A Fight to the Death
Timothy Birdnow
Burt Prelutsky speaks my mind at the Federalist Patriot:
"So far as morality is concerned, I happen to think it was dumb, perhaps even evil, to have given bin Laden such a nice send-off. I feel it sent the wrong message. I know President Obama and others believe it showed the world how fine we are. I think it showed the world that we are so cowardly that we will even show respect to pure evil. If it had been up to me, I would have wrapped bin Laden's sorry carcass in pigskin, which perhaps explains why I don't hold elective office. But certainly there had to have been an alternative to washing his body, wrapping it in a white sheet and saying a few respectful words over it in Arabic, before dumping him overboard. Frankly, I think attempting to show respect to someone whose brains you've just recently splattered on a wall is, to put it mildly, an empty gesture. But I think it's a perfect example of how misguided our war on terrorism has been. For the past decade, we have been walking on eggs where Muslims are concerned. Both Bush and Obama have displayed the attitude of a supplicant, speaking and acting like men who are far more concerned with public relations than with reality. Whether the topic is Gitmo, some nutty minister in Florida with a book of matches or the proper way to dispose of a monster's corpse, our pundits and presidents worry incessantly about how it's perceived in the Arab/Muslim world."
End excerpt.
One does not win wars through excessive brutality, but also excessive kindness is equally ineffective. There must be both the carrot and the stick, yet we use the carrot far more than the stick in this crazy war. That has to stop; we cannot win if first our enemies do not fear us. Walking back a victory so as not to rub the enemy's nose in it may be fine in softball or soccer, but is terrible military strategy. The enemy has to be BROKEN which means they have to see and understand that their people are beaten, and for that to happen one must parade a Bin-Laden (spiritual head of the terrorist movement) around for all to see. This idea that we had to not release photos of Bin-Laden because it might bring reprisals is as stupid a view as one can imagine; OF COURSE there will be reprisals, and we need to be waiting to kill them when they come! That is the essence of war. Fear of reprisals misses the whole point; it suggests we are weak. The point of killing Bin-Laden was to show we are strong, and they cannot win. Treating his body respectfully told the Islamic world we are a bunch of chickens.
We can win hearts and minds all we want AFTER we win the war. The first lesson must be that we won the war.
The American Civil War lasted five bloody years, and largely because the Union generals were unwilling to go after Robert E. Lee. Lee understood this, and he ran the Federals a merry chase. Had Grant been in charge from the beginning the rebellion would have ended inside of two years. Why? Because he would have went after Lee as he was to do later in the war. That was key; as long as the South believed they could win they continued to fight. Had Grant been there, he would have lost men and battles, but each battle would have said to the southerners that victory was impossible. They would have lost heart. Not pursuing them gave them hope. Many more men died as a result.
We have been fighting the War on Terror (a poor name in itself) like General McClellan; too frightened of political fallout from war deaths to come to grips with the enemy. We have created this notion about winning hearts and minds, when we haven't yet beaten the foe. We are reluctant to offend the enemy's kinsman and neighbors.
Once the entire Arab world knows that terrorism is a sure path to not just death but the loss of the 72 virgins - in fact, we'll do what we can to pursue them into the afterlife - then they will give up on this. The reality is that terrorism is a tactic, and not even a new one. There have been guerilla tactics employed throughout history. It's difficult to fight, because the terrorist hides behind women and children. But those women and children shelter the terrorists largely because they are more afraid of them than of the "enemy" whom they may not hate or even dislike. They have to be given a reason to turn on the terrorists, and that means they have to believe there is no quarter for them. And, of course, how will terrorists recruit when joining an Al Qaeda is a sure path to not only death but perhaps damnation? If there is no reward here or in the hereafter, who will volunteer? Now Muslim youths are recruited with promises of sex, sex, sex in the Heaven of Allah, and their lives aren't so great here. If we promise to take that away from them...
It took fifty some-odd years to defeat the Soviet Union, and they weren't defeated by Detente' or any sort of peace accord, but by the projection of American power. They couldn't Keep up with us economically or militarily. That was easy; this is much harder, as the Islamists are funded by oil money and an ideology that is 1500 years old and promises paradise for those who kill infidels. What did America think would happen?
We have to be hard in this struggle. We have to make it plain to our Islamic "allies" that any duplicity will bring retribution. We have to make it plain that we will not tolerate state sponsors of terror. We have to make it plain to all Muslims that we will deal with terrorists in harsh terms. Now it is better to be caught by Americans than by fellow Muslims. That has to change.
Once we have established that we aren't giving up, THEN we can be generous. Right now our kindness appears to them as weakness - and they believe they will triumph.
George W. Bush (a lunkhead in my opinion) was right when he wanted to go into Iraq, but not for the stated reason of creating a modern western state. He was trying to buck 1500 years of tradition and faith with baubles and trinkets. Going into Iraq meant establishing a base of operations against Iran and Syria, yet we failed to do that. Iran sent forces into Iraq to destabilize our government instead of our going into Iran. And, of course, there were a couple of uprisings in Iran and we did nothing. Iran is the terror master, and removing the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinnerjacket would have been huge in terms of quieting the Jihad. Our failure to act makes it clear to our enemies that they can win.
We can't continue to fight this way. And fight we must; there will be no truce, no negotiated peace. This is a fight to the death.
Burt Prelutsky speaks my mind at the Federalist Patriot:
"So far as morality is concerned, I happen to think it was dumb, perhaps even evil, to have given bin Laden such a nice send-off. I feel it sent the wrong message. I know President Obama and others believe it showed the world how fine we are. I think it showed the world that we are so cowardly that we will even show respect to pure evil. If it had been up to me, I would have wrapped bin Laden's sorry carcass in pigskin, which perhaps explains why I don't hold elective office. But certainly there had to have been an alternative to washing his body, wrapping it in a white sheet and saying a few respectful words over it in Arabic, before dumping him overboard. Frankly, I think attempting to show respect to someone whose brains you've just recently splattered on a wall is, to put it mildly, an empty gesture. But I think it's a perfect example of how misguided our war on terrorism has been. For the past decade, we have been walking on eggs where Muslims are concerned. Both Bush and Obama have displayed the attitude of a supplicant, speaking and acting like men who are far more concerned with public relations than with reality. Whether the topic is Gitmo, some nutty minister in Florida with a book of matches or the proper way to dispose of a monster's corpse, our pundits and presidents worry incessantly about how it's perceived in the Arab/Muslim world."
End excerpt.
One does not win wars through excessive brutality, but also excessive kindness is equally ineffective. There must be both the carrot and the stick, yet we use the carrot far more than the stick in this crazy war. That has to stop; we cannot win if first our enemies do not fear us. Walking back a victory so as not to rub the enemy's nose in it may be fine in softball or soccer, but is terrible military strategy. The enemy has to be BROKEN which means they have to see and understand that their people are beaten, and for that to happen one must parade a Bin-Laden (spiritual head of the terrorist movement) around for all to see. This idea that we had to not release photos of Bin-Laden because it might bring reprisals is as stupid a view as one can imagine; OF COURSE there will be reprisals, and we need to be waiting to kill them when they come! That is the essence of war. Fear of reprisals misses the whole point; it suggests we are weak. The point of killing Bin-Laden was to show we are strong, and they cannot win. Treating his body respectfully told the Islamic world we are a bunch of chickens.
We can win hearts and minds all we want AFTER we win the war. The first lesson must be that we won the war.
The American Civil War lasted five bloody years, and largely because the Union generals were unwilling to go after Robert E. Lee. Lee understood this, and he ran the Federals a merry chase. Had Grant been in charge from the beginning the rebellion would have ended inside of two years. Why? Because he would have went after Lee as he was to do later in the war. That was key; as long as the South believed they could win they continued to fight. Had Grant been there, he would have lost men and battles, but each battle would have said to the southerners that victory was impossible. They would have lost heart. Not pursuing them gave them hope. Many more men died as a result.
We have been fighting the War on Terror (a poor name in itself) like General McClellan; too frightened of political fallout from war deaths to come to grips with the enemy. We have created this notion about winning hearts and minds, when we haven't yet beaten the foe. We are reluctant to offend the enemy's kinsman and neighbors.
Once the entire Arab world knows that terrorism is a sure path to not just death but the loss of the 72 virgins - in fact, we'll do what we can to pursue them into the afterlife - then they will give up on this. The reality is that terrorism is a tactic, and not even a new one. There have been guerilla tactics employed throughout history. It's difficult to fight, because the terrorist hides behind women and children. But those women and children shelter the terrorists largely because they are more afraid of them than of the "enemy" whom they may not hate or even dislike. They have to be given a reason to turn on the terrorists, and that means they have to believe there is no quarter for them. And, of course, how will terrorists recruit when joining an Al Qaeda is a sure path to not only death but perhaps damnation? If there is no reward here or in the hereafter, who will volunteer? Now Muslim youths are recruited with promises of sex, sex, sex in the Heaven of Allah, and their lives aren't so great here. If we promise to take that away from them...
It took fifty some-odd years to defeat the Soviet Union, and they weren't defeated by Detente' or any sort of peace accord, but by the projection of American power. They couldn't Keep up with us economically or militarily. That was easy; this is much harder, as the Islamists are funded by oil money and an ideology that is 1500 years old and promises paradise for those who kill infidels. What did America think would happen?
We have to be hard in this struggle. We have to make it plain to our Islamic "allies" that any duplicity will bring retribution. We have to make it plain that we will not tolerate state sponsors of terror. We have to make it plain to all Muslims that we will deal with terrorists in harsh terms. Now it is better to be caught by Americans than by fellow Muslims. That has to change.
Once we have established that we aren't giving up, THEN we can be generous. Right now our kindness appears to them as weakness - and they believe they will triumph.
George W. Bush (a lunkhead in my opinion) was right when he wanted to go into Iraq, but not for the stated reason of creating a modern western state. He was trying to buck 1500 years of tradition and faith with baubles and trinkets. Going into Iraq meant establishing a base of operations against Iran and Syria, yet we failed to do that. Iran sent forces into Iraq to destabilize our government instead of our going into Iran. And, of course, there were a couple of uprisings in Iran and we did nothing. Iran is the terror master, and removing the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinnerjacket would have been huge in terms of quieting the Jihad. Our failure to act makes it clear to our enemies that they can win.
We can't continue to fight this way. And fight we must; there will be no truce, no negotiated peace. This is a fight to the death.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home