The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 17)

Were more reasonable rules of engagement in effect, our troops would not have been so vulnerable. For that matter, towns like Fallujah, or others in the "Triangle of Death" would not exist anymore, let alone be an active headquarters for the enemy forces, let alone a theater of operations. Let alone need a checkpoint, the likes of which were the last assignments of Pfc. Menchaca and Pfc. Tucker. The "Triangle of Death" should be a "Triangle of Glass" by now.

Why does the President insist on such rules of engagement? It seems to be a way of moral preening for him, one that allows him to claim that no excess loss of innocent life should occur in this war. The problem is, the torture-decapitations of Pfc. Menchaca and Pfc. Tucker constitute yet another public relations victory for the enemy. Therefore it emboldens them, and all the millions of civilians sympathetic to them. So it leads to a prolongation of the war, and paradoxically, more civilian and American lives lost.

Mr. Bush ought to internalize this reality: The sort of creatures we are dealing with here see such rules of engagement as a sign of our weakness. To win this conflict, and to ensure a lasting peaceful coexistence with the Muslim world, the gloves must come off. Some towns must be destroyed; those "civilians" harboring combatants must be considered combatants too, and some of them must die too. But mostly, our troops must receive more respect, not just as troops, but as human beings. They should not be treated by Mr. Bush as pawns in the weird moral hairsplitting game he plays.

The Democrats have one thing right: The American people do not have the will to put up with a decade-long Vietnam-type pseudo-war where all-out warfare is taboo and endless footsie with the enemy is the order of the day. Why in hell should they have to? With all the expensive weaponry and technology, all the overwhelming horsepower, all the trillions in taxes paid and the millions of lives put at risk in so many silly, mismanaged conflicts from Vietnam to Delta Force to Beirut to Somalia to the inane "almost victory" in Iraq I, why in the world should the American people be pleased with the mediocre-to-bad results of these engagements? Why on earth would they want to buy into another one in Iraq?

The bravado of the enemy is bogus. In reality, they will respond to the deterrent effect of all-out destruction. Not all-out footsie, but all-out destruction. It will have to be so overwhelming and so odious that the Iraqi man in the street starts getting fed up with things, and HE and other Iraqi civilians start killing the insurgents themselves. Not out of anger or for political motives, but because they are afraid of EVERYONE getting killed by us. When the whole Iraqi population, civilian and combatant, is on the same page in this regard, then, the war will end.

One way or another, the enemy combatants must yet make the connection between their toxic philosophy and their own destruction. Sad to say, sheer deadly force appears to be the only way to communicate this to these barbarians.

p>But we Americans need to understand this connection first, on a deep level. That their philosophy will irretrievably lead to our destroying them. Until we commit to this, the Iraqis will remain unconvinced, and the war will go on. br> -- Francis Dillon br> Indianapolis, Indiana /p>

The article "Where Is the Outrage?" was very poorly researched. There are several publicly stated reasons why President Bush would not want to make a public statement about the POW soldiers at this point. Most important is that the bodies were so mutilated that the military is still not certain that they are indeed the remains of the two captured U.S. soldiers. The bodies and surroundings were booby trapped, and one "defense official" told Reuters they might be non-U.S. bodies put there as a trap. Besides being a huge propaganda victory for the enemy, it would be an absolute horror for the soldiers' families to have the President announce they are dead, then later find out they are still POWs.

Second, many experts have said that the alleged terrorist message which Beston quoted in the article was a fake. It was not posted on the web in the normal fashion of other terrorist messages. Again, it would hurt the soldiers' families and the U.S. image to respond to a phony message.

p>Perhaps even more importantly, if the facts are confirmed, it is clear that the enemy deliberately tortured and mutilated in order to create a propaganda event, to invoke an angry U.S. reaction. Shouldn't we think twice before doing exactly what the torturers of our soldiers want? According to CNN, "The military said that because of sensitive details of the soldiers' deaths, it will not be making a public statement after medical exams are conducted, although family members can learn the details if they wish." And Maybe the U.S. military is right in that approach. The enemy sees propaganda value in having the U.S. report the way they mutilated our troops' bodies; perhaps one of the best forms of revenge is to not do it. We should quietly report that our soldiers died as heroes in captivity, and that they will be avenged. br> --

topics:
Taxes, Education, Bill Clinton, Religion, Islam, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Fascism, Immigration