Posted 12:07 PM by Steve
Victor Davis Hanson had this to write on National Review Online this week:

Foget the Anti-Americanism of the European Press and Al-Jazeera, our own networks and 24 news channels like CNN seems to be disappointed that the war so far has lasted seven rather than two days.


The FACTS are that twenty-four hours a day, thousands of tankers and supply trucks barrel down long, vulnerable supply lines, quickly and efficiently. There is no bridge too far for these long columns. One-hundred percent air superiority is ours. There is not a single Iraqi airplane in the sky. Enemy tanks either stay put or are bombed. Kurds and Shiites really will soon start to be heard. Seven oil wells are on fire (with firefighters on the scene) — no oil slicks, no attacks on Israel. Kuwait City is not aflame. “Millions” of refugees fleeing into Syria and Jordan have not materialized. Even Peter Arnett is no longer parroting the Iraqi government claims of ten million starving and has moved on to explain why the Iraqis were equipped with chemical suits — to protect Saddam’s killers from our WMDs!

Few, if any, major bridges in Iraq have been blown; there are no mass uprisings in Saddam’s favor. The Tikrit mafia fights as the SS did in the craters of Berlin, facing as it does — and within weeks — either a mob’s noose, a firing squad, or a dungeon. Through 20,000 air sorties, no jets have been shot down; there is nothing to stop them from flying another 100,000. They fly in sand, in lightning, high, low, day, night, anywhere, anytime. Supplies are pouring in. Saddam’s regime is cut off and its weapons will not be replenished. This is not North Vietnam, with Chinese and Russian ships with daily re-supply in the harbor of Haiphong. British and Americans, with courageous Australians as well, are fighting as a team without even the petty rivalry of a Montgomery and Bradley.

Our media talks of Saddam’s thugs and terrorists as if they were some sort of Iraqi SAS. Meanwhile, the real thing — scary American, British, and Australian Special Forces — is causing havoc to Saddam’s rear guard. In short, for all the tragedy of a fragging, Iraqi atrocities, misdirected cruise missiles, and the usual cowardly antics inherent to our enemy’s way of war, the real story is not being reported: A phenomenal march against overwhelming logistical, material, and geographical odds in under seven days has reached and surrounded Saddam Hussein’s capital.

At home there have been none of the promised terrorist attacks. A supportive public — stunned by initial losses, now angered by atrocities — is growing more, not less, fervent, determined not merely to defeat but to destroy utterly the Baathists. The Arab world snickers that we cannot take casualties; the American public is instead growing impatient to inflict more of them — and is probably already well to the right of the Bush administration. We are a calm and forgiving people, but executing prisoners, fighting in civilian clothes, and using human shields will soon draw a response too terrible to contemplate.

Just as unusual has been American ad hoc logistical flexibility. Saudi Arabia caved early on — and we moved to other Gulf states. Turkey caved late — and we went ahead with a single thrust. France connived both early and late — and they are quiet. Russia, as the Soviets of old, proved duplicitous in ways that we are just learning — and it made no difference. Indeed, their night-vision equipment and GPS jammers will help Saddam no more than did the German-built bunker he was bombed in.

We should recall that in the first Gulf War we bombed for over 44 days. Critics in 1991 by day 10 were complaining because after the first few nights’ pyrotechnics, Saddam’s army had not crumbled. In turn, earlier swaggering air-advocates had promised victory in three weeks — only to be unjustly slandered that they had failed to end the war in six. Gulf War I is considered a great victory; it required 48 days of air and ground attacks by an enormous coalition to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Our present attempt, with half the force, seeks to end Saddam Hussein altogether — and on day 7 already had him cut off, trapped, and besieged.

In the campaign against Belgrade, the ebullience was gone by day 10 when Milosevic remained defiant. By the fifth week, criticism was fierce and calls for an end to the bombing widespread. On day 77, Milosevic capitulated — and no critics stepped forward to confess that their gloom and doom had been misplaced. Does anyone recall the term “quagmire,” used of Afghanistan after the third week — and how prophets of doom promised enervating stasis, only days later to see a chain of Afghan cities fall? Yet no armchair doom-and-gloom generals were to be found when the Taliban ran and utterly confounded their pessimism. Our talking heads remind me of the volatility of the Athenian assembly, ready to laud or execute at a moment’s notice.

The commentators need to listen to history. By any fair standard of even the most dazzling charges in military history — the German blast through the Ardennes in spring 1940, or Patton’s romp in July — the present race to Baghdad is unprecedented in its speed and daring, and in the lightness of its causalities. We can nit-pick about the need for another armored division, pockets of irregulars, a need to mop up here and there, plenty of hard fighting ahead, this and that. But the fact remains that, so far, the campaign has been historically unprecedented in getting so many tens of thousands of soldiers so quickly to Baghdad without losses — and its logistics will be studied for decades.

Indeed, the only wrinkle is that our present military faces cultural obstacles never envisioned by an Epaminondas, Caesar, Marlborough, Sherman — or any of the other great marchers. A globally televised and therapeutic culture puts an onus on American soldiers that could never have been envisioned by any of the early captains. We treat prisoners justly; our enemy executes them. We protect Iraqi bridges, oil, and dams — from Iraqi saboteurs. We must treat Iraqi civilians better than do their own men, who are trying to kill them. Our generals and leaders take questions; theirs give taped propaganda speeches. Shock and awe — designed not to kill but to stun, and therefore to save civilians — are slurred as Hamburg and Dresden. The force needed to crush Saddam’s killers is deemed too much for the fragile surrounding human landscape. Marines who raise the Stars and Stripes are reprimanded for being too chauvinistic. And on, and on, and on.

When this is all over — and I expect it will be soon — besides a great moral accounting, I hope that there will deep introspection and sober public discussion about the peculiar ignorance and deductive pessimism on the part of our elites. In the meantime, all we can insist on is absolute and unconditional surrender — no peace process, no exit strategy, no U.N. votes, no Arab League parley, no EU expressions of concern, no French, no anything but our absolute victory and Saddam’s utter ruin. Unlike in 1991, commanders in the field must be given explicit instructions from the White House about negotiations: There are to be absolutely none — other than the acceptance of unconditional surrender.


National
Review
[Selections from the 4/7/03 issue]
NR Preview

Posted 12:36 PM by Steve
Pat is the MAN:

"how do you support the troops without supporting the war???? That's like saying, "I support cars, but not gas.", or "I support animals but not habitat.", or "I support doctors but not medicine.", or "I support citizens but not the country.", or "I support fish but not water.", or "I support Disneyland, but not Walt Disney.", or "I support blah blah blah blah." Well, you know what?

I support bulls, but not bullshit! - Its obvious that if you won't lend support to aid the WAR, you obviously are not then lending aid to the TROOPS who fight that war.

Posted 12:33 PM by Steve
Good Colin Powell quote

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked
by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example
of
empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has
sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for
freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return
is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

Posted 8:03 PM by Steve
It will be interesting to follow this story as it plays out:

Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim
March 28 2003, 9:41 AM




Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.

At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.

It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.

A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us."

If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.

The connection would give credibility to the argument that Tony Blair used to justify war against Saddam - a "nightmare scenario" in which he might eventually pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

On Wednesday Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said the coalition had solid evidence that senior al-Qaeda operatives have visited Baghdad in the past.

Rumsfeld said Saddam had an "evolving" relationship with the terror network.

The presence of fanatical al-Qaeda terrorists would go some way to explaining the continued resistance to US and British forces in southern Iraq, an area dominated by Shi'ite Muslims traditionally hostile to

Saddam's regime.

Heavy fighting continued around the besieged city of Basra yesterday after British forces destroyed 14 Iraqi tanks which had struck out towards the Al Faw peninsula.

Military commanders have decided against launching an attack on Basra because of fears the operation would result in a Stalingrad-style street battle.

It is estimated the Iraqi military forces in the area have been reduced to 30 per cent fighting strength but have now embedded themselves within civilian buildings in the city.

Armed raids have destroyed transmitters and taken state radio and television off the air in Basra and effectively cutting off its communications with Baghdad.

British tanks from the 7th Armoured Brigade, the Desert Rats, could be sent into Basra if there is a sudden civilian uprising against Saddam's forces.

Last night, forces around the city heard loud explosions as coalition helicopter gunships were sent into the area.

This is a pooled despatch from Gethin Chamberlain of The Scotsman.

Posted 1:04 PM by Steve
Response to those who claim they are "for peace".

Peace is generally a good thing. Everybody wants peace. That is why the position, politically, is so empty and specious. It's like saying you prefer sunny days or like ice cream. Considering that we LIVE in a country started by a revolutionary war, no rational American can say war is never justified. The United States involvement in the European theater in WWII was undeniably just.

So, after we have swept away the bumpersticker slogans the real debate is "Is military action against Iraq warranted and just?" Most Americans (70% or more) believe it is. In fact if you add up the populations of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and France, 53% or 262,653,000 citizens support the war. State-sponsorship of terrorism is a major issue. The linkage between Iraq and those who carry out Islamic terror is widely documented. I don't think anyone argues that Saddam Hussein pulls all the terrorist strings or orders direct terrorist attacks, but the fact is that Iraq has provided refuge, training, weapons, logistical support, and intelligence to various Islamic terrorists including Al-Queda.

The second issue is related to state-sponsorship. Weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has them and has used them. Iraq is trying to build more. It doesn't take a genius to see that our "containment and diplomacy" strategy with North Korea blew up in our faces. By appeasing North Korea instead of taking a hard line, we all but guaranteed they would become the nuclear power they are today. Kim Jong II, like Saddam Hussein, is not the type of man peace loving people want to have a "button" to push.

The third issue is the freedom and human rights issue. The people of Iraq don't have any. Saddam Hussein uses intimidation, kidnap, torture, rape, murder to control his citizens. And those are just the citizens he kind of likes. He is outright genocidal towards the Kurds, whom he has gassed with mustard and nerve agents.

Does this mean the United States will use military action against every country that has terrorist ties? How about every country that has or is actively trying to attain weapons of mass destruction? Do we remove all regimes that reside over humanitarian disasters? Not necessarily. Surely there may be more work to be done after the despotic regime in Iraq has been removed. It's important to remember that in Iraq ALL of these factors (terrorist ties, weapons of mass destruction, and humanitarian disaster) existed. The United States is engaged in a justified military action against Iraq. So why are the vocal minority so hot and bothered about the war, especially in light of the fact that the United States under President Clinton did much the same thing in the Balkans? President Clinton, with no UN resolution and no congressional backing, bombed Kosovo in order to oust the war criminal Milosevic, who by all accounts is a small fish compared to Hussein.

Why is the vocal minority so hot and bothered about the war? Simple. Because they don't like President Bush and they don't much like America. The main groups that organize these protests are "Not in our Name", a group that supports Fidel Castro and suspected terrorist financier Sami Al-Amin, and "A.N.S.W.E.R." a group that is a front for the Marxist "World Worker's Party" who support the regime in North Korea. I've heard anti-war protesters call President Bush an international terrorist. This clearly proves that they don't know the meaning of the word terrorist. A terrorist is one who specifically targets non-combatants in order to create fear among a populace. America doesn't do that. We engage the military forces of our enemies and go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties or "collateral damage" of any kind!

I think it's great to have a vigorous public debate about these issues, but now our troops are on the ground in Iraq trying to destroy a regime in Iraq that oppresses and kills it's own citizens. If you oppose this, you oppose freedom and justice for Iraqi citizens. Saddam Hussein puts such a small value on Iraqi lives that he places troops and military assets in civilian areas.

Posted 10:54 AM by Steve
TEACHERS WHO INFLUENCE STUDENTS WITH THEIR AGENDA DO THEM A GREAT DISSERVICE

At one time, the educator's creed was: "We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think." Today, schools across the country are teaching students what to think-- whether about the environment, the war, social policy, or what ever.

Even if what they teach were true, that would be of little use to these young people in later life. Issues and conditions change so
much over time that even the truth about today's issues becomes irrelevant when confronted with the future's new challenges. All this type of teaching does is give the students a skewed view of historical events so that when he or she matures and tries to comprehend current events the realities of the situation intrude on the imagined causes.

If students haven't been taught to think, then they are at the mercy of events, as well as being at the mercy of those who know
how to take advantage of their ignorance and their emotions.

Posted 10:50 AM by Steve


Here is an eyewitness account by an Iraqi-American who suffered under Saddam Hussein:

There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it, and we were again made to watch.
Sometimes they went in headfirst and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags, and we were told they would be used as fish food

Posted 10:48 AM by Steve

Are those who do not go overseas for peace "chicken
doves"?

Posted 10:48 AM by Steve
"Peace is not the mere absence of war,
but a virtue based on strength of character." --Baruch Spinoza

The dissenters find it ironic, indeed hypocritical, that America is at war, failing to realize that were it not for the stout-hearted intent and deliberations of our Founding Fathers, their very voices of dissent would indeed be silenced. No right to assemble. No right to free speech. No bureaucratic mechanism to even apply, as they do, for permits to gather across the street from the White House, the people's house, to protest. ...Right now, the protests are but a distraction of precious human and financial resources for a nation and a city at war. Every officer managing a demonstration is one officer not available for anti-terrorism assignment.

Posted 2:58 PM by Steve
Public Opinion: Thanks God for Democracy!!!

A clear majority of Britons now back the war against Iraq, according to a new opinion poll published here Tuesday. The percentage who back military action is now 54 %.

British population: 60,000,000
54% support equals 32,400,000 citizens
30% opposed equals 18,000,000

In America support for the war is huge. According to the latest Gallup polls 72% of Americans favor the U.S. war with Iraq. Less than 25% oppose the U.S. war with Iraq.

United States population: 286,000,000
72% supports equals 205,920,000 citizens
25% opposed equals 71,500,00 citizens

France, being the cheese-eating surrender monkeys they are, still oppose the war. Asked by the CSA polling agency whether they would support US intervention in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, 66 percent of those who responded said they were opposed, up from 58 percent in a poll conducted in August.

Population of France: 59,765,000
66% opposed equals: 39,445,000 citizens
24% supports equals: 14,343,000 citizens

Germans are overwhelmingly opposed to war against Iraq. In a poll conducted by the Forsa polling agency this week, 81 percent said military action against Iraq is not justified. Just 12 percent said it would be justified. Rejection of a war to oust Saddam is high across party lines. Members of the Greens voted 96 percent against military action, while among Social Democrats, 86 percent are opposed, as are 77 percent of Christian Democrats and 66 percent of Free Democrats.
Population of Germany: 83,251,000
81% opposed equals: 67,433,000
12% supports equals: 9,990,000


Totals population of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany: 489,016,000

53% or 262,653,000 citizens support the war.
40% or 196,378,000 citizens oppose the war.

Maybe CNN and other media outlets should reconsider some of the comments about "world opinion" being opposed to the war in recent weeks. The United States is, after all, part of the world is it not?

Posted 12:43 AM by Steve
Protesting the Protesters:

I think public debate is a good thing and the vigorous debate that took place for the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom was an important part of what makes our country great. The military action has begun. Our soldiers are fighting an unpredictable and dangerous enemy in a foreign land. Our hope is for a swift and victory, a liberated Iraq and a nation of 24 million who can determine their own fates. A majority of Americans support the war effort. Many of those who opposed the idea of war have changed their tune now that hostilities have begun.

Those who STILL oppose the war in light of the discoveries in Iraq regarding chemical weapons, Geneva convention violations and the like need their heads examined. Unlike the Vietnam-era protests, today’s protesters aren’t just average confused kids. During Vietnam, the protests eventually became violent resulting in more than a thousand domestic bombings. The current movement is potentially far more dangerous. Unlike its anti-Vietnam predecessor, it is allied with terrorist solidarity groups and radical Muslim organizations active on college campuses.

The extreme violent fringe of the “anti-war” movement is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. Legislation should be enacted and step should be taken to punish those who choose to operate outside the law by trying to influence policy with violence, intimidation and malice.

The liberal media and politicians are losing credibility with the American people. They were wrong about "peace through strength" that led to the demise of the Soviet Union, but they won't admit it. Liberal educators and liberal clergy have spent gobs of money on full-page newspaper ads that claim disaster will befall America for undertaking this noble venture to free an oppressed people and to make our own country safer and better able to defend itself against the "axis of evil."
At the beginning of the war, it was common for pundits like David Gergen to prophesy doom. Gergen asserted on ABC that since "Iraq is putting up so little resistance" the United States will appear "to have been a bully." Now that the Iraqis have started to offer pockets of resistance albeit from behind smiling and waving civilians or after they pretended to surrender, liberal journalists have affected a fatalistic air as if the United States military should have been able to play hopscotch all the way to Baghdad.
They play both sides of the fence: First prophesy disaster and if that does not occur, lament the fact that in victory America will now be considered a bully.

Liberals like the term “bully” in relation to the United States. But, in fact, bullies are habitually cruel and pick on people weaker than themselves. This description fits Saddam Hussein to a “T”. Hussein kidnaps, tortures, rapes, and murders those who disagree with him. Can any rational person say the United States is behaving in a "habitually cruel" manner in Iraq? The coalition forces have gone out of their way to strike only military targets. The United States has declared our intention to install a democratic government in Iraq, run by Iraqis and not the United States, as soon as it is feasible.
What the extremist fringe protesters fear the most is victory. They are embarrassed by America's position in the world, though we are the world's best protector and promoter of freedom. Why are they reluctant to respond to such a noble calling?
Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote: "Experience informs us that the first defense of weak minds is to recriminate." The second defense was noted by Somerset Maugham, who said, "Like all weak men he laid an exaggerated stress on not changing one's mind" ("Of Human Bondage"). The weak are too weak to acknowledge their weakness and admit they are wrong, much less change their minds.
Amelia Earhart said, "Courage is the price life exacts for granting peace," The weak must comfort themselves and each other in their weakness, lest they be forced to convert and confront their error.
When we are victorious, look for the coalition of the weak to conscientiously object and to recriminate America for its "role" in the world as the lone super power and the "responsibilities " we have not to "lord it over others."

Bias in the media

I was shocked and dismayed that CNN would allow a news analyst to claim the latest Saddam Hussein tape was not only the real Saddam but current. Meanwhile analysts were much more cautious on MSNBC and Fox News. Most likely the Hussein tape was pre-recorded, but it's still anyone's guess. For CNN to declare that the tape was A) current and B) genuine was premature and seemed eerily like an attempt to rally the anti-war folks. Another example, the media hullabaloo about Rachel Corrie's death was incredibly biased. The left-wing media treated her as a martyr, but upon closer inspection Rachel Corrie's activities were beneath contempt.
Rachel Corrie chose to side with a society that breeds some of the cruelest murderers of innocent people in the world. Rachel Corrie gave her life trying to protect people whose declared aim is to annihilate another country. In the name of saving children's lives, Rachel Corrie chose to defend a society that teaches its young children to blow themselves up and which deliberately targets children for death. And Rachel Corrie went to America's enemies to burn her country's flag.
She was one of the many fools our colleges annually produce. Evergreen State College is reputed to excel in such production. Is anyone aware of a single student or faculty member who repudiated her activities?
We are told repeatedly that Rachel was idealistic -- as if that matters. Virtually every person who commits great evil -- the Nazi, the Communist, the Islamic terrorist -- is idealistic. Idealism is morally neutral. It is good only when directed to good ends. Even then the ends do not justify the means. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In young people, idealism is at least as likely to lead to bad as to good because few young people are wise -- and idealism without wisdom is very dangerous.
We are told ad nauseam that Rachel Corrie was a "peace activist." So let it be said once and for all that most of these people are moral frauds. Why? Because "peace activists" routinely protest only against peaceful countries. Has there been one Evergreen State or other "peace activist" in Sudan during its Islamic government's slaughter and enslavement of millions of blacks? Are there any "peace activists" in Tibet to protect its unique culture from being eradicated by the Communist Chinese? Did you notice any "peace activists" trying to save the millions of North Koreans dying at the hands of their lunatic government? Of course not! Rachel Corrie and other "peace activists" only target peace-loving Israel and America.
Why do they do so?
Here is one answer. The world is filled with evil, and young idealists like Rachel Corrie don't like it. Which is lovely. But they don't confront real evil because they know they will get hurt. That's one reason there are no "peace activists" or "human shields" confronting Islamic terror, North Korean totalitarianism, or Chinese Communist despotism.
So, what's an idealist to do if she refuses to confront real evil but wants to feel good about herself? Ironically, confront those who fight real evil. That's why Rachel Corrie and the millions marching to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq have never uttered a peep against Palestinian terror, Iraqi totalitarianism, or North Korean gulags. Instead, they focus their animosity at the countries that confront these evils -- the United States and Israel.
Take no prisoners
If it become exceedingly difficult to prosecute this war in Iraq it will have little to do with the Iraqi military might. It will have everything to do with the weak stomach of many Americans for cold, calculating military realities. Some people seem surprised that Iraq is gladly using POW’s as propaganda tools, threatening to use chemical weapons or that Iraq’s soldiers are surrendering only to attack again when they feel they have an advantage. They shouldn’t be surprised. Thanks to feet-dragging by the U.N. and endless attempts to delay and postpone the war, the Iraqi regime has had time to devise a plan that will cause many more American casualties than would have been the result if the U.N. had acted swiftly, justly and decisively. By doing damage to the United States forces Iraq hopes it can delay the inevitable and make it more costly while working to sway world opinion to it’s side. In their minds the “useful idiots” of the Anti-war movement will never blame Iraq for their past and present war-crimes after all they were only responding to actions of the “big bully” America.
On Iwo Jima many wondered why more Japanese prisoners weren’t taken. “At first, we tried to”, said one WWII veteran,” But one Japanese soldier came out with his hands up and then dropped to the ground so that the guy behind him could open fire. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We didn't take prisoners after that."
Only a few days ago in Iraq a small group of Iraqi soldiers flew a white flag at our Marines only to fire a rocket-propelled grenade at their vehicle. The Washington Post reports that "as many as nine Marines" were killed. The tactic succeeded in killing Americans -- once. It won't happen again. The Iraqis have also reportedly moved soldiers and equipment into civilian neighborhoods in Basra and other cities. You have to wonder if the Iraqis understand how cowardly and primitive it is to hide behind civilians.
AT LAST THE WAR HAS BEGUN
The front page of a newspaper in Kuwait read “At last the war has begun”. Of Saddam’s victims, it is not only Kuwaitis who are relieved that war has begun. Arnaud de Borchgrave of United Press International reports that a group of American anti-war demonstrators who had gone to Iraq were shocked to encounter Iraqi civilians who were pro-war.
A young American clergyman with an anti-war group in Iraq said that some of the things the Iraqis said to him "had shocked me back to reality." Some of these Iraqis "told me that they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start." Then they told him of sadistic tortures "that made me ill" just to hear about.
Too many Americans have been too sheltered for too long to have any conception of what it is like to live under horrifying threats. The bargain-basement martyrs of the "peace" movement who disrupt their fellow Americans' lives with their moral exhibitionism in the streets know that the worst that will happen to them is wrist-slap punishment -- and that most will not get even that.
The blessings we have in this country have been so taken for granted for so long by such people -- and by many in the media and in academia -- that they have no sense of what past sacrifices created these blessings, what present-day sacrifices are necessary to sustain them, much less what are the prerequisites for continuing to live as a free people.

More than ingratitude is involved. Those who do not understand what an on-going price has to be paid continuously to remain free are not only quick to balk at any costs that they have to pay or any restrictions they have to endure, they are also quick to attribute cheap motives to those who have the responsibility to make the hard decisions required to protect us from the dangers that the blind refuse to acknowledge.
Some of these who blindly lash out at America say that the real reason American troops are going into Iraq is to get control of that country's oil. Do they realize that we had control of Kuwait's oil during the previous Gulf war -- and gave it back to the Kuwaitis? Do facts matter at all to those who are on a binge of self-righteousness?
Does it matter to them that we live in an age where "giving peace a chance" means giving people like Saddam Hussein time to develop nuclear weapons? Does it matter to them that the doctrine of "pre-emption" is not just an abstract issue but, in a nuclear age, can be the difference between life and death for millions of Americans?
Surely the time is long overdue to understand that Israel did an enormous favor to the world when its bombers made a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility -- built by France, by the way. Can you imagine where we would be today if Saddam Hussein had been given two decades in which to develop nuclear weapons?
Sheltered people with no sense of the enormous new dangers that the proliferation of nuclear weapons have created still talk in terms of old shibboleths and discuss issues in the abstract, instead of in terms of the concrete and bitter realities confronted by those with responsibility for the fate of this country.
Since we have nuclear weapons, those who think in the abstract ask, why don't others have a right to have them? It never seems to occur to them that, in the real world as it exists, we are not worried because Britain or Israel have nuclear weapons. But anyone with a brain in his head should be worried that North Korea has them and that Saddam Hussein has been trying to get them.