Posted on 08/29/2003 10:47:24 AM PDT by F_Cohen
Distorting The War In The Minds Of Little Old Men
By Lowell Phillips
Toogood Reports
Weedender, August 31
I can't help feeling that I was a bit disrespectful to one of my elders recently, but only a bit. While flipping through a dated issue of Popular Mechanics at a good old-fashioned barbershop I frequent, I noticed a man in his mid-70's, wearing a toupee taking a seat in the barber's chair. Although I was intrigued at the sight, I didn't want to be obvious. It had never occurred to me that maintenance was needed on the real hair that remained.
I have always felt an affinity with the WWII generation, due to their general rejection of modern-day moral relativism. They had lived through pivotal conflicts and true economic hardships and more clearly understand sacrifice. Or so I believed.
The television over my shoulder was tuned to CNN and upon hearing a now common description of a blossoming "quagmire" in Iraq, that charming old man abruptly lost his charm. He was outraged that "our boys are being killed for nothing," and he wondered aloud, "What are we doing there?"
I fought against my nature and held my tongue. But when he said, "Bush is worse than Saddam," I could hold it no longer. I politely but firmly attempted to clarify a few things, and asked how he could come to such conclusions. I wasn't at all surprised, however, when that little old man replied, "It's all over the news."
Indeed it is.
Vietnam analogies, always generously applied when our military is engaged, are now hip deep. The airways and typeset are thick with accusations and condemnation of the Bush administration for alleged mismanagement and lack of foresight, for leading the country into an "unnecessary" war based on "exaggerated" intelligence, and for their bullheadedness in not ceding control of Iraq to "the international community."
In a typical evaluation of the Iraqi occupation, Newsweek described it as "spinning out of control." As verification, the fact that U.S. casualties since President Bush declared the end of "major combat operations" now exceed those suffered prior is endlessly cited. And without doubt the admission by Pentagon advisor Richard Perle and others that "mistakes have been made" will embolden Bush's critics.
In truth only about half of those killed since that declaration have died as the result of enemy actions. The remainder died due to accidents and other "noncombat" events. Moreover, a Fox News comparison showed that,
"U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California...which is roughly the same geographical size."
But little tidbits like this will in no way dissuade President Bush's political opponents and the overwhelming majority of media outlets that have a assailed him and condemned the war since before the first shot was fired. Though the pubic still by and large supports Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism (which Iraq is a part of), and believes the removal of Saddam was justified, the hypnotic mantra of "quagmire" and "incompetence" is seeping into public opinion, as surely as it crept into the mind of that little old man.
According to a Newsweek poll, 69% of those questioned believed that we are becoming "bogged down." 60% believe the effort is too expensive and should be "scaled back." 54% of respondents in a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll said that the administration does not have a "clear plan" for post-war Iraq. And 46% think that some or all of the troops should be withdrawn.
No clear plan? And why should we believe this?
Because the political left and the elite media who ally themselves with them tell us so.
No amount of planning can provide for every possible occurrence and change in enemy tactics. But there is a plan and it is working quite well considering the enormous work needed and the hopelessly skewed perception of war that Americans now have. No matter, we should still believe that Bush and co. got together and agreed to "just go over there, drop some bombs, shoot some people and see what happens."
The hysteria over casualties since the fall of Baghdad clouds the reality of the most lopsided military victory in history. Even after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, when we routed an army in an open desert, few could have imagined that we would overrun and occupy a nation of 25 million people with fewer than 300 American deaths. Dire pre-war predictions of "house-to-house" urban warfare warned of many thousands. Even fewer would have died had it not been for the effort made to avoid civilian casualties.
It is this effort, indicative of our humanitarian style of warfare, which has inspired continuing attacks by infiltrating foreign terrorists and Baathist holdouts. In the not too distant past, and even today for nearly every other country on earth, America would not only have destroyed an enemy's military, but also its entire infrastructure and will to fight before thinking about an occupation or rebuilding. We accepted the ugliness of war and the fact that people die, but it was better then that enemy civilians should die than American GIs. But real-time media and an abandonment of the lessons of history have inverted our thinking. Now it's better to endanger an entire platoon and allow a lone fanatic to fire from behind women and children. It's better to send our military into intact cities despite the dangers involved. As such we should not be surprised that some are able and willing to take potshots.
Our desire to spare the innocent is admirable and it is in no small way policed by the press, which simultaneously complains when putting down resistance is a more drawn-out and costly process. They shouldn't expect it, but they certainly want it both ways.
There is something morbidly amusing about a nation of pundits, pseudo-intellectuals and pinstriped liberals, who likely need time to calculate a dinner tip, complaining about the planning and execution of things as monumental as war and peace, the same people who believe that parents cannot raise children without "experts" and represent an ideology that can't reconcile "sexuality" with the reality of where babies come from.
There has been and will continue to be a cost for defending ourselves against rogue nations and their terrorist allies. Nearly 300 dead Americans in 5 months of war in Iraq is not inconsequential, but this is only slightly more costly than the instant it took to level a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. It is less costly than the opening moments of the D-Day invasion. And it is less expensive that those horrific hours on the morning of 9/11.
The administration's political opponents are watching public support for the war drift downward and they're licking their chops. What goes unsaid, but is self-evident, is that so too are fanatics who seek to snuff out burgeoning freedoms in Iraq and see their path to heaven paved with the bodies of dead Americans.
Americans in increasing numbers are witnessing a stream of distorted facts and unreasonable expectations and they believe. If the polls are correct, resolve is weakening and memories are beginning to fade, including those of little old men with toupees who should know better.
he said, "Bush is worse than Saddam," ... [the] little old man replied, "It's all over the news."THIS is the REALLY sad, sad part too (IN ADDITION to losing ANYBODY on foreign shores) ...Indeed it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.