Archive Logo.jpg

November 01, 2005

Pugnacious Stupidity...A Demonstration

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Dusty checks in:

What follows below is an all-too-frequent and all-too-common example of how the Left sounds when it lets it guard down and speaks its heart and mind.

I just saw this on Jason von Steenwyck's site, Countercolumn.

Jason's response was, as ever, pithy and to the point, but allow me to offer mine as well. Before I go on, I think it needs to be made clear that my comments are really not for the military reader...I hope our civilian visitors get to see this because they need to hear it, again and again from all of us. Alas, for the more well-known milbloggers like Jason, there just isn't enough time in the day to Fisk every fool that comes up with the drivel below. Frankly, I doubt if many of us even get mad any more when they read this crap. That said, I think it's important to occasionally spell out the counterpoints that, while obvious to us, may not immediately spring to mind to those not in our business but who are nevertheless interested in the discussion.

[from the the above-mentioned post]

The funny part is when the psyops geeks tried to taunt the Taliban, as it's always funny to hear the world's biggest cowards try to accuse someone else of cowardice, a typical example of what a psycologist [sic] would call 'projecting'.

"'s biggest cowards..."


Many of the boots on the ground enlisted after 9/11 (a certain football player comes to mind). So, they volunteered to go into harm's way with eyes open and as quickly as possible. Some gave up lucrative careers, some didn't, but all decided that personal sacrifice and exposure to potentially mortal danger was preferable to doing nothing. This does not strike me as "cowardice." True, you may enlist, fully expecting to go to The Sandbox and end up in Okinawa, but that's not the point. You made your little pink (or brown, or olive, or [insert appropriate shade here]) body available for a personal peek at the elephant. Did this writer? And if not, why not? Was it a political decision or personal, based on self-preservation? Hmmm... (Note: The chickenhawk argument won't work on me, or John or can check with the VA for details.)

I ask you, has anyone ever seen a more pusiillanimous, cowardly bunch of wretches than the sissyfags of the U.S. "military" who call in air support every time a car backfires or when someone slams a door loudly? They encounter three or four Rebels and instead of fighting like REAL infantry and using fire & maneuver tactics, they instead scream for air support while they're hiding in a shellhole, then after the Air Force flies in and does the killing they "bravely" raise their head up out of said shellhole and proceed to beat their chests about how "brave" they think they are. Disgusting.

OK...let's first review the adjectives and verbs:

-"pusiilanimous" [sic] (and minus 5 for spelling)
-"cowardly" (he's redundant, too)
-"sissyfags" ("sissyfags"? Obviously a homophobe.)
-"military" in scare quotes, meaning they aren't martial enough, I guess. Must take more than uniforms, weapons, a vertical organizational hierarchy and intentionally risking life and limb in combat to qualify.
-"bravely" in scare quotes, meaning "cowardly"...again, I think he's developing a theme here...
-The one-word last sentence, "Disgusting."


Let's talk CAS for a minute here. I figure I can, having effing done it for 20+ years.

First, there is no such thing as a "fair fight" in war. Using fire and maneuver has no qualifying phrase other than that associated with the Laws of Armed Conflict. Fires is fires. Killing with air is probably fine by most Infantry commanders I know, assuming it'll get the job done without exposing their subordinates to unnecessary risk while, at the same time, achieving the tactical objective within the bounds of the Rules of Engagement and is appropriate for particular environment in which they find themselves. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Second, last time I checked, REAL infantry used close air support rather extensively in: WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and Gulf War II (and most other times, with varying degrees of success). I mean, if Patton relied on it--granted, he was Armor, but tankers need their infantry, and Third Army sure liked 19th Air Force--then I don't quite see how using airborne firepower delegitimizes one's infantry-ness. Army guys: can you tell me if calling in air disqualifies you for the CIB? Just askin'.

Oh yeah, Army dudes, isn't "hiding" another way of saying, "Taking cover"? That's another one of those military thingies that I don't think you get professionally dinged for in battle, yes?

Now then, in general, the last time I checked, the Army and Marines have been doing "most of the killing" for over a year. Moreover, the last Michael Yon photo of Erik Kurilla I looked at showed a US Army Lieutenant-effing-Colonel going down after taking three AK-47 rounds (I'm assuming it was a Kalashnikov) at near-point-blank range. Firing back as bullets torn into his skin, muscle and bone, he urged his men on and continued to direct the fight until they dragged his swiss-cheesed ass out of danger and pumped him full of morphine. Yep, real pussy there.

"Disgusting?" That would be you, sir, not Kurilla, his men, his Service, or the US defense forces of whom he is a part.

Try fighting like a REAL army instead of a bunch of glorified forward air controllers before you start calling an opponent "cowardly", because the whole world is laughing at the U.S. "military" and its aversion to real fighting. Just be glad you're not up against a REAL army, like North Korea's or China's or Iran's because the U.S. "Army" would be a grease spot.

[Armorer inserts: Okay. How about here? This one, Raven 42? Anyone remember the killer gurl Sergeant with the Silver Star?]

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Marine 1SGT Kasal after using the assets of a Marine Air Wing (or is that a Beretta M-92, I'm not sure...) to save a wounded Marine and incidentally, kill a few bad guys with some well placed 9mm Parabellum rounds from a passing F/A-18... Not.

"...because the whole world is laughing at the U.S. "military" and its aversion to real fighting..." Don't confuse us with the Belgians.

Oh, please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please give us a shot at the nKA and the Republican Guard!!!

Just to review, the nKA sort of bit the big one in the early 50s, and that was when they had food. What we forget is that Pusan was about to see a major breakout and Inchon, while brilliantly conceived and executed, as much accelerated the result as precipitated it.

The Republican Guard? Well, methinks the terrors of Teheran may have second thoughts about resistance when the objective isn't the public hanging of 16-year-old girls or flogging of homosexuals and instead going toe to toe with the best equipped, trained and recently combat tested western land and air the Iranians' own backyard.

China? Nah. Why pick a fight with one of our premier trading partners?

And this is the part that just boggles my mind...a number of, well, breathtakingly dumbass memes seem to run through the Leftoid thought process when it comes to the military:
1) You guys don't fight like "real men"--you cheat with technology, all-media fires, aggressive tactics and refuse to trade body for body in achieving tactical, operational and strategic goals
2) You guys have never really been tested...and if you were, you'd get your asses kicked...and we'd enjoy that (this seems to be a Daily Kos, et al., specialty)
3) We really care about our troops and don't want to see them never employ them (unless a Democrat is in the White House)...but if you must employ them, see "1)"

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Soldier shown controlling stacked A-10s armed with Snake and Nape while clearing a house in Ramallah...

Jason concludes:

"I guess it's a good thing that this ignoramous has gotten a chance to lead such a sheltered life thanks to the sacrifices of others.

It's also a good thing that he doesn't have the courage to provide his own name.

For the record: My own battalion, the 1-124th Infantry Regiment, took more than fifty wounded in and around Ramadi. And we didn't call in a single airstrike.

It's better, anonymous, to keep your mouth shut than to put your ignorance on a stage.


Here's my one comment on Jason's rejoinder: I would hope the reason he didn't use air was because he couldn't use air. Either because it wasn't there or he couldn't bring to bear the massive firepower fixed and rotary-wing assets possess due to the terrain, the timing, the weather, or whatever. I'm assuming, but I figure it's a good assumption. That said, I'm also assuming that, had he asked, and the jets were there, they would have engaged, with relish.

Instapilot sends.
P.S. Having had the honor of commanding a theater full of enlisted Tactical Air Controllers and their ALO officers, I respectfully submit the phrase "...glorified forward air controllers..." is a redundancy...kinda like "brave infantryman" or "courageous Marine."

Hosting provided by FotoTime
Note these 1st Infantry Division Artillerymen obviously using their big guns to clear houses from a safe distance...

Dusty | Permalink | Comments (45) | Pugnacious Stupidity
» Mudville Gazette links with: Dawn Patrol
» Blog o'RAM links with: I Have Nothing To Say
» NIF links with: The morning after ...