When “Peace At All Costs” Means “Kill Them All”

Posted on October 4, 2006

Here’s a revealing, if short, snippet of how the Daily Kos crowd thinks the war should be handled:

What Congress can do, should the Democrats recover it in November, is (1) withhold funding for the war and other destructive projects; (2)hold hearings on various interesting subjects; (3)prepare the agenda for 2008. (4) prepare the candidate for 2008.

Wow. Don’t fund the war. Simple. Brilliant. Oh, and murderous, too. Make no mistake: witholding funding for Iraq means cutting off everything that the people over there need to fight the war: ammo, spare parts, food, water… It all costs money. So, no more allowance, little GI.

By the way, if you wonder how someone could worship such an ethereal concept of peace so as to want the death of GIs for some sickening idea of moral expediency, let’s not forget that this nugget of what passes for a political platform on the Left was posted on Daily Kos. Yup, the same blog whose founder has this to say about the murder of 4 security contractors in Fallujah:

Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly.That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

They are from the same party that produced John Kerry, the famous great white hope who uttered the unforgettable “I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it”, along with the insufferable John Murtha and his frothing at the mouth about the Haditha case. I won’t even mention the steaming bowl of bovine feces that is the whole “we support the troops, bring them home” crowd.

When your idea of how to put an end to a war means starving the troops fighting that war of everything they need to survive in combat, when you formulate an idea that puts your vision of the world before the right of a Soldier or a Marine to come home and hug his family after one year (or often more) of pure hell, you have forfeited the right to be debated, to be taken seriously, even to be made fun of.

You have, however, won the right to be told, in the shameful words of one of your own: ” Screw you”.

(Crossposted at Raging Anura’s Lair Of Amphibian Sanity)

UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION : The first 2 comments to my post above both make a very interesting point that I’d like to make a clarification on:

Nah, cutting the funding wouldn’t cost a single GI’s life. The minute it happened, DoD would pack up all of its toys and come home. The Iraqis would probably slaughter each other, but the GIs would be safe.

the Military would just extract, like Jeff said.

Based on my personal experience with the withdrawal from Somalia and on my (limited, yet deep enough to be dangerous) understanding of the military logistics required for such a withdrawal, I must disagree with both statements made above.

Extracting over 130,000 troops from Iraq is a daunting task, to say the least. It would have to be done on a phased schedule, over a long period of time. During that period, I believe there is a very good chance that the insurgent ant terrorist elements would attempt to hasten such a withdrawal operation by inflicting a maximum of casualties on U.S. military personnel. Futhermore, they would max out on propaganda by claiming theat the Americans are cowards, and that they won.

Don’t get me wrong, we will leave Iraq one day. Forcing such a departure now by cutting off the money is utterly ridiculous and insanely criminal.

To the 2 readers who posted the comments: thank you very much for your input. Even though I still disagree, I truly appreciate the civil tone of your remarks. I’ll be keeping an eye out for anything else you might have concerning this post, or any other post in the future.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

4 Responses to “When “Peace At All Costs” Means “Kill Them All””

Jeff Molby on October 5th, 2006 11:21 am

For the record, I believe we need to stay in Iraq until the Iraqi people are confident that they can keep the peace without our assistance.

By the way, if you wonder how someone could worship such an ethereal concept of peace so as to want the death of GIs for some sickening idea of moral expediency

Nah, cutting the funding wouldn’t cost a single GI’s life. The minute it happened, DoD would pack up all of its toys and come home. The Iraqis would probably slaughter each other, but the GIs would be safe.
RanbaRal on October 5th, 2006 12:17 pm

That was their plan in Vietnam, and we managed to get out of there. the Military would just extract, like Jeff said. Though I have a feeling it would be worse for the Iraqis than Vietnam was for the Vietnamese. Say hello to Somalia Mk. II, then we’ll be back in there again because the U.N. is condemning the local militias fighting each other and starving the people.
Jeff Molby on October 5th, 2006 7:57 pm

Anura,

I don’t think we disagree. It’s reasonable to suspect that the insurgents would accelerate their schedule as much as practical, but their capabilities are limited.

You’re also right that you can’t extract that many guys overnight, but I doubt I bet they can do it in a couple months if they set their mind to it.

I only objected to the implication that a cut in funding would leave GIs fighting with half-empty clips. Even if congress were foolish enough to abruptly cut the funding, DoD has enough stockpiled to protect the guys during extraction.
Jeff Molby on October 5th, 2006 8:00 pm

…but ~~I doubt~~ I bet they can…