything more than we are now. Giving them all security missions would be a waste of time. Security is Iraq's job, now. Not ours.
Our troops should be aggressively going after the insurgents in offensive operations.
Don't give me crap about why we should spend scarce resources hardening mess halls (HA! It was a suicide bomber anyway, dipshits!). Don't give me crap about why we should spend scarce resources on putting an extra layer of armor on a vehicle. We're trying hard to do that anyway.
What I want to hear from the critics is how can we develop our intelligence capabilities to better find the terrorists in their homes? How can we better clobber the enemy where he lives, where he least expects it?
We have the number of troops already. What we don't have is the intelligence.
Because until we can get it, then another 400,000 troops will just be targets collecting a paycheck and eating.
This is the gaping hole in Sullivan's argument.
Fuck what the terrorists might do to a mess hall. Fuck what the terrorists might do to the polls on election day.
I want the public to be screaming about what we're going to do to the insurgents.
All I want us thinking about is how to get close enough to them at a position of advantage and shove a bayonet in their necks and twist it.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
I heard on the radio that Rummy had another Q&A with soldiers. One asked him how we could win the propaganda war when the press only reports negatives. Another soldier said that they love Rummy for the simple reason that the enemy hate him and terrorists would consider it a service to their cause if he were gone.
The negative against Rummy was news for a solid week, but you won't hear this stuff more than a day. How can we win the propaganda war? Getting Al Jazeera on our side would be easier.
Evict Embeds
Post a Comment
The negative against Rummy was news for a solid week, but you won't hear this stuff more than a day. How can we win the propaganda war? Getting Al Jazeera on our side would be easier.
Evict Embeds
# posted by 
: 5:18 PM
: 5:18 PM
