- Rockford visitor spending jumps
- The misguided Cecil the lion debate
- State, union extend contract again
- Willow Creek left in the dust by development
- CUB helps residents find best deal
- What the Scott Walker fundraising controversy means for 2016
- Corn prices fade as supplies stay in surplus
- Cubs make history in an unfortunate way
- Pension battle headed for SCOTUS?
- Closed for Progress: downtown’s steady revival
To the Editor: The real reason for the wars
And so it goes. It’s now clear that in regard to the twin Vietnam-like-in-every-respect wars we’re currently mired in, and about to spin off a triplicate of in Pakistan, the better to tempt ourselves, eventually, into making a pincers movement against Iran, the previous president and the current occupant are Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Obama’s new surge-to-purge in Afghanistan, the lucubration of a year’s worth of monastic study and reflection is—just more of the same! Heck, let’s really do this thing right, if we’re going to, and bring back Rumsfeld, too. The great dailies of the nation may be editorializing rapturously about how logically and compellingly our leader has wended his way through the horns of a dilemma, but—I rest my case. They know we should leave.
Almost all of them are ultra-liberal and ordinarily thoroughly opposed to any war-making, much less the certifiable lunacy of merely trying to stop—to prevent any more war being waged against us by—an enemy. When we had gained a foothold in Europe at the beaches of Normandy, did we stop there and insist in no uncertain terms that Nazi Germany stop being mean, and be nice?
As I see it, there is one reason we fight and think today with both hands and our brain tied behind our back: political correctness. (1) We want, ask, and expect our military to perform and to function mostly nonmilitarily; (2) we insist on fighting
; as for the Stone-Age barbarism behind it, and the so-called holy scripture behind that? Forget it?
From the Dec. 16-22, 2009 issue