You have to ask the question, given the position taken by Murtha, Pelosi, and other opponents of the war in Iraq.

The war against terrorism, especially in Iraq, has caused many Americans to ask if the cost is worth it. They watch television and read the papers about the casualties and terrorist suicide attacks. The media report daily the number of soldiers killed in Iraq but rarely report the positive events.

What if these same Americans had been around in 1944 and 1945? In 1944, the Marines stormed Iwo Jima in the Pacific. In about five weeks, they had more than 6,000 Marines killed and more than 19,000 wounded. Shortly following that battle, U.S. forces attacked the island of Okinawa, where more than 12,000 military personnel died.

It was at Okinawa that the Japanese unleashed the kamikaze -- suicide attackers who sank or damaged numerous ships. More than 6,000 sailors died in those aerial attacks. I am sure the nation was concerned then, too, about how to deal with people who were intent on dying as long as they took many of their enemy with them.

Scenes of the D-Day landings and the Battle of the Bulge in "Saving Private Ryan" depict the gruesome aspects of combat in 1944-45 probably better than any other film. Our troops soldiered on because they accepted the overwhelming necessity for victory in a just cause.

After all, if 2100 deaths in nearly three years provokes such an outcry from our "Peace At Any Price" friends on the Left, how would they have reacted to Iwo Jima, Okniawa, or Normandy? And would they have demanded an exit strategy and a set withdrawal date had it been necessary to invade the Japanese home islands?

Posted by: Greg at 08:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.