If I remember correctly, it was the Ethiopians who sent their armor in to help our guys get out of hostile territory during the Blackhawk Down incident in Mogadishu. It’s been a couple of years since I read the book, but we didn’t have armored Hummvs in Somalia and a failure to pass along vital directions and coordinates seriously hampered our rescue efforts when the initial rescue convoy got lost en route. Of course a few A-10 Warthogs and a few Apaches or Super Cobras might have made a world of difference in those rangers getting stuck without any means of extraction and minimal resupply. Of course certain medical supplies that are standard issue now weren’t even in existence then, or the casualties would’ve been substantially less.

A German General in WWI said that he knew that WWI was lost when the Americans joined the fight because while the French and British would fire 10 salvos and send 1000 men over the wire into the waiting German guns, the Americans would fire 1000 salvos before sending 10 men over the wire toward the German lines. A Japanese Admiral, upon learning that the declaration of war had not been delivered prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor said, “I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant.” We beat the Germans by shelling them into submission. We beat the Japanese by cutting off their weapons supply (destroyed weapons factories) and then bombing them into submission.

Collateral Damage and casualties are ugly realities of war. That is the reason why spreading Democracy is so important. Democracies do not wage war on other Democracies. The people simply will not stand for extended casualties without a good reason. While many have died and more will die in the war to preserve the new democracy in Iraq, many more will die if it devolves into a lawless state ran by a radical Islamic group like the Taliban did in Afghanistan or the Islamic Courts Union tried to do in Somalia until the Ethiopian Army went in and routed out the Islamists. It is sad that the Ethiopian Army can route out the Islamofascists, while the Democrats don’t believe our Army can. I guess the difference is that the Ethiopians realize what a threat the Islamists were because they could see the refugees from the Islamists face to face and hear first hand accounts of their brutal enforcement of Sharia law. Perhaps Nancy and Harry et al should take a little trip to Ethiopia and talk to the Somali refugees about the benevolence of their former Islamist conquerors. I doubt it would do any good, nor would the MSM report their findings, but at least they wouldn’t be able to homestly claim ignorance on that topic.

And perhaps the the Democtite leadership and the anti-war Left will be remembered as traitors.

Surely the delegation will be treated as honored guests and peace will ensue!

If not, and they are all beheaded, well at least perhaps the Left will learn a lesson…

Well said, now without ignoring the problem how do you propose to solve it?

Not really, I just am not seeing the parallel is all.

“No it won’t. At this point, people support him or they don’t. The interesting part of this statement to me that your genuine focus is on Bush and not the war itself.”

Sorry, my bad. I meant to correct your statement in my last posting from ‘war’ to ‘occupation’ and I did not. The Iraq ‘Occupation’ and the Bush Whitehouse have become synonymous. As I said in my last comment, the Democrats are wrapping Iraq around Bush’s neck. He best pull a magic rabbit out of his hat if he expects his legacy in the history books to be anything but an arrogant failure.

“However, I still support the war and the effort, and realize that we need to win this war. If we don’t, the end result will be dire- something that you and your short sighted friends seem to never want to address.”

This country, and the world as a whole, has a lot of emerging threats we will have to face in the coming decades. Al-Qaeda, and similar terrorists, are just a little taste of what is to come. If Iraq has taught us nothing else, it should be that you can’t squash ideology with military force.

Interesting that you ignored the firwst part of the post.

“It won’t in itself ‘end’ the war but it will further polarize Bush against public opinion.”

No it won’t. At this point, people support him or they don’t. The interesting part of this statement to me that your genuine focus is on Bush and not the war itself.

The same mistake was made by the Republicans, as I pointed out.

Also intersting is the conglomeratazation of the topics of support for the war and support for Bush. Bush has, to this point failed on the battle raging in Iraq. I am severely sipleased, as we’ve founght it half assed. That point is something that I won’t dispute. However, I still support the war and the effort, and realize that we need to win this war. If we don’t, the end result will be dire- something that you and your short sighted friends seem to never want to address.

Call it whatever you wish, parent-child / investor-corporation / whatever. The money is ours, not Bush’s. The people have a right to dictate to what our money goes towards and that is one of the duties of our elected representatives. If the American people believe Iraq has become a bad investment, in both lives and treasure, it’s the responsibility of Congress to effect change.

“However, you are correct in one regard- Congress does have the authority and right to withdraw the 2002 use of force resolution. But if you honestly think that will end the war in Iraq, then you are direly mistaken. “

It won’t in itself ‘end’ the war but it will further polarize Bush against public opinion. The Bush Whitehouse will be framed as a ‘rogue’ administration. I think Bush best understand the impact such a bill would have if it passed (which, FYI, I don’t think has any chance of happening) because the Republican politicos have a lot more to loose than just the White House next year.