Here’s another “Hey, Look Over There”.  Has anyone else noticed that the death toll in Afghanistan is being largely overlooked?  There is relative silence regarding our troops and their plight to help the people of a corrupt country governed by criminals and terrorists.

A recent article by Sebastian Abbot in the Los Angeles Examiner states that the number of deaths in Afghanistan for the first three months of this year is double that for the same period in 2009.  Also, the number of wounded has virtually tripled.  The Pentagon is projecting that the numbers will rise in the next few months as more troops are sent to the region.

How can this be?  The correlation between the doves in government, the enforcement of their policies and the casualty rate needs to be explored.  Congress will commission and fund multi-million dollar studies such as “A Look at the Non-migratory Mating Habits of the Chicken-Winged Goose Berry Sucker” on the request of an influential individual or group in a particular voting district.  However, the same body refuses to appraise the death, damage and destruction caused by their own policies in a war zone.  Apparently, this congress and administration also sets aside the reports and recommendations produced or offered by the military that is fighting the war and sustaining casualties for doing so.

Living within shouting distance from two Marine bases and only a short drive from three Naval facilities, I often have the opportunity to speak with our nation’s finest.  Their stories are identical, though the wording is individual.  The theme is that they cannot fight with aggression; they cannot fight to win the war.  They are in place on the ground only in a defensive posture.

A young Marine, awaiting his fourth deployment to the East, said that if an enemy combatant was walking down the road carrying a rocket launcher, they could not fire on him unless he intentionally trained the weapon on them.

At another time, another Marine told of calling for support as his squad was being surrounded by about twenty enemy combatants.  They were told by their command that, due to the proximity of a village (over a kilometer), air support would not be available; civilians could be injured.  They were granted permission to engage if they took fire, though.  He also shared with me that they disobeyed the order and saved themselves by eliminating the threat.

A third said that his squad could only watch as an I.E.D. was being planted because they could not verify the exact type or size from their distant position.  They were told not to engage and the enemy left the area to continue his work elsewhere.  Afterward a few of the squad approached and blew it with a hand grenade from a safe distance.  He said that it would likely have taken out a Humvee and all occupants, maybe more if in caravan.

Is there any cause for wonder why the casualty rate is rising?  The 1960s anti-war radicals are running our government and offering inert human targets to the enemy because our troops are subject to disciplinary action if they engage without being directly targeted.  These same people who are now running our government allowed the communist takeover of South Vietnam and the deaths of many soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen by restricting U.S. fighting ability.

I have to ask, “How it is possible that politicians will avoid serving their country in the military then do anything, ANYTHING, to get elected to public office, then fight again only for their own re-election?”  The majority of our elected elite has never seen the military from the inside or even handled a weapon (including the current Commander-In-Chief) and knows nothing about survival in combat or defending a nation’s people against unwanted takeover.

The peace-loving, anti-war progressives seem to expect violent rebellion.  They are suggesting it and even provoking one.  Last week Nancy Pelosi shared from the podium, “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw, I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco.  This kind of rhetoric was, is very frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place.”

Seeing her recent ways (purposefully carrying a giant gavel through a throng of protesters) and hearing her own words, she was probably one of the loudest voices instigating violence back then.  Beware of progressives’ tactics.  Rules of engagement for progressives include terrorism as a means to an end.  Perhaps that’s why they so readily identify with jihadists and tie our warriors’ hands on the battlefield.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: