Being a fan of Westerns, I caught an old one this afternoon: High Noon. The synopsis of the movie is simple: a small town, with the help of a new Sheriff, finally stands up to a group of thugs, sending the leader off to prison and banishing his henchmen. For years, all is well and quiet.
One day, word comes that the leader has been pardoned. As his former henchmen arrive back in town, fear spreads that the leader will return, as he promised, and extract revenge for his imprisonment. The townspeople, who once backed the Sheriff, urge him to leave, seeking to avoid the inevitable confrontation. The judge who sentenced the leader flees in fear. The citizens of the town refuse to help the Sheriff, leaving him, alone, to confront the danger.
Naturally, the Sheriff kills all of the bad guys and rides off into the sunset. He kept his word to protect the town, even without their aid, thereby fulfilling his duty as he saw it.
Doesn't that sound a lot like our situation in Iraq?
I'm a small unit tactician, myself. Strictly team and squad level command. Pounding my head for years, trying to see a way forward in Iraq, has left me with a major headache but an even greater respect for our troops. And still I don't know the answer. My buddy Herschel at The Captain’s Journal has done some excellent assessment of the situation in this post.
A larger force, in and of itself, will not change the outcome of our endeavor in Iraq. Nor do I believe the political solution that the Dems rave about will work. These people have hated each other, and been killing each other, for a very long time. With the added outside influences of Iran and Syria, peace without strong military efforts seem unlikely.
It's been said, as Herschel points out, that the difference between the VC and the Jihadists is that the VC didn't follow us back to the America, while the Jihadists soon will. If they haven't already, that is. Therefore, victory is paramount.
The Big Picture seems clear: gain a "victory" in Iraq while preserving and building our reputation among Muslim countries and allies. Therefore, restrained ROE's have been the rule. We are also avoiding direct military confrontation with both Iran and Syria for the same reason. Perhaps the Israeli's will soon lend us a hand. Far be it for us to fight a war that hurts someone's feelings.
Incredibly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is hinting that the Dems will stop funding for any more troops sent to Iraq. There is also indication that Pres. Bush will set benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to meet with the addition of more U.S. troops.
It's time to let the dogs hunt, I think, starting with Muqtada Al-Sadr. If we are sending even more troops to Iraq, we must give them every opportunity to win this thing, instead of just making some grand gesture designed to "save face". Our troops have worked for, and earned, a victory there. Let's finish the job and let them have it.
Related posts:
- Will Israel attack Iran?
- 'Choose victory!'
- Time to bomb Iran?
- Al-Sadr wants to wear 'big-boy pants'
- Chairborne Rangers
- Don't trust the MSM when it comes to Iraq
More at:
- The Captain’s Journal » Concerning the Failure of Counterinsurgency in Iraq
- Right Truth: Someone leaked Bush's speech
- Right Truth: Bush gearing up for Iran
- The Air Force Pundit: The Iranian who wants an Apocalypse
- BLACKFIVE: LTG Petraeus to replace Casey
- Flopping Aces: The Successes Not Reported
- Gazing at the Flag: Beauty Queen to Soldier
- Michelle Malkin: Surge: The fors, againsts, and the fors before they were against
Recent Comments