We are very near the tipping point in Iraq. The anti-war party "claims" a mandate, which is really just another way of saying that they are in control of perception, and the incumbent president and his backers seem to be losing their will to prevail.
To restore some clarity to the issue, Ralph Peters, again makes an appearance:
Above all, we have to maintain a
strength of will equal to that of our opponents. War demands
consistency, and we’re the most fickle great power in history. We must focus on defeating our enemies, brushing aside all other considerations.
At present, we let those other considerations rule our behavior: We
overreact to media sensationalism (which our enemies exploit
brilliantly); we torment ourselves over the least mistakes our troops
make; we delude ourselves that mass murderers have rights; we take
prisoners knowing they’ll be freed to kill more Americans – and the
politicians and Green Zone generals alike pretend that "it’s not
whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game."
That’s the biggest lie ever told by a human being who wasn’t a member of Congress.
Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it’s losing that’s immoral.
How can we win if we won’t fight to win? Are we so European that we have to look for nuance in everything that we do? Have we, as a nation, lost the core of our beliefs to the extent that we cannot see the way clear to victory?
In the same vein, Peters continues:
Consider just one of the many issues about which we’re insistently naive and hypocritical: torture.
Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally
initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed
that almost half of our troops would condone torture in a specific
instance if it saved their buddies’ lives.
The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too – surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive.
Torturing prisoners should never
be our policy, both because it’s immoral and because it’s usually
ineffective. But it’s madness to declare that there can never be
Forget the argument about the "ticking bomb" and
the terrorist who might have information that could save numerous
lives. Let’s make it personal.
Whether you’re left, right or
in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: If torturing a known
terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world,
would you approve it?
If your answer is "no," you’re not a
moral paragon. You’re an abomination. And please make your position
clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just
tell ’em, "Sorry, honey, but I’d rather see you dead than mistreat a
terrorist. It’s a moral issue with me."
There are countless
other ways in which we elevate the little immoralities required in war
above the supreme immorality of losing. Leftists loved My Lai – they
just adored it – but they were never called to account for the
communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot’s butchery was never
laid at the feet of the self-righteous bastards who shrieked, "Give
peace a chance."
And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don’t care.
We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the
innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make
sure we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings.
We’ve tried many things in Iraq. They’ve all failed. It’s a shame we never really tried to fight.
What are we doing to ourselves?