With all the papal news, we have not recently said much on a subject near and dear to my heart: Marines administering earthly justice so murderous thugs can face the divine version.
To summarize: several dozen thugs commandeered three large suicide vehicles and tried to detonate them inside a base. The attacks were deflected by the quick thinking of three 21-year-old Marines, who repelled the vehicles with machine guns and grenades. The thugs tried to attack on foot, but again they failed. In the end, the Marines killed 21 of the thugs and wounded another 15. No Marines were killed, or even seriously hurt.
The herd of independent minds in the media are parroting the same line, about how the thugs' attacks are "becoming more sophisticated" lately. While it's true the attacks have more people involved, all of them have ended badly for the attackers. Seems to me that "sophisticated" ought to mean something more than using three car bombs instead of one, and 30 guys on foot instead of 8 or 10. Real sophistication would mean better effectiveness on the battlefield, not getting more thugs to show up to the party.
I regret that the thugs aligned themselves with thieves and oppressors, then threw their lives away by attacking a Marine post. I hope they somehow repented before their death. But how can I muster any sympathy for people whose operating principle is to maim and murder as many people as it takes, military or civilian, so they can overthrow the Iraqi government and take charge themselves?
What a lopsided and unsporting casualty ratio. That makes it nothing but a murderous slaughter.
This note is not a joke.
I have actually heard the argument in my previous post made and meant seriously. Admittedly, not with respect to this particular clash, but in the early 90s as applied to the first Gulf War. By a film critic who's widely respected in the field (and justly so for his writings there, I hasten to add).
Hmmmmm....wonder where that person draws the line? Just when does an action become "sporting"? How about if 2 of our soldiers were killed? Let's say, this critics brother and cousin...would that make him feel better?
Victor - your comments don't make much sense.
"Unsporting" is not the measure of what's fair when evil people are trying to kill you.
The Marines are not at fault for their skill, training and armament, or for repelling an attack made by Iraqis who are obviously out of their league.
I'm afraid your comments fall into the category of "blame America first" regardless of the conditions. That's pretty disappointing.
John, I don't think Victor was being serious -- he was repeating what someone else said to him.
I kind of see the critic's point: it is more satisfying to best your opponent when the sides are somewhat equal. But war isn't a sport. For my part, I was very happy to see that the Air Force and Navy pilots had already destroyed the vast majority of Iraqi armored vehicles prior to our arrival. The sound of artillery and airstrikes always meant that bad guys were getting pounded, not us.
Unfair? Sure. Unjust? Nope. My fellows and I didn't want fair, we wanted victory, and to preserve our own lives.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton Jr
Sporting means the odds were equal.
In RC's blog, it is reported that **3** yes THREE marines, acting quickly, stopped 36 thugs.
You're right - it was not sporting. To be sporting there should have been 36 quick thinking Marines or only 3 thugs. Leave it to the Iraq Thugs to be unsportsmanlike! Next time, in order to be sporting, the thugs need to arrange beforehand so the Marines can be ready with an equal number of men to defend their position.
Nancy
To clarify the attribution, the post is by Eric, not RC.