"It's all about the troops" Really?

Has there been a more blatant display of cynicism and mendacity in recent American politics than the crocodile tears being shed by liberals and more leftist "progressives" in their concern fro the "troops"? Only the Clinton Administration scam "it's all about the children" to push their social goals would compare (come to think of it, didn't the the same people generate both these smoke screens?). The idea that "flowers-in-her-hair" Hillary or the two ditzes from California, Polosi and Boxer and the other "progressives" really care about working-class American soldiers is the height of mendacity. Their real attitude was inadvertently displayed by "foot-in-the mouth" John Kerry, who was roundly excoriated for showing his (and THEIR) disdain for dummies that go into the military and get sent to Iraq (remember: his going to Viet Nam was just to get "cred" to go into politics; when the liberal fashion and political "authenticity" shifted to the anti-war position, so did he). Was there ever such cynical reporting as is currently going on by the mainstream media? The front page of the NY Times and the evening news are filled daily with the gore and sad stories of the troops in the field and just about every funeral. The same Democrats who were instrumental in butchering the Defense budget every year are now cater walling over the inadequacy of the the equipment and protection of "our troops". The cause of the "troops" is especially delicious for the Democrats, since it can be used to damn the man they love to hate, Bush, with his natural constituency.

Certainly, some Democrats like Murtha and Webb have credibility and the sincere sentiments to speak out in support of the US military. However, being an ex-serviceman does not necessarily make you competent to discuss military tactics or national strategic interests.

Mostly, the current members of the political and "intellectual" establishment (i.e., mainstream media, think tank parasites and other species of "progressives") are the college generation from the Viet Nam era, and immediately after, who had absorbed (not too many original thinkers in that lot) all the conventional wisdom brainwashing regarding war (especially, heaven forbid, war against people of color - the "other"). Armed forces are only to be used for "good" as they define it; the only time fighting (VERY non-lethal fighting, at best) that can be envisioned is in defense of the currently-fashionable "other"; Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars at the top of the list). The interests of the United States are only valid if they coincide with the minority-of-choice. Forget about US strategic interests; our interests are only to be served by going hat-in-hand to the world to plead our victimhood (they loved how pathetic we looked after 9/11). And certainly not acceptable is seeking to punish our enemies (AKA Muslims all over the world); to me, the most righteous reason to use force.

I was against the war in Iraq before it started, as I am now. I always believed that the neocons were sincere and tragically naive about trying to bring democracy and other good Western values to the Arabs. I always felt (and I think I have been proven right) that it was a hopeless cause. Any society that is based on Islam, and that does not renounce it, cannot ever be brought into the democratic world. Islam breeds the habit of subservience and following of "religious" authority (even to blowing ones self up for the cause). It does not breed people who are capable of undertaking independent thought and action, which true practice of democracy requires. Come to think of it, the same habits of mind prevalent in Islam are prevalent on the political Left.

How should we deal with Iraq (and Muslims, in general)? Another Blog.