Assuming the existance of a time machine, go back and ask every major military thinker, from Sun Tzu to Hannibal to Napoleon to Von Clausewitz to Grant to Caesar to Yamamoto to Mahan to Fuller to God alone knows how many others there are, what make up some of the most important aspects of warfare - things without which no army or force of men can succeed. I will bet you good money, two items that will come up in almost every individual's mind are "the will to succeed" and "intelligence", in some form or another. Now, the phrase "military intelligence" has been something of a joke for centuries now, but the fact of the matter is that if Hitler knew exactly where and when D-Day was going to be executed, the operation would have failed miserably, and it was only his knowledge of the defensive structures of the nations around him that allowed him to execute the blitzkrieg of northern Europe so effectively. Those, however, are simply two examples of hundreds of thousands of instances where intelligence played a key role in warfare, either informing the offensive party when and where to strike, or the defensive one where to shield the strongest. And it kind of goes without saying that without the drive to win being fully expressed from the lowest-rank ground-pounder in the trenches to the highest rank commander who might not even see the physical field, no army is going to succeed.

One of the most useful pieces of information a force can have is when their enemy is going to withdraw from the field of battle (assuming that conflict is still at hand, and the withdrawl is not due to surrender of either party). With that information, the force remaining can make the withdrawing force's life miserable, make the withdrawl painful, play the sociopolitical game of convincing whatever natives are in the area that the withdrawing forces are abandoning them / do not care about them / etc., and other similar, tactics. A sufficiently capable force could even make the withdrawl impossible by cutting off supply lines and methods for extraction - those actions might prove to be disastrously costly, but if you know it will isolate your enemy, an enemy that was looking forward to going home, and now is suddenly stuck where they were not planning on being... well, that might just be worth it.

So where am I going with all of this? Well, some people in our government have pretty much been trying to tell our enemies (in this case, the Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations currently operating in Iraq) exactly when we were going to pull out of that nation, to the very day. Thankfully, the Pentagon recently called her on it. In all honesty, I am disappointed in the Pentagon - it should never have taken them this long to smack her upside the head.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

In a few words, no shit. Now, Hillary's lacky... er... spineless puppet... er... spokesperson, sorry, did raise a semivalid point - if you do not plan for something, you are going to execute it poorly. Of course, Undersecretary of Defense Edelman already beat him to the punch:

We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department.

Emphasis added by author. I leave you to figure out why.

Of course, while Hillary is attempting to provide valuable tactical information to our enemies, other Democrats are attempting to generate a situation wherein the American forces are unable to gather the information they need, and further weakening our apparent resolve to win. Now, I will be the first among anyone to speak out against devolving to a society such as the British are now "enjoying", wherein everything is watched and monitored and judged, and any unusual activity is immediately reported and "handled" - 1984, anyone? However, not protecting those people from legal suits when they come forward to point out honest-to-God terrorist or terrorist-supporting activities? Congratulations - you just handed the nation to those terrorists. Of course, the very fact that we have to protect those people is ludicrous to start with, but I am not even going to go there.

Even worse, however, Hot Air raised this point:

The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the “John Doe” protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling.

Right. Because coming out and saying that it is radical Islamics from Middle Eastern nations who are doing most of the damage against the American forces in Iraq, and potentially more damage here in the US itself would be wrong. Because it was obviously some old lady bringing a toy to her grandson who flew the planes into the World Trade Centers.

I used to think your average Democrat was just incompetent, or stupid, or both. I am starting to believe they are maliciously and intentionally ignorant, and intent on levelling the playing field with everyone else... on their scale. God help us if they take the White House this time around, probable though it may very well be, because they would sooner see this nation fall and be ground into the dust than potentially hurt some poor suicide bomber's feelings.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.