Moonie Times: US should have stayed out of the war

The August 17th editorial of the Washington Times which has been e-mailed around Rednekistan a lot says it categorically about the Afghanistan (!!) war: The US should have stayed out of it.

While commenting on a recent book by Afghan war vet Marcus Luttrell  the editor says

Mr. Luttrell writes

If you don't want to get into a war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place

I couldn't agree more

Well would you look at that! I myself couldn't agree more with both of them and I doubt many of us here would disagree.  

But of course, the reason you and I agree with the quote above is not exactly the same reason those two reich wingers had in mind. Their reasoning is bellow the fold and will make you speechless

Why they think this war shouldn't have started at all ? It is because they fundamentally disagree on what kind of war should US be waging. You see, a war... where innocent people sometimes have to die is perfectly fine by them, except on their view "sometimes" means every single time innocent people living their life on their own country cross paths with our brave "freedom fighters" and live to talk about it.

The quote above is referring to Marcus Luttrell chagrin at not being able to execute three unarmed civilian goat herders, including a teenager, that could (and did) inform Taliban fighters of his troops whereabouts. The editorial title ? Killed by the rules

So here we find the Moonie Times and Marcus Luttrell regretting a war. Because it is an unsafe business for soldiers who aren't allowed to kill indiscriminately. Soldiers risk their lives on war, imagine that!

It begs the question

If genocide is allowed in YOUR war, then why send soldiers at all, why not just "nuke the goat herders" and Taliban and let God sort them out ?

But the problem with this question is that you and I know perfectly well the answer Marcus Luttrell, and the Moonie Times will give us: "Why not indeed ?"

As a matter of fact, the Moonie Times editor does hint at it... With echoes of the Vietnam myths of "we weren't allowed to bomb the right targets"... (It should come as no surprise that the Rednekistan is getting the "stab in the back", "lost the war home" story myth rekindled furiously as we speak, but that is a whole another diary)

Look at me right now in my story," Mr. Luttrell writes. "Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives.... The question Americans need to ask themselves now, with "Lone Survivor" as Exhibit A, is whether adhering to these precious rules is worth the exorbitant price — in this case, 19 valiant soldiers.

Another question to raise is why our military, knowing the precise location of a Taliban kingpin, sends in Navy SEALs, not Air Force bombers, in the first place? The answer is "collateral damage." I know this — and so do our enemies, who, as Mr. Luttrell writes, laugh at our ROEs as they sleep safe at night...

Both Mr Lutrell and the editor forget conveniently to mention that the US itself - their dear El Busho - is putting the Taliban back in charge in Afghanistan. For that, why did we bother going there in the first place ?
To get Osama ? Again, the US itself - their dear El Busho - let Osama go. So it was to win the hearts and minds of the people there ? Export freedom , right ? Well, I don't know about you but I think dead civilians kind of put a crimp in this US as a role model business...

But of course, none of this questioning of the war is on the Moonie Times editorial. Just the predictable "troops are dying and it's the liberals fault". As usual...

Now if you guys excuse me I am going to shower my eyes with bleach after reading the Moonie Times. Yuck!!!