The Note in the Boat

No, it’s not baloney. We cannot allow them to gather their strength, plan unfettered, arm themselves, train, infiltrate and take over entire countries and then hit us hard.

But we do have to fight differently.

We did not “nation build,” Japan or Germany while we were fighting them. We fought them with all we had until they and those supporting them were annihilated and all they wanted was to sue for peace unconditionally. It did not take ten years to do that. In a much larger war, where there were infiltrators and sabuteurs, and enemy fighting behind lines, we were ruthless with them. We catch a spy...he is interogated and then lined up and shot. In that much lagrer World War, we did it in four years.

Then we took the waisted enemies and helped them keep from starving and then supported them building back constitutional republics.

We could have...and should fight these wars that way.

For example...a Fullejah would have been given an ultimatum. Come out in 72 hours or all the blood is on your hands. Then, instead of sending thousands of marines in their to take the place in a bloody house to house fight whiuch plays into their hands and desire for Jihad, we deny them that...we surround the place with Abrmas tanks and Bradley IFVs and then bombed it to rubble with B-52s for about three weeks. Then send in the mop up teams...plow the whole place under and salt the ground and have the survivors and those who did come out build a new city four or five miles away with wide streets and no cubby holes and tell them if they ever so much as harm the hair on an American’s head we will be back and do it again.

Anyhow..we have to defeat the enemy...not try to win their hearts and minds. Do that after they are utterly defeated and know there is no hope for their damnable Jihad cause.

And secure our borders as well. Slam it shut like an iron door except for the indentified and legal entry points where legal imigrants and visitors can come across.

We can do both...and should have long ago.

Jeff,

we’re not that far apart on this. For example - when we were in Iraq (your example of Fallujah is a good one), the Pentagon had absurd and unprecedented rules of engagement that not only tied the hands of the soldiers, but put their lives in needless jeopardy. The same was / is true in Afghanistan.

To put a finer point on my objection to pursue any further military engagements thousands of miles away, I would first have to be convinced that we had a strategy in place to win and that the theater and field level commanders were given authority to plan and execute without political interference.

I think you would admit that hasn’t been the case and with the bizarre conflicting ideologies within the Pentagon now, wouldn’t be the case wherever our fighting men and women would be deployed. Congress is also passive and out of the loop of decision making as to whether a military action is in our best interests. Instead, they defer to the White House. This is constitutionally out of order.

We now have Imperial Presidents (Bush, Obama) that are more like reigning Monarchs than constitutionally constrained Commander In Chiefs. No, until that situation is resolved, I tend to view most of these actions as wagging the dog for political purposes rather than motivated by National security.

Why aren’t the borders secure? We’ve just seen a report from the GAO, based on statistics from the Border Patrol that contradicts the narrative of Janet Napolitano that the border is under control. I know that you’ll agree with me that 40% (which may be a generous estimate) is not the border ‘under control’.

While I am by no means suggesting that we toss out counter terrorism, I think the War on Terror as it has actually been administrated, has been leveraged into an abusive and controlling Police State apparatus that has us more under control than the potential terrorist.

Some perspective needs to be applied to this. Americans are more likely to be killed by medical malpractice, drunk Illegal Aliens, Hurricanes, Tornados, unstable furniture, bath tubs, Alcohol and other substance abuse, Tobacco related diseases, Hospital infections, Lightning strikes, Bee, Hornet and Wasp stings, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases than domestic Terror attacks. I’m not willing make a trade in which I am virtually immune from terrorist events or mass shootings, but surrender the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and any number of other amendments to the Constitution protecting me from Government tyranny. It’s not a good bargain.

Finally, whether we agree completely or not, I appreciate your respectful tone and willingness to discuss the issues & not get personal.

We have to do it like we did in World War II. We utterly defeated those people and destroyed their ideologies (Nazism and Ipperialsim in Japan). Those are now pariahs.

We completely humbled the people who supported them, utterly destroyed their armed forces, imposed unconditionalo surrender, and then under those conditions, presented them with constitutional republics which they adopted.

We have to do the same to Islamic Jihad and Sharia Law. Under those conditions, I am willing to talk about bringing the surviros, who surrender unconditionally after being rightously humbled to the dirt, into the family of civilized nations.

That is the ONLY way it can be done. Anything short of that is going to simply mean we will be fighting them for a hundred years.

to say that I’m blaming the victims of terrorism is absurd and insupportable based on what I wrote. I’ll try again to get the point through to you this way. We have as much results from the War on Terror as we do from the War on Drugs.

Tell me how many Trillions of dollars should we continue to spend chasing down insane people in the Middle East; when the practical solution is to spend a fraction of that money making our borders virtually impenetrable and at the same time putting a moratorium on study visas, asylum applications and immigration from countries where people are of a mind to Jihad?

Secondly, if we did go to war for Oil, it’s ludicrous that we didn’t take enough to pay for the cost of invading and occupying. That’s not my fault. You might ask George Bush why he didn’t fill up the tank while we were over there. So, obviously it wasn’t about oil and it wasn’t about WMDs either. Then what? You tell me.

We could have hung up the banner ‘Mission Accomplished’ right after the Statue was toppled and backed out and let the Sunnis and Shiites have at it with each other since that is what they were going to do anyway. No, we saddle our soldiers with rules of engagement that are tantamount to treason and then assign them to collect garbage and collect trash.

I say, let the trash collect itself. $4 Trillion is hell of a hefty price for trash collection. Let’s get our own energy here and give that whole region a collective middle finger.

“to say that I’m blaming the victims of terrorism is absurd and insupportable based on what I wrote.”

No, it’s not absurd or insupportable, it’s right there in black and white:

“If there is even the smallest amount of reality in the assertion that our military actions in such regions of the world, are contributing to a motive for terrorism – doesn’t it follow that we need to scrutinize our national interest in involving ourselves in these areas going forward.”

This statement certainly expresses that we may share some fault for the actions of the terrorists. Why else would we need to scrutinize anything? By bothering to give such notions a mention, other than to rebut them, you are lending credence to them.

“Tell me how many Trillions of dollars should we continue to spend chasing down insane people in the Middle East; when the practical solution is to spend a fraction of that money making our borders virtually impenetrable and at the same time putting a moratorium on study visas, asylum applications and immigration from countries where people are of a mind to Jihad?”

Sure, I agree, let’s stop all immigration from those countries and boot out the Muslims already here. However, we both know that won’t happen anytime soon, so it’s a fantasy proposal at this point.

“Secondly, if we did go to war for Oil, it’s ludicrous that we didn’t take enough to pay for the cost of invading and occupying. That’s not my fault. You might ask George Bush why he didn’t fill up the tank while we were over there. So, obviously it wasn’t about oil and it wasn’t about WMDs either. Then what? You tell me.”

Well, at least you admit the notion we went to war for oil is ludicrous. As for it not being about WMDs, I’m not going to concede that point, as obviously that was a large part of the justification for going to war. However, if you want to talk about the real reason, it was simply vengeance, or bloodlust.

At that point in time, the entire country, Republicans and Democrats, wanted vengeance for 9/11, and the invasion of Afghanistan was accomplished far too quickly and easily. Our bloodlust wasn’t sated, so we picked another target. It’s as simple as that, but nobody really wants to have that discussion because we want to maintain the illusion that we are civilized people and never surrender ourselves to such base motivations.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.