Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Help! Iraq is Improving. We Need More Sabotage!

Despite what one may think about George W. Bush getting into the Iraq war mess, one must concede that his objectives are noble. The American military has only ever been in Iraq until such time as the Iraqis are ready for us to leave. We might have already been home had it not been for several half-witted stunts by the Democrats in congress.

The US Military today turned security over to the Iraqis in Karbala, only 40 miles south of my old stomping grounds, making that the eighth of eighteen provinces that now provide indigenous security. That's cool. We're making progress.

Although it's too early to be sure if it's a trend, the number of American military deaths is the lowest in two years. That's cool. We're making progress.

Despite the death of Abu Risha last month, Ramadi is trending toward peace. A recent parade was held in honor of Abu Risha. Troop and civilian deaths are way down. That's cool. We're making progress.

Which has me confused. Why aren't the Democrats in full overdrive--as they usually are at junctures such as this--trying to sabotage the effort? Careful...maybe they are...

My observation, albeit unscientific, while I was in Iraq was this: something goes good, like an election, and then the American media finds something negative to say about George W. Bush, and then, boom! Roadside bomb, car bomb, and rocket attacks suddenly increase. (Terrorists have satellite television.) That used to just piss me off.

Then John Murtha came along and made all sorts of brazen and baseless allegations, and the whole country went to crap. We're just recovering. That really sucked, and it still does.

I guess a few days ago, the Democrats did attempt a bit of sabotage, but it didn't seem to work. A recently tabled resolution before congress to censure Turkey for genocide that occurred nearly a century ago makes no sense unless one realizes its geopolitical ramifications.
Having failed miserably to force a US retreat in Iraq, House Democrats and their skittish Republican counterparts have now resorted to asymmetrical political warfare against President Bush, his administration and US military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

About 70% of all supplies supporting current US combat operations flow through Turkey. Its strategic location has made the air base at Incirlik a vital lifeline to the US military. It doesn't take a legal scholar to articulate the implications to Iraq or Afghanistan if Turkey denied access to Incirlik.
I'm all for being finished in Iraq. We should have never been there. But we can't just sabotage every good effort to achieve liberty among the Iraqi people.

I don't think we should rest on our laurels just yet, though. The enemy may still be combining in an attempt to scuttle the liberty process there. Al Qaeda, you think? Heck no! The Democrats in Congress!

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

US Casualties Down in Iraq

It's a little early to tell, but it's interesting that US casualties are on pace for the lowest in any month in quite a while.

Cybercast News service is reporting:
Through the afternoon of October 15, the Defense Department reported that 15 U.S. military personal had been killed in Iraq since October 1. Thirteen of these were combat-related, while the other two were not. The most recent Defense-Department-reported death occurred on Oct. 12.

Last year -- during the same period -- 44 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq, all but two in combat-related incidents. That's more than three times the number of combat-related casualties now being reported for the first half of this October.
It sounds like the counter-insurgency tactics employed by General Petraeus are working, and that perhaps the MoveOn.org crowd was a bit premature in saying that he was betraying the US. Hmmm.....

CNSNews adds that
September 2007 marked a 14-month low in reported casualties: 68 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq, a drop in deaths the military credited to the 30,000 "surge" in troops that began in June. Among the 68 U.S. casualties in Iraq in September, 41 were from combat-related incidents.
It seems as well, from what I've been hearing on the radio, that car bombings are down, and the number of casualties from such bombings are down as well.

Sounds almost like a trend...or two.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Passing the Cost of War On To Future Generations

Democrats in the house are now 'concerned' that the $150 billion cost of the Iraq War will be passed on to future generations. Well, that's one way to look at it...

The Associated Press wrote today that:

Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war on to future generations.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

Since when did "pass[ing] the cost of [anything]
on to future generations" stop anybody in Congress, with the exception of a handful of exemplary leaders, such as Ron Paul? We're certainly passing the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on to future generations.

But that's not all. The tax surcharge these congress people are proposing is another experiment in the socialist wealth collection shell game. If you don't make much money, you only pay 2%, but that's okay that we're suckering you poor people, because guess what? The rich SOBs have to pay EVEN MORE!!!

Despite how one may feel about the way we got into Iraq, one of the Constitutional requirements of the federal government is to provide for a defense of the country. Until these loons in the Senate and the House can figure out a way to get us out of this mess, I think there are better ways to pay for the war than a snide tax increase.

How about cutting spending in the myriad areas that they have no constitutional authority over?