WIN it, you idiots!

I was not going to post on politics today, but I made the mistake of leaving the TV on. Yet another Republican “operative” or “strategist” or whatever the current buzzword is to describe someone who makes their living yapping about politics on television just complained that in spite of the excellent economy and all the other good reasons a person might have to vote Republican, Iraq is a “black hole” which is going to sink us. We’ve progressed now in the political narrative to a place where even some Republican partisans are making noises like we should bug out. “It’s costing us votes!” they cry. Therefore “something must be done! Stop the bleeding! Run away!”

Well, yes, because the media has not reported on it fairly from almost Day One and people who live by the opinion polls die by the opinion polls. They can’t stand up to that kind of bombardment. The idea that appeasement is a better alternative than war is nicely rebutted by C.S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory:

The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, or even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil. Nor am I greatly moved by the fact that many of the individuals we strike down in war are innocent. […] The question is whether war is the greatest evil in the world, so that any state of affairs which might result from submission is certainly preferable. And I do not see any really cogent arguments for that view.

As for pacifist Christians – while they have the right to hold the view that war is always incompatible with Christianity, they should consider this before espousing that view and exposing themselves as hypocrites:

I need not point out – for it has doubtless been pointed out to you before – that such a Christian is obliged to take all the other hard sayings of Our Lord in the same way. For the man who has done so, who has on every occasion given to all who ask him and has finally given all he has to the poor, no one will fail to feel respect. With such a man I must suppose myself to be arguing; for who would deem worth answering that inconsistent person who takes Our Lord’s words a la rigueur when they dispense him from a possible obligation and takes them with latitude when they demand he should become a pauper?

What these “operative/strategist” knuckleheads don’t seem to grasp is that if we did what it took to WIN, not only would terrorism be defeated, but they’d have the support of the people again. It’s weakness we hate, not the war, you twits! For example, when Moqtada al Sadr openly fights against our troops, don’t call him an “opposition leader.” Call him “the late Moqtada al Sadr.” He’s not even hiding in any serious way, we could certainly kill him and his subordinates if we decided to do it. Who took Zarqawi’s place? No, not him, we killed him, I’m talking about the guy after that! My point is that while a dead terrorist may well be replaced by another terrorist, the new guy is less experienced, less effective, and more easily killed. As is his successor. We need to not allow terrorism to work. We need to prove to the Iraqis who support the democratic process that they will not be abandoned, and to those that don’t that their position is untenable.

The next time al Sadr’s supporters fire on our troops from within a cemetery or mosque, kill them. When you see a group of terrorists at a funeral, bomb the funeral. They are using our weakness against us because we let them. What people are frustrated with is the fact that we are doing anything but fighting this war in a way that will allow us to win. That is the reason Iraq is becoming a “black hole” to many Americans. Not because we are unwilling to fight it. Because our “ruling class” has proved unwilling to WIN it.