Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Strain

If the military is not being strained in war time you have too many men (and women) under arms. In any case Congress controls the purse and authorizes staffing levels. The Democrats have an opportunity to do it right.

Of course this war in Iraq is optional. Just as a war over the re-occupation of the Rhineland was optional for Europe in 1936. The Europeans passed up that option in favor of 1939 to '45.

I don't think they chose the right option.

Of course with history there is only one way to test a proposition like that. Me? I'd vote for smaller less expensive wars. I'd hate to see us in a situation where 50% of the GDP and 10% of the citizens were under arms.


LarryD said...

Umm, according to the warresisters site, military spending on Iraq and Afghanistan accounts for 7% of the budget. And total uniformed military is still under 1.5 million, for a country who population is north of 300 million.

We are fighting a less expensive war, relative to our historical experience. In absolute terms we've had the lowest casualties of any significant conflict we've ever been in.

LarryD said...

FrontPage Magizone interviews Aaron Klein, author of the new book, Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans to a Jew!

A reminder of what's at stake:

"For the terrorists, a withdrawal from Iraq is the beginning of the end of the U.S. That's the way they see it. They announce they will use Iraq as a staging base against our regional allies. "

"FP: What does the West need to understand about Islamic terror?

"Klein: Six years after the 9-11 attacks we still don't get it. We don't realize we are fighting an enemy that is motivated by religion and by the will to spread their beliefs worldwide.

"We don't understand that with this enemy there is no dialogue, there are no negotiations. Negotiations are seen as signs of weakness. A cease fire, as dictated by the Quran, is really a temporary lull in fighting to prepare for the final attack.

"When we present the terrorists with weakness, they would be fools not to exploit it. When we cower at their threats, when we retreat at their advances, when we restrain our troops during battle, when we announce we are “not winning,” we are throwing raw meat at the global jihad monster and more Americans will die as a result.

"We are in a war for our existence whether we admit it or not. And in such a war only one side can win."

Snake Oil Baron said...

"We are fighting a less expensive war, relative to our historical experience. In absolute terms we've had the lowest casualties of any significant conflict we've ever been in."

All that matters is that the ending of the Ba'athist regime and the preventing a failed state from forming was another small defeat for those who pin their hopes on "alternatives" to capitalism and who desire centralized control of societies. Nations like Saddam's Iraq and the remaining dictatorships, totalitarians realms and pariah states are considered by many to be a form of cultural diversity and should be preserved like an endangered species. The leftists and such will never forgive those who they rightly see as responsible for depriving them of an alley against "American hegemony". If you had done it all without loosing a soldier, killing anyone or spending a single dollar they would not forgive you or willingly permit a single positive piece of news about Iraq to slip through.

Just continue making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan and continue research into making war and nation building more more efficient, less bloody and faster processes. Let the media and the war opponents get further and further away from reality - it will take away from their ability to convince anyone of anything. The more one needs to confabulate to maintain a false set of beliefs, the harder it is for them to seem sane. That will be their undoing.