In perspective

I read a blog a few days ago that was written by a former Navy corpsman who had served "green-side" with the Marines. His whole point of view is that as a corpsman who's job it is to serve the Marines, he wants all of "His" Marines home safely and out of the war.

Now following that theory, it would in the short term "save" Marines' lives by bringing them home. Marines would no longer be killed in Fallujah, Najaf or the al-Anbar Province of Iraq. We would pull out I MEF, the Command Element V Corps, III Corps, 81st Armored Brigade (WA ARNG), 3rd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, 10th Mountain Division, 25th Infantry Division (Light), 1st Cavalry Division (Heavy), 1st Armored Division, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized), 30th Heavy Separate Brigade (NC ARNG), 39th Infantry Brigade (Light) (AR ARNG), and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and close to 140,000 troops would be "home for Christmas". Lives would be saved.

Except now, instead of being engaged by our armed forces in Iraq, there would literally be thousands of terrorists and Islamo-Fascist False Jihadists sitting around with no wars to fight. The political and social landscape of Iraq would turn into a vacuum. The Fundamentalists would see this (aided and abetted by the Iranians and the Syrians, of course) as an ideal time to install a Fundamental Shi'a theocracy, with the muscle to back it up. I mean, they would alreadyhave the thousands of "freedom fighters" and the new "republican guard" just waiting to be put into uniform.

So then what is the next step? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. They would pick up where al-Qaida (remember from previous post, good readers, al-Qaida translates as "the base") has left off and would export their brand of Arab liberation (that is translated as: "convert to Islam or die". Please see earlier posts on the 1st and 2nd Jihads) around the world. Their diplomacy would be flying missles filled with innocent passengers. Their embassies would be small sleeper cells of trained and dedicated terrorists in the heart of foriegn cities. Their ambassadors would be trained in the deadly arts of "martyrdom", and their charter would be a fatwah issued by te Great Caliphate.

And then what happens...those few lives that we saved on the fields of Iraq would mutliply expotentially into lives lost on the new battlefield. The new battlefield will be that of American cities, in the skies, and the cities of allies around the world (remember, the Islamo-fascist False Jihadists already cased out major targets in Australia and Great Britain). The new weapons would be "dirt bombs" high-yield explosives, chemicals and biologics. These would be provided by the new sponsor of the 3rd Jihad. That Syria and Iran have already assisted, aided and abetted al-Qaida shows that this new Jihad is already crossing sectarian boundaries between Shi'a and Wahhabi Sunni Islam.

And where would the lives saved be then? With Syria and Iran being the new "Base", we would be stuck fighting a forced-entry expeditinary war. To disarm Iran and Syria, thousand more lives would be lost. We would have no base to operate from. Our footing in Iraq would be lost. The mounting up and driving our tanks to the border to kick some ass would be shifted to amphibious and airborne assaults. Anyone who jumped in Northern Iraq with the 173rd Airbrne Brigade, or Panama with the 82nd Airbrne Division, would think those ops would be a cakewalk. We would end up storming the shores of Syria and Iran with Marines facing well armed, disciplined and dedicated professional soldiers.

Then where would the "lives saved" be.

The slow attritional loss of life is horrific. No soldier or sailor likes to see brothers in arms dying in an increasingly unpopular war. All warriors mourn the loss os shipmates and brothers in arms. But their sacrifice is not meaningless...if we don't throw it away. If we don't abandon the gains that they made. If we look at the strategic landscape for future conflicts rather than put the blinders on and see only the tactical losses of life. We are saving lives by maintaining and enlargening our foothold in the Middle East now. A friendly, or at worst ambivelent, Iraq will save lives in the future. By abandoning our efforts now, will only see us lose any face or respectability in the Middle East. In the end, it will kill more lives than it saves.

I don't hate John Kerry. I think his actions in Vietnam were shady. I think his politcs are shady. I think he has a bit of psycological disorder (Borderline Personalities Disorder) comes to mind. He goes with the flow and make the popular opinion his opinion. He has no stance of his own. He has no backbone, in my opinion. But n,o, I don't hate him.

He would, in fact, be an okay peacetime president. I would dare say, he wishes that we were not a nation at war. I would daresay, he wish we were at peace...But that is not the reality. We are a nation at war, that is fighting for our very survival. This was not a war of our choosing, but now that war has been brought to our doorstep (literally), then we are obliged to bring our full power and might to bear on the enemy, however non-linear and unconventional it may be. To deny we are at war, would be to deny the many acts of war over the past decade: (1) attack of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1995; (2) bombing of US Embassies in East Africa in 1998; and (3) the bombing of USS Cole in 2000. We are at war...that is the stark reality.

We are at war and must act as such. With no exit strategy, that will take a long view of the strategic environment, with no plan to either improve (or at worst maintain) a level of national security, and no specific plans to improve and hearten our economic defense and national infrastructure, I cannot in good conscience vote for him. In retrospect, the only plan that Mr. Kerry has is for any of this is to increase reliance on the UN. As anyone can see over the past two decades, the UN has become inept and incapable of providing any level of security. I would rather fight the god fight alone, than become a part of the den of thieves.

I do not alwas agree with George W. Bush. He has some policies that make me uncomfortable. But as the President I don't need to agree with every single policy or commitment that he makes. He's the President, not me. But I am confident that he has the national security, and the welfare of the United States at heart. He speaks his mind (sometimes no eloquently) and I know where he stands. I know where he is going and where he is taking us. He is dependable. He is consistent.

As back to the "bringing home the Marines alive" theory...I know quite a few Marines who have a tattoo on their arms that reads "Death Before Dishonor". To bring Marines home before they finish the good fight, would be to cause dishonor. Only one time in the history of the Marine Corps have they ever surrendered, and that was the 4th Marines on Corregidor under orders from General Wainwright. Make no mistake, almost to a man, all Marines believe they are doing the right thing, lack of WMD evidence or not. Marines, and the sailors who support them, hold themselves to a higher standard than popular opinion, political correctness or modern convenience. They value honor, integrity and conscience higher than their own lives.

To bring them home before the fight is done, and they accomplish their mission, would be bringing them home in dishonor.

We must stay the course...we must fight the fight...we must fight abroad, rather than defend at home...we must...

...Stay the Course...