Good men dying to no purpose in the name of no honest discernible cause; for the amusement of Versaillean parlor game players, in the approaching twilight of our nation, to the greater glory of Allah.
After I posted the above comment, I read Pam Geller's take on it. Perhaps a very similar thought to mine, but unlike mine she names names:
"But these boys are dying for the jihad. That's all the war in Afghanistan is about. If there were no jihad, we would not be there. If jihadis had not taken down the Towers, we would not be there. But Obama won't say it, Petraeus won't say it, the NATO commanders won't say it, no one will say it. And what do they say instead? Nothing. The war in Afghanistan has no purpose, no definition of victory. Obama is sending these boys to die for nothing. Nothing. The jihadis are killing them for jihad, and they are dying for no cause, no objective, no mission, no end in sight."
Still, if we are to be there, why not send in the B52s to napalm the goddamn Taliban redoubt, instead of our best warriors in a chopper, vulnerable to small arms fire before they can even engage the enemy?
The answer, of course, is thats Rot's fault. For almost 10 years now, he has consistently opposed the use of superior air power in favor of mano-a-mano combat. That's what you get when you listen to Rot the armchair general.
3 comments:
Good men dying to no purpose in the name of no honest discernible cause; for the amusement of Versaillean parlor game players, in the approaching twilight of our nation, to the greater glory of Allah.
After I posted the above comment, I read Pam Geller's take on it. Perhaps a very similar thought to mine, but unlike mine she names names:
"But these boys are dying for the jihad. That's all the war in Afghanistan is about. If there were no jihad, we would not be there. If jihadis had not taken down the Towers, we would not be there. But Obama won't say it, Petraeus won't say it, the NATO commanders won't say it, no one will say it. And what do they say instead? Nothing. The war in Afghanistan has no purpose, no definition of victory. Obama is sending these boys to die for nothing. Nothing. The jihadis are killing them for jihad, and they are dying for no cause, no objective, no mission, no end in sight."
Theater of the absurd.
Still, if we are to be there, why not send in the B52s to napalm the goddamn Taliban redoubt, instead of our best warriors in a chopper, vulnerable to small arms fire before they can even engage the enemy?
The answer, of course, is thats Rot's fault. For almost 10 years now, he has consistently opposed the use of superior air power in favor of mano-a-mano combat. That's what you get when you listen to Rot the armchair general.
Post a Comment