Another defeatist who just doesn't get the genius of the great American known as Donald Rumsfeld:

I volunteered to serve in Iraq because I believe in our mission there. I share the president's conviction about the Iraq war--we can and must win, for the Iraqi people, for the future of our country and for peace-loving people everywhere. But I'm frustrated. America is fighting with a hand tied behind its back. Soldiers have all the equipment we need--armored humvees, body armor for every body part, superior technology, etc.--but we simply do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we need them now.

The source? The Wall Street Journal Online. The writer?

First Lt. Hegseth served as an infantry platoon leader and civil-military operations officer in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division.

The problem is, Lieutenant Hegseth, that we don't have a significant number of troops we can add to the mix in Iraq. Why? Because of Donald Rumsfeld's cute theories of warfare. Because our President didn't have the balls to ask the American people for sacrifices, or the "intellectual curiosity" (ahem) to question his SecDef. And because too many who should have known better, and probably did know better, put loyalty to the President and loyalty to the Republican Party ahead of love of country.

Where were the chest-thumping superpatriots two years ago, three years ago, when we might still have done something to salvage this situation? They were singing lullabies about the need for "patience," and blaming the "mainstream media."

Patience, patience, there's nothing to worry about, it's all media lies, go to sleep now.

Did the mainstream media leave our military undersized? No. How about Democrats? Nope. Who left us with too few men to handle the job? The President, his Secretary of Defense, the Republican Congress, and their cocky, complacent, uncritical echo chamber in the old punditocracy and their junior partners in the blogosphere.

If the Bush administration had acted three years ago when it first became clear that we were in for a long fight, we could have substantially increased the size of the Army and Marine Corps by now. We'd have the men we need.

Why did we not act? And why isn't that question even being asked by those who claim to cherish our military and believe in the necessity of American power?

(Props to Winds of Change for the link.)

This entry was posted by Michael Reynolds, on Friday, October 06, 2006. You can leave your response.