I don’t know that America is capable of waging war against ISIS. These days there is much more talk about homosexual and transexual outreach and concern for the war against the weather than there is in making America hard enough to fight. We were that way before Pearl Harbor, it’s not a new thing in the US. The problem with war in this century is that the asymmetrical nature of “war” and the concept of fighting a war has changed radically.
 |
| The wrong approach |
The war we wage has been waged before (See Battle of Tours, 732 AD), but Europe neither has nor desires another Charles Martel to save them from the savages, so I’m not confident that we have firm allies even if we are able to generate the spine to push back against Political Islam in all of its manifestations.
I do not suggest that we repeal the First Amendment and deny freedom of religion, but Political Islam is our enemy. Terrorists serve political Islam. It’s difficult to separate the two. I grant you that.
Once America has defined its enemy, we need to determine whether Europe is willing to raise an army and pay for its maintenance in the field. Since it is Europe which has embraced the savages and released them onto its streets, they need to decide what they want to do. They’re in or they’re out. What we do in response to Political Islam depends in part what Europe wants to do and pay for.
The goal of any war against ISIS/the caliphate, is to deny them safe havens anywhere on the planet. If they go there, we sterilize the place. I’m not calling for nuclear weapons but I’m calling for everything short of nuclear/biological/chemical. Putting ordnance on target does end wars. If people offer sanctuary or shelter to savages, they are treated like the savages themselves. Sorry. War means fighting and fighting means killing (W. T. Sherman).
Fire the dead wood at CIA and DIA (yes, there will be a lot of bureaucratic drones in the bread line), and get the cream of the crop on the hump to collect intelligence. All of the PR Crap that exists within the CIA and trust me, it is vast, needs to be scrapped. It’s a non-uniformed military service and always has been. It’s time go fix the rot.
Step up efforts at home to identify and track jihadists and deny them safe harbor in the US. It’s not as difficult as people think it is. Take the shackles off the police and FBI, which need to operate within the law. Some of those rules forbidding surveillance of mosques have to be scrapped.
Deny access to the US to all but fully vetted Middle Eastern refugees. Scrutinize all visa requests from Muslims carefully.
Expand the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because it will be filling. Treat prisoners humanely but there is no need to coddle prisoners of war. They are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions and need not be accorded those privileges. Feed them, warehouse them, and one day if the war ever ends and the savages turn their swords into plows, they can go home. If not, they can die in custody when their time comes. The money we spend per prisoner at Gitmo is obscene.
Is America to take those steps? I don’t think so. Accept who you elected to be commander-in-chief, cheer him on as he does the wave in Cuba at a baseball game and tangos in Argentina.
I would like to see somebody take an in-depth look at this, and its opposite – a complete withdrawal by the US. Because the problem is – not just for the safety of the world, but for the soldier, or pilot, who is a pawn in a battle without a war – we never fully commit, and we never fully withdraw. We half-ass respond to these things.
Why are we advising middle eastern nations on how to fight middle easterners? "Abdul, look, if we were fighting these guys, we would do this or that…but you don't have that capability, okay, so if we were fighting these guys with most of our weapons and tactics not available, we would suggest this…" Why do we send FBI agents to assist with investigations and to track leads? "Based on my training and experience, they were Muslim Jihadis – and they live over there in that neighborhood," there, I solved it, save the plane ticket and the per diem…
I wouldn't mind the President going to a baseball game, or dancing the tango, if he would pull everybody and say, "World, its your problem, you solve it, we're good over here." But he doesn't, he has put boots on the ground, but not enough to solve anything. Sure, I'm glad our SF guys are maintaining their skills, but its not going to contain anything. But more than that, the Brussels and Paris attackers…were from Brussels and Paris – that is a Belgium and France problem – but Obama won't say that.
I prefer an all out war against them, in the fields, in the air, on the net, in the papers, at the diner, in front of the mosque. But if we are not going to do that – I would like to see a series, in-depth proposal for a complete withdrawal. Not "giving up", just letting them solve their own problems. [A proposal mind you, because I do see that if we withdraw to our shores – we will eventually have to suit up and go save the planet.]
It's wrong to put our men and women in harm's way if we are only doing it for show. The phony tough Obama and the timid Kerry only create more problems for everyone involved. Defeating the jihad means breaking a lot of eggs. If you don't want to do that, withdraw. Tell Israel that if they want to stop Iran from going nuclear, they will need to do as they see fit.
You're right, eventually the problem will come knocking on our door, but the way that we deal with problems in the Middle East is not unlike how we deal with the problem on the Southern Border. What the heck is wrong with us as a nation?
It's unsettling to watch the slow moving train wreck of cultural suicide. Maybe the "slow" aspect is starting to speed up…
The Donald will fix everything. You'll see, and once he begins to clean house, he'll garner tremendous GOP support, that I can tell you, that I can tell you. And accordingly, all of those currently wayward GOP congressmen will come swooping back into Washington to render their assistance, zooming in on the backs of their flying pigs….
Time to turn off the sarcasm button now. Click.
Gitmo IS worth it, but concur, basic human rights and nothing else. They don't deserve it, we've been 'catering' to the prisoners down there for the last seven years!!!
Europe is financially bankrupt (except for Switzerland and maybe Germany), so if we have to go back and save them AGAIN, it'll be on our dime.
Personally, I think 90+% of our youth has been so dumbed-down by the "educational" system that they haven't got a clue about any of this.
And seeing as what gets taught for "history" these days makes no mention of these savages in the past, well….you reap what you sow,
It's simply a progression and we're seeing new signs that the jihad is in a new phase. That's all. The Europeans can chose to do something, or not. I don't see them taking this seriously.
It's a mess.
Club Gitmo is not what it should be. That's easy to fix, but we need to want to do that.
Germany and France hold the EU together and the UK is posturing to bail. If they go, the house of cards comes down.
The other day, I had a student who, once again, spewed the progressive doctrine that "religion caused all wars." Yet, when asked, the same student could not name a single religious war, except for the Crusades, which happened 1000 years ago. When I asked about Islam starting a war, the student rejected the idea outright because political correctness, or something.
Wars are caused by political action, not religion. However, many politicians will abuse religion in order to prop up the will of people to fight. The term you use – Political Islam – is a good qualifier. Muslim "leaders" aren't waging war for religious reasons. Their suicide killers become zealots for a cause and do the will of politicians in the name of Allah.
In the US, we've discovered another god, progressivism, which allows the political elite to rewrite history as it happens. It allows the elite to blame the blameless and to ignore the root causes of terrorism. It's a screwed up philosophy.
Progressivism (the faith of faithlessness) is every bit as dangerous as political Islam, and every bit as "politically correct" these days. Other than the first Crusade, in which Peter-the-Hermit was thumped and possibly the second, most of them were fought for wealth and status, not faith. By the time that the Third and later Crusades were fought (many years separated them) there were Arabs and Christians on BOTH sides. A close study finds that the Christians who had settled in conquered lands didn't want the crusaders anymore than the Arabs did because the foraging armies took from them as well.
You could argue that the War of Northern Aggression used religion (on both sides) to justify war. But that's almost always the tool in the toy box to convince men to fight. Not the same thing as a 'religious war'.
The Islamification of Europe that is currently under way is war by other means. They will out 'breed' the Europeans given two generations and then vote them out (hoisted on their own democratic petard) and establish Islam and Sharia as the dominant political system (and faith).
The Crusaders who marched into Jerusalem killed anyone who got in their way, Christians or Muslims. They had been fired up to violence after a year on the road, mostly starving to death.
You are correct about the Muslims outbreeding the Europeans. Progressive dogma has told those who know better to stop populating the world. Those people with no such constraints are destined to outproduce the westerners who "know" what's best.
There are predictable results.
It's gonna be great, you're gonna love it, many smart people have told me, you're gonna love it…
Comments are closed.