Saturday.....War On Terror.....Bloody Sunday, Abu Ghraib and Mei Lai

British Prime Minister David Cameron recently issued a formal apology for the unwarranted killing of citizens in Northern Ireland on January 30, 1972 that became known as Bloody Sunday. Today's Wall Street Journal has a very insightful article, written by British author Douglas Murray, on that apology. On that day, British troops killed 13 people as a civil rights march deteriorated into a riot. The most recent government investigation into the day recently concluded after 12 years and a cost of 200 million pounds. The results vindicated the families of the dead who had pursued this course of investigation. Murray considers the views of both sides on this issue, one being perfectly decent and patriotic people who believe little good, and much damage, can come from publicly hauling our troops over the coals, and others who believe that we must hold our troops to higher standards than any of those they fight. In his first bit of insight, he mentions that legitimate views can be highjacked. This is what we need to realize in America today. Conservative and Liberal issues can be, and often are, highjacked. If we fail to discern when this happens, the extremist has succeeded in bringing chaos to a legitimate debate. The writer also points out that, what is not considered is that, in British opinion, the latter side contains not mere social groups but terror groups. (emphasis mine) The terrorist therefore becomes vindicated along with the innocent, and Mr. Murray gives his warning that a demonstration of ..... our decency can turn into our enemies using this as proof that they were right all along. He quotes the late Jeane Kirkpatrick in our tendency to blame America first and most, and to extend to others 'understanding' and tolerance denied the United States. Mr. Murray writes that our enemies rely upon this, that such inquiries will be solely inward-looking because then our attention will never focus outward upon their crimes and warns that what makes us great and free is also what makes us vulnerable, our introspection can be a demonstration, not of sophistication, but of self-absorption, weakness and finally naivete'. In my estimation, our media often does exactly what Douglas Murray warns against.  When self-absorption rules their reporting, our war efforts suffer, as does our national defense. Tolerance is not considered for Conservative issues, but lavished upon the Obama administration's agenda. The ultimate product is that terrorists kill with impunity while we struggle to defend ourselves; and tyranny advances while victory is tied up in the court of public opinion. One prime example would be Abu Ghraib. Murderers were mistreated and we kept our honor by defending them regardless of the much needed aid, strength and motivation it gave to others murderers, their cohorts, still in the field. Abu Ghraib could have been handled and future abuses halted without assisting the greater crimes while focusing on the lesser. This is certainly not to say that investigations of criminal and ethical conduct should not take place. On the contrary, if we use the tactics of terrorism on innocents and murder of non-combatants, victory would not only be hollow, it would be a worthless and not even something to be desired. The Warrant Officer who witnessed the atrocities of Mei Lai was the prototypical example of common sense in understanding that the murders in those ditches equaled the murders of the Viet Cong who may have lived in that village. It was reported just today that 20% of the Guantanamo detainees that were returned to Saudi Arabia (25 out of 120) have returned to militancy. If we as a people once again begin to discern the difference between self absorption and true justice and honor, our enemies will have lost one of their more valuable weapons.