War �

I have to say this up front: I am amazed at the skill and precision that our combined fighting forces have exhibited during the opening of this conflict with Iraq. When you look at the massive numbers of Iraqi military casualties and contrast that with the Red Cross�s official number of civilian casualties, one can�t help but be impressed. God bless�em; they�re killing the bad guys without harming the spectators.

Now that we�ve hit a pause in the action � due to sandstorm � perhaps we should reflect back on why this action is very much different from Vietnam.

Oh, I�ve heard the litany from the usual suspects that this is exactly like Vietnam and that we�re going to get bogged down in a war of attrition with an intractable foe. The same nattering nabobs of negativism have been saying that very same thing every time America puts it�s military in harm�s way. They may have even been slightly correct in saying this about Gulf War I. Both were limited actions designed not with victory in mind, but restoration of the status quo ante bellum.

This conflict is different, and more closely resembles our actions in Europe during the middle of the last century. The as now, we are attempting to destroy a regime, killing or imprisoning all the major players and liberating a country from the clutches of a foul, dictatorial madman. It will only end with Saddam's head on a stick, not some convoluted peace treaty that lets him go. More than that, we�ve coupled this liberation / invasion with a massive humanitarian project that seeks to feed the Iraqi people at the same time. If those shameful clowns that run the Nobel Committee weren�t a bunch of socialist, America-hating Euro-weenies, they�d nominate George Bush for the Peace Prize, not that those mean all that much these days.

No, things are actually going well, despite all the doom and gloom from the BBC, CBC and Al Jeezera. Bryan Preston and Chris Regan for National Review Online put together a tick-tock that's as comprehensive as I can find anywhere on the net. Money passage:

To review the present reality: Of the 300,000 or so allied troops engaged in this conflict, to date fewer than two dozen have been killed, with another couple dozen injured and a handful taken prisoner by the enemy. U.S. casualties include one killed and another dozen injured when a fellow soldier "fragged" his own officers. The preponderance of British casualties have occurred in crashes, mechanical difficulties, and at least one friendly fire incident. The Iraqi regular forces have been thus far unable to mount any organized resistance, have lost control of most of their country and have already resorted to illegal tactics such as donning civilian clothing and faking surrenders before opening fire. Ten thousand of them, from the lowest private to a couple of generals, have already surrendered to allied forces and are reportedly providing intelligence on troop positions throughout Iraq. In all, these are not the acts of any army that expects victory, but is in fact merely trying to forestall inevitable destruction. U.S. Patriot missile batteries have thus far scored perfectly, knocking down each missile the Iraqis manage to lob at our rear positions in Kuwait. Each missile fired represents a desperate gasp from a regime slowly strangling from assault without and a lack of popular support within. Whether Saddam lives or not at the moment is incidental � his regime is dying.

Despite, what you hear on NPR, we do seem to be winning the war.

And it�s malcontents

I did happen to catch CNN�s coverage of war protest march in New York City this weekend. In general, I respect people right to say and believe foolish things. However, one �man in the street� interview really got to the bottom of why so many otherwise clearly thinking people are so violently opposed to overthrowing Saddam Hussien�s genocidal regime. The reporter, whose name I don�t remember (sorry, I�m usually better about that than most) asked a gray-haired, grandmotherly-type about her reasons for marching. She spouted off the usual left-wing pap � no blood for oil, etc � then she stated her real reason: George Bush wasn�t even �legitimately elected�.

I said this earlier: a huge percentage of the peacenik movement really just hates George Bush and still upset about Florida. These, of course, were the same people that wanted the Republicans to �move on� after the Monica-gate.

It�s sad, really. Here we are in a time of terrible tumult � Islamo-fascists attacking Americans on American soil in broad daylight and on national television � and all they care about is Al Gore losing an election on a technicality.

If this is the best the anti-war movement / Democratic party can come up with, they�ll be out of power for at least a generation.

And that�s not a bad thing either.

One good thing about the part 1....

Word has it that Tina Brown, ex-editor of Talk that abysmal, self-absorbed, celebrity-soaked journal of the Beautiful People, has had her show with CNBC delayed due to war coverage.

To quote Kilgore: someday, this war's gonna end.

27 Mar 03 dpny