Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Chuck Hagel, American Traitor (screed 4)

I believe that we can have a loyal opposition. The problem is, when you're the opposition, you have an obligation to add suggested solutions to your opposition. For instance, let's stipulate that the American public school system is doing a poor job of teaching kids to read by the time they get out of high school. (Aside: If you don't agree to THAT premise, you can't READ). I think the schools are a problem, and I propose competition via vouchers. If you oppose school vouchers, you should state why, and state what your alternative solution is. And that solution should not be "keep the status quo". We've already stipulated that the status quo is a problem.

So...we have a problem in Iraq. In my humble opinion, the problem is NOT that we are not winning. The problem is we've politicised the war...and the soldiers aren't running it (I'm old enough to recall this same conversation about Vietnam...are you?).

The President of the United States has vast quantities of information available to him that you and I are not allowed to see...nor should we be. From my bald head to my toenails, I think Bush believed there were WMD's in Iraq...and, ahem, by the way, so did many Democrats. And there is a LOT more scary stuff out there that I don't know about, and I won't ever know about. But I damn sure want to be protected from it.

I have zero military jokes about's zero. Who in the world am I to weigh in on whether or not our military strategy is right or wrong? I might say, "Stop, the costs are too high". But even this is not really fair to POTUS. As long as I agree with the premise of "we're in Iraq to root out WMD's, protect us from terrorists using it as a staging area, and stabilize it so that we can be a friend", then POTUS gets to keep doing what he thinks is right.

I say, let the President prosecute the war his way (He's the CINC, after all. Read your Constitution, if you are one the the few, we lucky few, who could read out of high school). I am not in a position to say if he's doing it correctly or incorrectly. If I hear enough bitching from the Colonels and the Majors and the Captains, plus the senior NCO's, who are the tip of the spear, then I'll worry that we've got it wrong.

With all that said, Chuck Hagel strikes me as a traitor. I don't throw that word out there lightly. He wants to cause the US to lose the war in Iraq. If you want us to lose, or to pull out before we're done (that's not a high-school joke), you're for the OTHER SIDE. It's not a normal war (Lee vs Grant). It's bad dudes in the hood acting out, and the rules of engagement need to be "when threatened, shoot first, ask questions later". Plus, let's let the Dems run with one of their favorite themes...gun control. If you're on the street in Iraq with a gun, and you're not a cop or a US or Allied soldier, you get one warning shot, then you're toast. Plus, I don't see a lot of white-tail deer in Iraq, so let's take away their guns for 5 years, and let them earn back the right to own them. (Don't for a minute think I'm for gun control in the US. We have the rule of law in my hood. We don't need to control guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens...we need Concealed Carry...but I digress).

When Hagel wants the US to lose in Iraq, or to pull troops out before we have subdued the bad guys and set up an environment that won't harbor terrorists, he needs to explain a good alternative to setting up that safe environment. If he can't, then strap a chute on Hagel's back and drop him into a Sunni hood in Baghdad. God will sort em out.

Hagel should say, "I don't agree with how the President is prosecuting the war, and his plan does not have my concurrence, but, by God, American soldiers are in harm's way, the CINC sent em, and I'll support 'em". Then Hagel should proceed to tell us how he proposes to win the war...and that war is about keeping the "24", the Clancy, and the David Hagberg scenarios from becoming real.

No comments: