Why Democrats and Liberals are Wrong about the War on Terror

by Marc Heileman

Regarding War in General and "Peace Through Strength" (an historically observable truism), just try to imagine a police officer without a gun. How effective would he be? If you want to use England as an example, know first that the bobbies on the beat are backed up with armed officers like everywhere else in the world - less than ideal for the bobbies or anyone they need to protect. Worse, try to imagine safeguarding your family at night when an intruder is walking down the hallway to your bedroom. Could you dissuade him from evil by showing him how enlightened you can be and hoping to inspire the same in him by your example? People like that murderer will always exist, and they are a segment of the population who does not understand the rules of society that we see as self-evident. How can anyone who would put a knife to a child's throat and then use it on her be "talked with" reasonably?? Absurd.

The intruder and the terrorist have a lot in common. They are not enlightened or interested in hearing form folks who are. Terrorists will decapitate unarmed mothers on TV and call themselves warriors. That's one way you can tell the good guys from the bad, or "one man's terrorist" from "another man's freedom fighter." Again, there will always be brutal people, and some of them will rise to power or get guns. When they do, diplomacy has its limits. We should try it, of course, but diplomacy is impotent without strength behind it and - at the end of the day - despots will only engage in it to buy themselves time....time they will use to our detriment. To believe otherwise is foolish, and history is full of such despots and the fools who have believed they could change them by showing them inspiring examples of compassion and understanding. I can name three dozen such despots who have been on the world stage just in the last generation alone, so Hitler is no isolated example. Where would we have been without the brave people (like you) who defeated him and others like him militarily??

In Iraq, we have again freed a nation from such a despot. Yes, thousands of lives were lost in the process, but how many thousands would have continued to die (as they have been for decades) under his rule where murder was state practice? And how many millions would have died in a civil war that might have rid them of him on their own, without our help and our technology? In tiny Rwanda alone, 500,000 to one million died in just a few weeks time in a far smaller civil war fought with rocks and machetes, so it's no stretch to think that any attempt by the Iraqi people to free themselves from the once fourth largest military in the world would be anything but a total blood bath. A world leader like America has a responsibility to be that beacon of freedom from oppressors, and thankfully, (although he's of course imperfect) George Bush understands that.

The U.S. casualty reports that the media seem to enjoy reporting are never put into context. This is a first in American history. First of all, since 1983, we have lost about 1,200 service members a year to training accidents. We have lost a total of 1,800 in Iraq as of this writing. We lost 10,000 on D-day alone in WWII. Every life lost is important, and I do not undermine that at all when I compare these death rates to history's examples, but we lost far more people in nearly every major single battle in WWII than we have in the whole war in Iraq. That's a testament to the way we fight wars now - surgically whenever possible. We use precision. Civilian casualties have been reduced just as dramatically by our technologically advanced approach to fighting wars. That's a fact that emotional appeals by the media just cannot change.

Further, in the past, success on the battlefield was defined by the achievement of certain goals as well as by the casualties incurred. When was the last time the details and objectives of an operation were reported of? Don't take my word for it, just watch for that yourself in the future. For example, did you know that the entire Afghan conflict was resolved with only 300 U.S. soldiers in only 30 days? That is stunning success, and we freed a whole nation in the process. Some people say we are selective about who we help in this way - that we should do this everywhere if we do it in Afghanistan or Iraq. In this, I agree with the left. But I don't say that we should abstain from Iraq because we weren't in Rwanda. I say we should have gone to Rwanda, or anywhere else there is suffering we can help with. Some would say that we have our own problems, so we can't do that. Ironically, these are usually the same people on the left who say that they stand for compassion. Thus illustrates one of the many logical breakdowns that keep me from being a leftist.

Some say we shouldn't "spend" American military lives this way. I tell you that these critics don't understand that the kind of people who join the military. They join because they want to fight, many because they are the hero type who can't sit by while others do harm to their fellow man. The critics on the left rarely understand that kind of bravery. Liberals think that because they shrink from the fight, then everyone else lacks the backbone to engage in one too - even when it's vital that someone does. Sure, there are a few who join the military just to learn a skill and then grumble and whine to the media when required to do their duty, but these are not soldiers in the honorable tradition of the word. They are fools to have rolled the dice about being called up, just for the sake of some college discounts.

People have a right to be free from tyranny. That's a concept this country was founded upon. In Iraq we are showing that we are willing to put our money - and yes, our lives - where our mouths are when it comes to our commitment to freedom. What a great example for the world.  For those who say we did it for oil or for imperialism, I would ask them: then why did we give the country (and control of the oil fields) back to the people? It's a process that doesn't happen overnight, but who'd be there to stop us if we just wanted to take it all blatantly and unapologetically? We didn't, because those are not our motives - not because anyone could have done anything about it if we tried to. Those who say otherwise are doing propaganda for the enemy - for the terrorists themselves. There's shame they should feel in that, but instead they are too blinded by their need to feel they are right and to get their favorite plunderers back into office. They are willing to subvert the war effort in order to embarrass Bush and end his electoral influence just so they can get back into power in Washington. They don't care how that affects our security and risks the lives of service members in the process. Yet they are the ones who will say that Bush lacks concern for both these ideals.

And as for the number if US servicemen and women killed, we know that 's the deal when we raise our right hand in oath, as you well know sir because you did just that once when it was your turn to save the world as you did. Now others are doing the same, but the left doesn't credit them with their heroism only because they see all conflict through their emotional Vietnam lenses and their need to get their cronies back into the seats of government - at any cost, even to the price of the lives of service members they endanger and help to snuff out by the dozens every time they undermine the US led effort in Iraq.

For more on this subject, check out this link, written my one of the many former liberals who have come to see the truth in what the left is peddling about the war in Iraq. And such conversions are among the many reasons that George Bush got indisputably reelected.

Enjoy the link, sir.

- Marc