Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for May 10, 2011

The first time must have affected his brain… or maybe he’s a really brave soldier!

Ray’s a Top? I didn’t know that. Need to catch up!

Orion

I don’t want to understand that.

Again, this is all building directly on Ray’s last leave and visit with BD.

Hightower……….wasn’t that Bubba Smith’s name in the movie Police Academy

The Corps taught us there was a special place in Heaven with 72 victims.

Okay, the Vietnam parallels are accumulating. Time to get out of Afghanistan and let the tribal bloodletting resume. Our intentions were laudable and our military was magnificent, but lipstick on a pig has never worked.

Specialist has been eating to many “final meals” at the chow hall. And Doc needs to wear scrubs.

I think it is okay, Potrzebie. The doc has walked away from the exam area. He still has the surgical cap on but perhaps he ditched the surgical coat after completing the examination of his patients.

We need to get our Troops out of Iraq yesterday and out of Afghanistan tomorrow. Let the Arab people and the Arab League handle their own mess and then start closing down unneeded and unnecessary overseas bases in Europe and Asia.

Since we’re looking at (probably) a century of “asymmetrical” warfare against jihadists, it’s unrealistic to talk of “bringing home our troops.” The dream of an America at peace with the world was shattered forever by 9/11. Only the christlibs continue to dwell in their solipsistic, pacifist utopia where the first rule is not to anger our enemies. (Any nation that excites envy will also arouse enmity.)

By all means bring home the bulk of our forces in the Middle East, but leave enough of them in place to support special operations like the Seals who carry on the limited, half-secret wars that have come to define the 21st century.

Can I be in his outfit?

palin drome - I have to disagree with the idea of a century of jihadist warfare. If politicians believe it then it becomes self fulfilling. But it is both avoidable and unlikely.

WHO are the “christlibs”? Somehow this word (which means nothing as near as I can tell) has popped into the right-wing discourse. I suppose it’s supposed to be insulting or snotty but I can’t for the life of me work out how or why. Or, as I said, who, or for that matter, what. Can someone please fill me on on this?

diggitt, you pretty much nailed it. It is meant to be a pejorative term, perhaps the flip side of “neocon”, but without the acceptance of the term by the general population.

the “christlib” thing … maybe it’s a new rock to throw, by leftovers of the 1960’s, still fighting a culture war against the “hippies”

The term “christlibs” (meaning Christian liberals) is obviously pejorative, as distinguished from “Christlib” (with a capital “C”) standing for “Christian libertarians.”

For a Christlib, the emphasis is on Christ. To quote their website, “At Christlib.net we value a relationship with Jesus Christ.”

By contrast, “christlibs” are liberals who, while professing agnosticism or atheism, wholeheartedly approve Jesus’s command to “love your enemies.” Most christlibs also reject the notion of a just war.

Ps. @ palin drome

Not all liberals (and despite my polemic logo, I consider myself one) are “christlibs.” I believe war is as necessary to civilization as commerce is, and that it too should be conducted with skill and efficiency—as it has not often been in Iraq and Afghanistan until this month..