Friday, March 21, 2003


The charming Rachel Lucas catches the CNN pinhead at his most jaw-droppingly stupid:

"What's to stop the Iraqis from seeing these tanks and sending out a few planes to take them out?"

Aaron was talking about the Third Infantry Division.

To answer your question, you pinhead: COMPLETE AIR SUPERIORITY! Any Iraqi military pilot stupid enough to taxi to a runway would probably be blown to itty-bitty Iraqi bits before he could take off. If he managed to get airborne, however, he would have to deal with this ...

And, of course, would be blown to itty-bitty Iraqi bits. There is simply no way, Aaron Brown, you ugly whore you, for Iraqi aircraft to threaten U.S. ground forces. As Rachel put it, it's a metaphysical impossibility. But I guess you'd have to have half an ounce of common sense to understand that, wouldn't you?



Just when you think Aaron Brown couldn't possibly be more stupid, he shocks and awes you. I walk past the TV tuned to CNN and the pathetic pinhead is suggesting that coalition forces could face a Mogadishu-type situation ("Blackhawk Down") when ground forces reach Baghdad.

OK, boys and girls, what was the one thing U.S. forces requested -- but the Clinton administration denied them -- in Mogadishu?


Anybody who's read the book or seen the movie should get the significance of this. Denied tanks and APCs, the Rangers were forced to go into Mogadishu in Humvees, and were spectacularly vulnerable to small-arms fire.

Obviously, this will not be the case in Iraq, where the U.S.-led coalition is advancing (you can watch it live on TV) with hundreds of tanks, hundreds more armored personnel carriers, and enough air power to blow the living hell out of anything that tries to stop them. There is nothing -- nothing -- in the Iraqi arsenal that can stop the M1A1 Abrams tank. So there is zero possibility of a "Mogadishu" in Baghdad, which anybody with a room-temperature IQ ought to be able to understand. But that doesn't include Aaron Brown.

Brown is not alone in his monumental ignorance of military basics. The 24/7 coverage of the war has put a bunch of pretty TV people in the uncomfortable position of having to fill hour after hour with chatter about the war, giving them ample opportunity to demonstrate their stupidity. Maybe this has something to do with our educational system, which has downgraded military history (battles, generals, et ceter) in favor of lots of PC multicultural "social studies" nonsense. The result is that there are many reasonable well-educated people who don't know their flank from their rear, so to speak.

You would think that such people would, in recognition of their own ignorance, be a bit humble when dealing with the military. You would be wrong. These arrogant TV twerps, who don't know Cannae from Caen, insist on acting soooo authoritative. Instead of asking basic questions to get information -- "Colonel, what can you tell us about this attack?" -- they ask complicated questions meant to show how smart they are: "Colonel, given the fierce resistance of the elite Republican Guards, how many American boys will go home in bodybags before you take Basra?"

These idiots have learned all the wrong lessons of the Vietnam War. They imagine that every war will turn into a quagmire and a bloody American defeat. Every battle will be the siege of Khe Sanh. U.S. generals are all bloodthirsty idiots. And the only honorable posture in time of war is to demand "peace."

Their wrongheadedness, combined with their astonishing ignorance, is evident every time they open their mouths.