more days gone by...

let me start by commenting on a previous blog. the one about the 5.56 NATO.

the current AR-15/M-16/M-4 platform from what I've seen of it and read about it is a truly versatile one now...it's evolved into a reliable platform from which to build to now after the tragic 'bugs' of the Vietnam models have been sorted out. it's sad so many of our soldiers had to pay the price of our leaderships poor selection.

i had two cousins and three very close friends who had the misfortune to have been saddled with that poor selection. fortunately they survived to recount their harrowing experiences when they were let down by it in the worse possible scenarios.

the two cousins i mention were a career marine and a career soldier...both of which later were taken by agent orange consequences. ironic; they survived the horrific battles of Au Shau, Hue, Da Nang and numerous other only to be overcome by one of our own weapons in later years. both had numerous combat tours there each, they had a combined sixty-five (65) months of combat tours between them and were never severely wounded.

since i was there prior to the days of the M-16, i was not exposed to it as a soldier. for that I'm grateful.

many of you would say "that's ancient history..move on...get over it".

it's very difficult to overlook mistakes and decisions that effect us and our military by our leaders is my point.

the current occupant of the white house has killed the f-22 fighter program, is attempting to lift the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, allow women crew members on submarines, imposing really, really, questionable rules of engagement on the soldiers who are fighting our wars.

my opinion is that all those decisions are very detrimental to the overall moral of the fighting man and the nation.

we, the United States, are the best military on the face of the planet but are fading rapidly due to those decisions.

no other time in our history have we had such a 'wishy-washy' congress. A congress who's is afraid to win wars. or, rather, do what it takes to win wars, i should say.

there is a great emphasis on reduction of collateral damage and the killing of civilians during an engagement.

where it's true many civilians in this day and age do not and are NOT actively engaged in opposing us, they more times than not, are in support of the "other side" in one way or another.

if you don't believe that...i feel sorry for you. all you have to do is go back to the pages of WWII archives and read about the war efforts on the home front by ALL participants.

who was building the planes, tanks, bombs, weapons for their armies? that's right...wives, sisters, mothers, fathers and brothers...now i ask you, are they innocent?

during the fight for falujah the enemy were seeking refuge in mosques...the mosque are known for aiding, hiding and supporting the enemy. are they not a legitimate target? the enemy does NOT hesitate to attack ANY target they deem they need to. why do we not do the same?

during WWII there was a horrific battle, the battle of Monte Cassino, where an 11th century monastery was attacked, and very nearly obliterated, because German paratroopers were "holed up" in it; IT WAS NECESSARY. what's difficult to understand about that?

that's just ONE example...history is replete with many,. many other examples of what needed to be done in order to win.

here's my whole point: the enemy should be pummeled until they submit...period. once they've unconditionally surrendered or been defeated beyond a doubt, then, and only then, should mercy be shown.

war is ugly at it's best...if we MUST engage in it, for what ever the reason(s), why not do our very best to win?

that is not to condone or support atrocities or criminal acts...just do what it takes to win otherwise...don't get involved.

that's my rant for the day...i guess i should start drinking unleaded coffee...