Current discussion in The House about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan

Right now you can watch the discussion on CSPAN on whether or not we should stay in Afghanistan or not. The resolution would call for all troops to be out of the country by 31 December 2011.

As I type this Ron Paul is speaking and citing financial reasons, and the death of US Servicemembers as reasons to get out. Along with that he is claiming that we are at this point merely doing it to "save face," that war was never actually declared, and that all we're doing is providing more incentive for the taliban and al quaeda.

He may have some points. I do think Bush should have tried to get a declaration of war against the Taliban, and certainly since this conflict has been going on for a decade the cost has started to build up. Maybe if Congress and the liberals had let our armed forces fight the enemy, and cared for our servicemembers as much as they do about the radical muslims, the war would be won by now. Maybe if congress quit trying to run wars, which they've done ever since the The Forgotten War in Korea, we would start having success again. Maybe if the progressives and the liberals had let our military fight a total war, hadn't limited their ability to call for artillery or air strikes, and had focused on killing bad guys and defending our country instead of talking and worrying about whether little girls in that country can read or not.

Duncan Hunter, a Republican Representative from California who served in the Marine Corps and deployed twice to Iraq and once to Afghanistan has also spoken. "Feel free to quote me if you want to quote someone who has been there" he said. He spoke about how we were there to defend our country and get rid of our enemies, not nation build. He hit the nail on the head. We shouldn't be nation building. We should be killing dirtbags.

Unfortunately our inept Congress hasn't let our Generals fight the way we should. In doing so we've been there much longer than intended. Money has added up. Men have died. Let's let General Petraeus and the men over there blitzkrieg that hole and finish this fight.

This is just great

From The Telegraph:
Dead Men Risen: The snipers' story
Operating from a remote patrol base in Helmand, two British snipers were responsible for killing 75 Taliban fighters in just 40 days. In one remarkable feat of marksmanship, two insurgents were dispatched with a single bullet...

I salute you good Sir.

Party time at the White House

There is turmoil all over the middle east. We have troops in Afghanistan engaging in regular combat. We have liberal zealots in Wisconsin sending death threats to 18 of the Republican legislators in that state, (wausaudailyherald.com.) There is devastation in Japan. Israelis are getting killed by Palestinian terrorists, (Reuters.)

Don't worry. The parties in DC won't stop. It's party time! (Yahoo News.)

Tough Month in Afghanistan

All I can say is that I sure as hell hope that General Petraeus can turn this thing around over in Afghanistan. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to suspect otherwise. The man turned Iraq into a victory, and seems to have better credentials than his predecessor. After all, as it turns out, General McChrystal was a left winger who wouldn't even allow Fox News to be played in the wire. No wonder we haven't been making enough headway over there; liberals never fight to win!

But I digress. According to the AP, 23 US Servicemembers have died so far this month. That's a tough month. That's a number that doesn't even include the numerous Packistanis who have been killed by taliban fighters, and international troops, including Brits and Germans, who have experienced numerous attacks on their convoys.

Yet something is wrong here. We continue to refuse to fight a total war. After conducting operations this month, in which eight taliban fighters were taken into custody, over one thousand "civilians" protested chanting "Death to America, long live Islam!" What am I missing here? As the left continues to bend over backward to prove that America is not anti-Islam, (a policy I haven't quite figured out yet) Islam continues to openly denounce the United States.

The taliban has many dedicated radicals who are willing to fight to the death. Yet the seemingly never ending amount of IEDS, and suicide bombs put in motercycles and cars prove that they are getting constant help. The only way they are able to continue fighting as they do, is that they are being consistently harbored, lied for, and protected.

In short, there are very few innocents over there.

Do I advocate the killing of women and children? Of course not. Do I advocate striving for victory in a fierce, drawn out war, even if it means more women and children dying? Of course. This country has made a mistake of too firmly claiming that we are not at war with Afghanistan, but only a small radical sect. Is this sect very small, and how "radical" is it compared to the rest of Islam? As for the second question, I do not know for sure. Yet it is obvious that the force which we are up against is not small at all. The majority may not be up in the hills with AKs, but that doesn't mean they aren't part of the war effort.

I do not for a moment suggest that it is an easy thing to do for a family in Afghanistan to put themselves on the line, and take a stand against these insurgents. I will suggest however, that they need to do the right thing.

I'm all for hearts and minds, but let's get real; many times what that means is two rounds in the heart and one round in the mind. A reluctant enemy is still an enemy.