Posted on 10/28/2015 10:16:55 AM PDT by ken5050
Conservatives have correctly accused of Obama of being unwilling to utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." If you won't even identify your enemy, there is no way you can defeat it.
However, those conservatives who increasingly call for more boots on the ground are equally as guilty of dishonesty. It is time to state the obvious, to speak the truth:
Wars in the middle east, against radical Islam, cannot be won; not because we lack the military strength, but rather because we lack the political will to kill enough of the enemy to defeat it.
So let us briefly (and yes, admittedly....simplistically) revisit several examples from our own recent history.
During WW II, the western democracies confronted two evil regimes: Germany and Japan. Both countries were led by madmen. Both nations committed atrocities on a previously unimaginable scale. Both regimes enjoyed considerable support from most of the populace. And studies have shown that both regimes had a hard core, near fanatical support base of about 10% of the population.
We defeated both nations, at a cost of almost one million Americans killed and wounded. We did so by completely destroying both nations, eliminating their ability to wage war. In the process, we killed millions of the enemy, and millions more "innocent" civilians; many who supported the regimes up until the surrender.
And then we accomplished a near miracle, and did it twice. We completely reconstructed both countries, and turned them into model democracies.
Thus, the myth of "nation building" as an instrument of our foreign policy was born.
But we have forgotten the two key lessons of that successful exercise:
1. You can't rebuild something unless and until you first demolish it. You cannot construct a new house on a rotten, broken foundation.
2. In war, people die, often civilians. You cannot let fear of that fact shape and define how you conduct war to achieve the ultimate goal.
Yes, millions of Japanese and German civilians died in the bombings and the battles. Yet how many millions of its own citizens had both regimes killed? How many millions more would they have killed had they not been defeated. ? And more to the point: Since the end of WW II, how many hundreds of millions of Germans and Japanese have enjoyed the benefits of democracy; of living in freedom?
So, there's the calculus. You do the math. Was it worth it?
I would submit that every German and Japanese born since 1945 would say yes.
During the Vietnam War, LBJ and Robert Strange (and was ever a man more aptly named?) McNamara threw away 58,000 American lives because they lacked the political will to wage war. Talk about micromanaging: the two would meet each day in the Oval Office, review the strike photos, and decide what and where to bomb the next day.
And we thus ended up with the incredible scenario of Soviet cargo ships freely unloading war supplies in Haiphong harbor, where they would then be sent down the Ho Chi Minh trail and used to kill American troops. Even worse, we then sent out planes to kill trucks, and lost many pilots in these actions.
The longest conventional war of the 20th century was the Iraq-Iran war, from 1980-1988. Probably 99% of Americans today have no idea that it ever happened, let alone why. Even while it was ongoing, it barely was covered by the MSM. Combined casualty estimates range from one to two million killed. We will likely never know the real numbers, for lives were meaningless to both sides.
Saddam established huge minefields on the border areas. The Iranian military at the time lacked modern weapons, but had an abundance of manpower. They adopted the failed strategies of WW I, and sent human waves toward the Iraqi positions. But they went one better. Why waste a soldier, when instead, you can send a child ahead...the canary in the coal mine..to detonate the mines. Tens of thousands of Iranian families willingly, nay happily, joyously sent their children to their deaths.
This is the mindset of the enemy we face today.
In many ways, that war presaged all that has happened since in the Middle East. The eternal conflict between the two factions of Islam; Shia and Sunni has now morphed into a geopolitical war.
During the Iraq war, our troops were forced to operate under rules of engagement that were so shaped by political correctness that they cost hundreds, if not thousands of lives.
The most telling example, for me (and I wish I could find the clip) is of Marines passing a mosque, taking fire from the minarets, and forbidden to return fire, and then we actually see an RPG launched at them from the same minaret they were not allowed to fire on.
Today, the latest "cri de coeur" concerns the hospital bombing in Afghanistan. Many want to hold us to an impossible standard. Yet the horrific murders of thousands of Christians are ignored. Hideous atrocities against women and children don't rate more than a #hashtag.
We have to recognize, and accept, that wars cannot be fought, and won, that way.
Germany and Japan had a combined population of some 150,000,000 at the start of WW II. Total deaths, both civilian and military, were about 11,000,000.
Today there are some 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. Many, some say a majority, (as shown in multiple polls) willingly embrace many of the more radical aspects, such as Sharia law. Some 10% are believed to be highly radicalized.
And that's the mathematics of the problem. The really, really bad calculus of war in the Middle East.
Simply put, we have to be willing to kill a lot more of the enemy, and yes, that cost includes many innocent lives, in order to win.
Otherwise, if we are not prepared to do so, it is not worth one more American life.
And to conservatives who advocate for more "boots on the ground," I say "have you no shame?" To send one more troop into the area without a willingness to seek victory is nothing short of criminal. And now Obama, who "ended the war in Iraq" is sending MORE US troops back to Iraq and Syria.
There is a means, a way forward to victory, if only we have the political will to seek it. Here's one possibility.
1. Bomb all of Iran's nuclear sites. And keep on bombing them. Day after day. The sites are underground. OK. Make a crater; then the next day, send a bomb down into that crater. Repeat, and keep repeating. Eventually you'll reach the buried facility.
2. Bomb all of the ISIS and Al Qeda sites. Heavy bombardments, not the pinprick, so called "surgical strikes" that do nothing.
Announce that if Iran retaliates in any way whatsoever...i.e. missile launches or terrorists strikes, then we will immediately bomb and destroy ALL of their civilian airports: Tehran, Abadan, Ahvaz, Bandar Abbas, Bushehr, and Isfahan.
And if they still continue attacks, or supporting the Islamic radicals, then we next will destroy their train stations in major cities, and the electrical grid.
And at the same time, target their political and military leadership. They want to be martyrs...let's accommodate them.
Yes, thousands, maybe tens of thousands..many innocent, will be killed and injured.
So what? What's the worst that can happen? A big, collective, howling and screaming from the left...
We tell "world opinion" and 99% of the UN to collectively go and piss up a rope. The American people will support it, and indeed, much of the western world will acquiesce, if not agree with it.
Possibly the Iranian civilian populace will rise up and overthrow the Mullahs. It might have happened years ago, had Obama the guts to support the reform movements inside the country.
Yes, tens of thousands will die, but tens of thousands, nay...hundreds of thousands more, will live.
The difference this time, the game changer, is that Iran is very close to achieving a nuclear capability. And if that happens, all bets are off.
Personally, I would rather see 100,000 Iranians die than 1 million Israelis.
But I do not want to see one more American killed or wounded while Obama continues to play golf.
So, then..there's the Hobson's choice. Kill perhaps 100,000 now, and end much of the violence and mayhem in the region..and save tends of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives, each and every year going forward, and maybe, just maybe, see if they are in fact capable of governing themselves freely; or
Let the carnage continue, and this time risk a nuclear catastrophe.
Hell, we can’t even win the war against our enemies here at home. Much less our enemies in the Middle East.
Well written. Where’s the Like button?
It’s not really the body count, but rather the recognition that we are fighting a war against a religion. Imans and mosques who fill people with murder-lust are legitimate targets and should be crushed with great prejudice. Kudos for Putin in that regard.
Agree 100%. Half-measures don’t work. The North succeeded in 1865 because of total war. As did the western nations in WW1 and WW2. There is much to debate on whether the US and its allies should stay in the middle east, but it should be a choice between either a complete pullout or all in to victory.
Any politician calling for the kind of NATIONAL sacrifice necessary to “win” would be voted out at the earliest opportunity.
Obama CANNOT win the war in Afghanistan, at least not for our side: he lacks the political will to kill enough of our enemies. However, America can win that war. We just have to wait until we have a real president, hopefully one who supports freedom. President Cruz could win that war with a resounding victory, even after Obama’s sustained efforts to turn that war into a defeat.
We CAN win but the current occupant of the oval office doesn’t want to.
Unless and until the US is willing to go into the middle east and destroy ISLAM in that country, establish Christianity as the sole religion, and eradicate every single supporter of ISLAM (i.e. convert or die), you can not win.
What we lack is a local population willing to fight for their own country. We’re propping up a corrupt regime who does not have the support of its people. If the people don’t think the cause is worth fighting for then why should we?
Win what? What do we get?
Afghanistan is rightly known as “the graveyard of empires”, from the time of Alexander the Great, and probably even earlier in history.
In the last century alone, first the British Empire, then the Soviet Union both busted their horns there, and were driven in defeat from the region, as much victims of the geography as the recalcitrant and truculent inhabitants of the area.
Even Genghis Khan enjoyed only a transitory victory, and they were really ruthless.
The writing is on the wall. As it stands now Muslims are on a trajectory to destroy all of free Western Civilizations. Their birth rate is literally 5 times that of Europe. And millions of young fertile people are invading both Europe and the United States. Those coming here from South of the Boarder have a head start on the Muslims in the United States. And most of these have a negative view of traditional America. Unless a radical push back occurs our way of life is gone.
Yeah, ditto on the like button.
Nothing short of Total War will do any good. Either make that hellhole a sheet of glass of GTFO.
We need to kill whomever we need to kill to achieve the objective.
I disagree.
When the US started its campaign in Afghanistan, estimates of enemy fighters were about 30,000. In each successive year, no matter how many thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda we kill, estimates of enemy fighters remain 30,000.
There is a two fold reason for this.
First, the enemy are not Afghans, but are from Pakistan. The madrassas schools there provide *unlimited* replacements for every enemy killed.
Muslim religious students flood into Pakistan, a nation of 200 Million people, to get training at these schools. Most of which are from the Wahabbi sect. The Wahabbis are a radical sect that promote violent jihad around the world, and by running these madrassas, they train most of the Islamic clergy around the world.
And they train a large number of these students to go fight for Islam in Pakistan. That is why there is 30,000 enemy.
But why no more than 30,000? That is the maximum number of fighters that the Taliban can manage. Roughly a division.
So the bottom line is even if we kill all 30,000, next year there will be another 30,000.
In fact it's because we have a C-in-C who pees down his leg at the thought of killing radical Muslims. You can't go to war if you lack the balls to pull the trigger...
Regards,
GtG
For every 100 German soldiers killed, the US killed 2. The UK killed 2. The Soviet Union killed 96.
Well, with respect to Germany, we're about to find out.
I'm not sure the government that comes to power after the current regime falls will agree with you.
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.