PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Nothing has changed. Saddam Hussein is still the guy who defied innumerable UN resolutions. In spite of the continuing "Bush Lied" myth, virtually everyone on both sides of the political divide believed Hussein still had WMD's, (and there are numerous, seldom shown, videos of them saying it) and he made no attempt to prove that he no longer had them. He was given several ultimatums over a year's time (by several nations and the U.N. -- of all places) and refused to cooperate beyond caravan rides for the Hans Blix mobile. He was a ruthless, cruel dictator and was a continuing threat to The U.S., Britain, and several countries in his "neighborhood," not to mention his own citizens, through direct malice or potential. The suggestion that he somehow had changed his ways and was becoming docile, unthreatening, and a peaceful "leader" is absurd – and this is the image that many seek to conjure when they imply that he was no longer a threat. One could have scoured great expanses of Germany before World War II and "found no weapons." Reading Mein Kampf would have ultimately afforded greater insight into the West's predicament at the time. Some common sense regarding human behavior and the nature of dictatorship would have also gone a long way in preventing later casualties in the millions. In the contemporary Iraq circumstance, the likelihood that such weapons were hauled away to Syria is certainly not an issue that the Main-stream Media has critically pursued – though, "Bush Lied" has certainly got its share of press exposure.

The fact that several equally authoritarian, cruel, and ruthless factions are hoping to seize power in Iraq now does not in any way imply that the civilized democratic world's only and best option is to surrender, back down, or cooperate with them. Our strategy should be to intensify intelligence gathering where possible, increase our resolve, increase our overt attack, and loosen the rules we've foolishly been constraining ourselves to during our over-arching goal of eliminating terror associated groups and individuals. I might add that none of this involves the "need for more troops."

Some of the more active clerics and terror scum in Iraq who have been deliberately seeking to subvert any attempts to establish a modern free society should have been eliminated (killed) immediately. Guess what? It's a war. Do the dirty stuff and apologize to wine-sipping New York journalists later – or just leave, surrender. A ruthless approach in our confrontation with totalitarian fascists should have been our strategy from the beginning, but the fourth estate has, from day-one, sought to subvert any attempt at quick and decisive completion of the mission. One of the most serious flaws in the administration's strategy was being too concerned about world opinion and allowing the media to influence the course of a military operation under the mantra, "world opinion." Now the latest whine of concern is that the U.S. after 9/11 abducted known terrorist figures in Europe and took them to other countries for interrogation. Our response to such things should be, "So!" It sounds too simplistic to the sophisticated crowds of journal-land who seldom get more than an ink stain on their sponge-soft souls, but a free country must either engage an enemy or surrender. There's no such thing as a moderate half-war.

Iraq and the Islamic terror network in general, is not a skirmish on a battle field with another country's soldiers. It's a confrontation with assorted groups of Islamo-fascists who pose a serious risk to their fellow citizens as well as citizens of our own country. Their resolve on the issues is quite clear – they're not going to quit or "compromise," short of the imposition of Islamic law (Taliban style) under their own totalitarian rule. Our strategy should be what Donald Rumsfeld answered long ago when asked what our ultimate goal was in Afghanistan. It should be, "To kill the enemy" -- period. Cocktail party appraisals that such views "make us just as bad as them" are total – typical – leftwing philosophy-chat ungrounded in reality.

We are technologically, politically, and morally better than our enemies and at least worthy of defending our civilization from Medieval thugs. In spite of our moral strengths we are increasingly depicted as the weak, pathetic culture Bin Laden described us as (mostly thanks to some U.S. coastal elites and Euro Neo-Comms). This "lets be nice, scared, and 'cooperative' " is hardly a "strategy." If spoiled government paid parasites and a pampered elite of opinion makers can't see the obvious or acknowledge it, they should convert to Islam now and move to the authoritarian regime of their choice (join the "Jihad" in earnest instead of standing by the sidelines pretending not to be cheerleaders for anyone who opposes our open, advanced, free, and – dare I say – "progressive" societies).

Democrats and many Republicans are hardly all that "bi-partisan" when making stupid appraisals and decisions. Being "against war" in the middle of a war is a conclusion any fool can reach who knows little of history or cares little about the rare circumstance of living in a dynamic, prosperous, and open society.

Defeat the enemy; in Iraq, in the Philippines, in Thailand, in Iran, in Afghanistan, and the suburbs of Paris etc. The enemy is fundamentalist, Islamic Fascism. Their facilitators are the usual motley crowd of intellectuals, artistes, and bureaucrats whose only allegiance is to their own grossly inflated egos. This perennial ideology (totalitarian) and those who support and spread it through terror are the enemies in a global war. Defeat them -- with unapologetic force -- period. That doesn't "make us just like them," it makes us as objective as other more sober generations when they also confronted clear and obvious evils.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 2:11 PM