Those of us who support the war in Iraq are heartbroken with every casualty report, but recognize that there is a military imperative for remaining in the region. Those who argue that the war was a mistake have no excuse for asking troops to remain thee -- and are, in fact, making proposals that by their own criteria ask soldiers to die for nothing, as pointed out by Powerline.

My friend Bob Cunningham makes an excellent point about the utter incoherence of the Kerry/Kennedy/Boxer cut-and-run proposal:

The line that made John Kerry famous, said in connection with the Vietnam War, was: "How can you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?"

It is, of course, the reason he was not able to say that his Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake during the 2004 campaign --- because then he'd be hoist on his own petard and have to have called for withdrawal....

But he's not off the hook now...his proposal(s) call for withdrawal...but not for 6 months or a year!...How many U.S. deaths will there be between now and his deadlines(s)?...several hundred based on recent history....this is the very basis for his proposal(s) in the first place!!...so what is really saying? ....... ISN'T HE ASKING THEM ALL TO DIE FOR ---- WHAT HE SAYS!! ---- IS A MISTAKE??!!!

Or maybe he just wants them all to stay in barracks pending "redeployment"?....in that case...why bother with the 6 month - 12 month deadline?

So it's either incoherent --- just further exposure of the utter fecklessness of the left --- or else it is fundamentally dishonest and in a way that is particularly apposite for John Kerry...

Or both. Kerry and his confederates changed the withdrawal deadline from the end of 2006 to July 2007. Presumably this means that more American servicemen would be killed in combat. What was the rationale for the change? What will be accomplished by July 2007 that couldn't be accomplished by December 2006? But if something is being accomplished, why are we withdrawing? If nothing is being accomplished, why not get out now?

It is impossible to take the Democrats seriously.

What more can be said -- either the Democrats believe that Iraq is a mistake that requires an immediate cut-&-run to prevent the useless spilling or American blood, or they are playing politics with the deployment of the American military and the security of this nation. After all, how can they ask American soldiers to continue to die for another 18 months for a what they believe to be a mistake?

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 PM | Comments (181) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

But will the mere discovery of WMDs be sufficient to get opponents of the war to admit that there were WMDs in Iraq?

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

I think it is clear that most of us understand -- it is instead a question of certain partisans choosing to ignore these weapons for political purposes. After all, there have been reports in the press repeatedly since 2003 that have indicated the discovery of these small caches of WMDs -- which are then routinely ignored by the opponents of the war, who continue with their zombie-like monotone mantra of "Bush lied, people died."

And while it may be that these weapons were not, at the time of discovery, operational, it is clear that Saddam repeatedly lied about having destroyed all of his WMDs following the Gulf War, as required by the UN.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

It pains me to type those words. Having grown up in a military family, I would like to believe that each and every soldier is a hero in uniform, flawlessly following the rules and orders laid out for them.

But having grown up surrounded by sailors and Marines, I know that isn't the case. I still remember the night that my father got a telephone call telling him that two sailors from his command were dead and a third was in critical condition at a local hospital -- because one of the dead sailors had shot his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend in a jealous rage. The ultimate result of an act of impassioned rage was three dead sailors. All the training in the world cannot stop someone from going off half-cocked -- we are still dealing with human beings who will sometimes choose to do evil.

Which brings us to these charges.

Seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have been charged with murder and kidnapping in connection with the April death of an Iraqi man in a small village west of Baghdad, Marine Corps officials announced yesterday.

The corps said that the eight sought out Hashim Ibrahim Awad in his Hamdaniyah home, dragged him into the street, bound his hands and feet, and shot him during a late-night operation, according to Marine criminal-charge sheets released yesterday. The troops are members of a fire team with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. It is unclear what motivated the attack.

After an investigation, charges have been brought and a trial will be held. These servicement will be given the opportunity to show their evidence, while the government will be given the opportunity to prove their guilt. When criminal behavior is believed to have taken place, we bring charges and provide the accused with due process. THAT IS HOW AMERICANS DO THINGS.

What are they accused of having done?

Officials here disclosed little information about the case itself. But earlier this month, Marine officials and members of Congress who had been briefed on the case said the eight men appeared to have dragged a 52-year-old Iraqi man from his house in the town of Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad, on April 26, and shot him without provocation.

They said the marines had then placed a shovel and bomb components near the man's body to make it seem that he had been digging a hole for a roadside explosive, and also placed an AK-47 near his body.

I do not begin to claim knowledge of the truth of these charges. I do, however, have faith in the system under which they have been charged and under which they will be tried. It works -- I've seen it work.

There are those out there who are kicking up a fuss about these charges, claiming that they should not have been brought and that American servicement should not be punished for any action they commit in the theater of war. That goes against every American tradition -- and would make us no better than the jihadis we fight. We punish those of our troops who commit inhuman acts against the laws of war and civilized society -- it is our jihadi enemy who glorifies and rewards such barbarism.

And to those who argue that this prosecution is a sham and that the charges are a result of a PC desire to appease the Left, the media, or the "world community", I offer this suggestion -- you are showing the same sort of contempt for our nation's military that those groups do on a daily basis, and you are saying that the US military and US government deserve exactly the sort of scorn those unworthies heap upon them. In short, you have become the very thing you claim to hate.

UPDATE: I particularly like this analysis.

Gary Solis, a professor of the law of war at Georgetown University, said it is unfortunate that the cases have surfaced at the same time, because they provide an impression of a military run amok in Iraq. He said that fatal mistakes are common in war, and that the key to these investigations will probably be to determine whether the troops planned the alleged attacks.

"Where is the line? The line is premeditation," Solis said of wartime killings. "If you make a mistake, you're not going to be investigated. The only guys that have to be worried are those that have thought about doing it and then do it."

In other words, it really comes down to the question of whether or not these guys made a conscious decision to go out and kill an innocent man not engaged in hostile actions. If they did, that is MURDER and they merit harsh punishment -- at least if one holds to American values and not those of the jihadis.

MORE AT Confessions of a Pilgrim, A Tale of Two Cultures, Blue Star Chronicles, A Lady's Ruminations, Blogs of War, Stop the ACLU, California Conservative, Michelle Malkin, Cao's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 04:37 PM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 847 words, total size 6 kb.

This report just in from CNN and other sources. It appears that the two servicement missing since the ambus over teh weekend have been found dead, killed by Iraqi terrorists.

A high-ranking official with the Iraqi defense ministry told CNN on Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers have been found south of Baghdad.

No more details were immediately available. The U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.

A senior U.S. official told CNN that two bodies had been found in Iraq but could not confirm that those bodies were the two soldiers.

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore., went missing Friday at a traffic checkpoint near the town of Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 km) south of Baghdad.

Iraqi officials said the bodies were found in the town of Jurf al-Sakhar, 50 miles (80 km) south of Baghdad.

The U.S. military said Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed in the same attack Friday.

A force of more than 8,000 Iraqi and U.S. troops has been searching for the two soldiers.

In Houston, a member of Menchaca's family said they had not been notified.

There is only one response to this butchery of prisoners -- victory, not the Left-wing cut 7 Run solutions proposed by Democrats. We must fight until every terrorist, insurgent, or what-have-you is run to ground.

MORE AT Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Outside the Beltway, Life, Florida, Whatever, Pajamas Media, OpinionBug

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like they were all against the war in Iraq -- until, when offered a chance to do something about it, the were for it.

Bravo to Investor's Business Daily for calling them on it.

Democrats have relentlessly called, or implied their support, for a pullout. But when they get a chance to bring troops home, they don't back up the talk. Perhaps they should sit out the rest of the war in silence.

Democratic senators had their first chance last week to force the administration to surrender, uh, pull the troops from Iraq. The Senate considered a resolution Thursday that would have brought U.S. soldiers home by the end of the year.

The debate was described by one reporter as "bitter and sometimes raucous." This might make one think that, in a Senate that is nearly evenly split between the parties, the vote would be close.

The result? By a 93-6 margin, the idea was rejected. So much for all the fuss.

The six votes in favor of withdrawal were, of course, cast by Democrats. But a large majority of Senate Democrats — 37 of them — are forever on the record as voting to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

What happened to all the heated rhetoric about the war being a blunder and the need to retreat from the "quagmire"? Is it confined to those six who supported a pullout: Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Barbara Boxer of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Tom Harkin of Iowa?

Maybe real Democratic opposition to the war is found only in the House, where on Friday congressmen voted to stay in Iraq by a margin of 256-153. All but four of those "nay" votes came from Democrats.

Yet 42 Democrats supported it along with 214 Republicans. As pundit Robert Novak noted, that's a significant defection for a party in an election year. The observation that Democrats voted based on what they figure will give them their best chances in the upcoming elections is no more cynical than casting a vote for just that reason.

Last fall, House Democrats had a chance to force an immediate pullout from Iraq soon after decorated Vietnam War veteran John Murtha, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, began to mouth off about bringing troops home.

But they voted in large numbers against retreat. The final tally was 403-3. Is there a resolution short of one that says the sky is blue that could get so close to having unanimous support in this — seemingly — divided House?

So why must Democrats talk so much about pulling out of Iraq when they refuse to follow through on their rhetoric? Are they so politically reflexive against the Bush war that they can't control their tongues even as they know that staying the course in Iraq is necessary?

The Democrats have muttered about Republicans baiting them with loaded legislation. Thursday's House bill, for instance, included language about winning the war on terror and protecting "freedom from the terrorist adversary." How, they ask, could they vote against that even when they oppose the primary provision of the resolution — the rejection of a forced timetable for a pullout?

Well, Kerry says he is writing his own withdrawal plan legislation that could be introduced this week. We're eager to see what kind of support his bill will get — and which of his Democratic colleagues will actually vote for retreat after voting against it.

The obvious answer to why the Senate Democrats (and 1/5 of the hHouse Democrats) failed to vote their rhetoric -- no courage, no convictions. And as a result, no victory in the fall.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

Last fall, only three Democrats were willing to go on record in support of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq -- even as they cheered such a proposal from Cut-'n'-Run Murtha. Now that they are running on a platform of withdrawal, will the Democrats come out and oppose a resolution calling for America to stay the course in Iraq?

Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism.

In the wake of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death and President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad, Republican leaders are moving quickly to capitalize on good news and trying to force Democrats on the defensive. Bush continued his own campaign with a morning news conference and a White House meeting with congressional leaders from both parties, while House leaders strategized on today's 10-hour debate.

A memo from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House Republican members Tuesday to make the debate "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats." After Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was booed this week by liberal activists for her failure to resolutely oppose the war, Republicans hope to present a united front that highlights the fractures in the Democratic Party.

"As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world," Boehner wrote.

This is a daring strategy -- there are some Republicans who are critical of Administration policy in Iraq. But as a whole, the GOP is uspportive of President Bush and the troops in the field, while the rhetoric of the Democrats has not been. Are they willing to put their money where their moutg is -- especially at a time when they claim their views represent the true feelings of the American people? I bet not -- especially because my conversations with folks indicate that even though frustration witht he Iraq war is common, few people really disagree with the policy.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

Some time back, I blogged about Operation Valour-IT, which was a project to supply our wounded servicemen and women with specialized laptops to enable them to access the internet and other technology that you and I take for granted.

Well, the initial goals have been met, but the kitty needs to be refilled.

Please help if you can.

H/T Truth Laid Bear & Jawa Report -- and all these fine establishments.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the local radio stations ran a fundraising drive to supply parts to armor Humvees in Iraq. Well guess what -- the armor may have done as much (if not more) harm as good.

Thousands of pounds of armor added to military Humvees, intended to protect U.S. troops, have made the vehicles more likely to roll over, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported.

"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.

Since the start of the war, Congress and the Army have spent tens of millions of dollars on armor for the Humvee fleet in Iraq, the newspaper reported Sunday.

That armor -- much of it installed on the M1114 Humvee built at the Armor Holdings Inc. plant north of Cincinnati, Ohio -- has shielded soldiers from harm.

But serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased as the war has progressed, and the accidents were much more likely to be rollovers than those of other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.

Do we need to replace this workhorse of the US military with a more stable platform?

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

This really will make for a very different Navy, but one that will be better able to meet the needs of the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror.

Sailor, these are not your father's warships.

The first of a new breed of Navy ship - faster and easier to maneuver - is expected to launch later this year to meet threats including modern-day pirates and terrorists who turn speedboats into suicide weapons.

The Littoral Combat Ship is powered by steerable waterjets, so it doesn't need propellers or rudders. It's designed to go more than 50 mph; traditional destroyers have had the same top speed - about 35 mph - since World War II.

The LCS has a shallow draft and its waterjets let the ship zoom close to shore without getting stuck and to turn on a dime, allowing it to chase smaller boats. The name itself is taken from the coastal "littoral" waters in which the ship will operate.

The LCS will be more lightly armored than bigger ships, but its speed will give it a tactical advantage in combat, said Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, program executive officer for ships, who's overseeing the project from Washington.

The Navy envisions several of the ships working together on missions using unmanned vehicles, helicopters and other weapons, he said. An LCS will have a core crew of only 40 sailors, and berthing for up to 75, compared to 330 sailors aboard a destroyer.

There are two, possibly three, different versions of the LCS being developed and built by different contractors. They will be used to beef up a Navy that has fallen to below 300 ships from the high of over 600 during the Reagan Administration.

Of particular interest to me is the versatility of these new vessels.

The resulting designs feature removable "mission packages" that allow the ships to operate either for anti-submarine missions, mine removal or traditional surface warfare, said Lt. Tamara D. Lawrence, a Navy spokeswoman at the Pentagon.

Tests show the mission packages can be swapped out in 24 hours. And when those mission modules become outdated, the Navy can replace them instead of building new ships, Hamilton said.

At about $350 million, an LCS cost roughly a third as much as a destroyer, he said.

Now there will always be a need for larger, more traditional ships. But these next-generation warships should become an important part of our national defense over the next few years.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.