I’ll admit finally that I have been a bit out of touch for a variety of valid reasons. But essentially in my cognitive absence we have gained an Iraq Surrender Group. What a useless gathering of left-wing bureacrats. Suddenly the popular news media is springing upon to my mental doorstep the idea that these people have things worth saying, and are authorities in areas relating to the killing of people and the destruction of objects, buildings, and things!

What do these highly-paid, too-much-time-on-their-hands mucktards have in their pasts and on their plates that make them worthy to be listened to by a President of the United States, actual military commanders, and the American people!?

The traditional, time-tested method of waging, hand-in-hand with the purpose of war, is to wage death and destruction upon our enemies until the enemies lost the will to fight, and thus surrender. Conversely, the key to our own Revolution was to fight until the British Empire decided it was too much trouble to maintain our membership in their Empire and pulled their soldiers from what was suddenly decided to be the American country.

War is bloody, awful terrible thing and it is to only be done when those in charge have the will the win. Victory is the only option because if you lose you only spread one message: that you are losers. If a nation that is supposedly powerful folds from constant attacks from a perceivedly inferior set of forces, the loser looks weak, vulnerable, stupid, and assailable.;

To which I would damn to burning hell all the politicians and journalists who insist that victory isn’t an option, who won’t consider victory as something to be sought, and who weep at mounting casualties whom they would rather have die in vain that die seeking a meaningful victory!

Don’t these morons see, at all, that pulling out of Vietnam because our domestic popular opinion went against the war made us look weak abroad? Running from smaller armies or squabbling armed bands of barbarians made us look like weaklings? The perception that our nationa was weak was a large part of why we were ever attacked on September 11 and still these white-collared bureacrats are deciding that we betray original goals of destroying enemies for futile hunt for absence of action accompanied by a sign that says “we are not weak” that actually convinces our enemies that we aren’t weak and shouldn’t be attacked but honestly won’t tell our enemies anything excep that we lack steel.

Winning wars as a massive, occupying, superior force involves breaking things and killing people to the extent that people’s wills are broken. It’s not merely time but simply busting up targets and convincing people that what they hold as valuable is what’s at stake for them and easy enough to be crushed by us… and that the choices are our way or the hot place. The task of people on the home ground is similar to the invaders, but they have to set up a “is it worth it?” scenario and wear down the invading armies, make them tired, waste the support for the war that would stand in the invader’s homeland, until the invader gives up and goes home. When we put out announcements that we are considering the methods and messages behind packing up and ceasing activities in a foreign land where we had a mission, and letting the people killing our soldiers continue to live without cost, that means we lost. The message that the world gets is that if a measily, piddily tiny number of American lives are lost over a period of four or five years, the USA’s armies will go home, the original mission be damned. I see a similarity to pulling out a Colt .45, pointing it at the American public crotch, and pulling the trigger.