Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The left’s body count dilemma

The American Thinker

This is such an interesting commentary on the 'lefts' (read: Neo-Socialists, my new term for Progressives,Greens,Democrats) dilemma regarding body counts. I was listening to Michael Medved driving home last night. Michael was talking about the Lefts problem with dummying up any numbers they use. Jason called in and talked about how the Pentagon is hiding the true number of casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan war. He said that there are really 6,000 KIA in Iraq, he also said there were still 40,000 MIA never listed for the Vietnam War. Yeah, I know the guys a koolaid drinker but he honestly believes that the NYT's is controlled by the Pentagon. Huh? There were other numbers he cited that were just as outrageous as the ones above. He isn't the first person I've heard call into Medveds show citing statistics like these. There is an irrational tone to these type of people but they are the face of the Democrat Party. This is promoted by people like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

Hanson says:
Yet, in opposition to the current global struggle against Islamo-fascism, the left’s primary public relations gimmick is to roll out the casualty tote board, and present a phony concern about the numbers of Americans killed and wounded, in an effort to convince us that the war is a failure. When US dead reached the 1,000 mark last year, we might as well have been watching a Jerry Lewis Telethon, as the lights flashed and the drums rolled, seemingly almost celebrating breaking the donation record from the previous year. The peace-at-any-price crowd therefore, seems to think that if we must go to war, success of a military operation consists in having few or no casualties, regardless if the operational or strategic goals are achieved; and, that it’s really never worth it anyway, since they wouldn’t have died if they hadn’t of gone over there in the first place.

Of course, the left touts our almost non-existent casualties in our “pure” and necessary actions in Bosnia and Kosovo as the epitome of complete victories. They proclaim these operations as successful since the bill, in terms of our dead, was cheap. In fact, the pre-condition set by the Commander-in-Chief was no or low casualties, not that any operational objectives be achieved. Interestingly, his military chiefs were enthusiastic with this criterion, since the burden of real and tough decision-making would now be removed from their shoulders. But nine years later, as US forces finally leave the Balkans, there still exists a restive population with the added side effect of a well-established terror base. This proves the old adage: you get what you pay for.

There is nothing that sets my teeth on edge more than the phony concern spouting from the anti war koolaid drinkers screaming to bring our troops home. They say that is how they support the troops. The moral equivalency crowd can't distinguish right from wrong or a bloody thirsty killing terrorist from a professional soldier protecting people harangued by the terrorists.


WWW MyView