Skip to comments.The Price of Panseyhood
Posted on 09/16/2001 5:42:22 PM PDT by GhostSoldier
The World Trade Center Attack -The Price Of Pansyhood
By Ned Stafford
Fred Reed writes a weekly column for the Washington Times Metropolitan section and also used to write a column for the Air Force Times. His style is gritty, tell-it-like-it-is, definitely not Politically Correct. Some of it is no doubt offensive, but worthwhile to reflect upon the words and his message. The article below is not from a politician or the media, but a warrior. It is controversial, but it makes a distinctive point. Fred Reed is a former Marine. The World Trade Center - The Price Of Pansyhood By Fred Reed The Washington Times ©Fred Reed 2001. All rights reserved
A few unorganized thoughts regarding the events in New York:
(1) We lost. Our moral posturing about our degradation is merely embarrassing. We have been made fools of, expertly and calculatedly, in the greatest military defeat the country has suffered since we fled from VietNam. The Moslem world is laughing and dancing in the streets. The rest of the earth, while often sympathetic, sees us as the weak and helpless nation that we are. The casualty figures aren't in, but 10,000 dead seems reasonable, and we wring our hands and speak of grief therapy. We lost.
(2) We cannot stop it from happening again. Thousands of aircraft constantly use O'Hare, a few minutes flying time from the Sears Tower.
(3) Our politicians and talking heads speak of "a cowardly act of terrorism." It was neither cowardly nor, I think, terrorism. Hijacking an aircraft and driving it into a building isn't cowardly. Would you do it? It requires great courage and dedication-which our enemies have, and we do not. One may mince words, but to me the attack looked like an act of war. Not having bombing craft of their own, they used ours. When we bombed Hanoi and Hamburg, was that terrorism?
(4) The attack was beautifully conceived and executed. These guys are good. They were clearly looking to inflict the maximum humiliation on the United States, in the most visible way possible, and they did. The sight of those two towers collapsing will leave nobody's mind. If we do nothing of importance in return, and it is my guess that we won't, the entire earth will see that we are a nation of epicenes. Silly cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan will just heighten the indignity.
(5) In watching the coverage, I was struck by the tone of passive acquiescence. Not once, in hours of listening, did I hear anyone express anger. No one said, coldly but in deadly seriousness, "People are going to die for this, a whole lot of people." There was talk of tracking down bin Laden and bringing him to justice. "Terrorism experts" spoke of months of investigation to find who was responsible, which means we will do nothing. Blonde bimbos babbled of coping strategies and counseling and how our children needed support. There was no talk of retaliation.
(6) The Israelis, when hit, hit back. They hit back hard. But Israel is run by men. We are run by women. Perhaps two-thirds of the newscasters were blonde drones who spoke of the attack over and over as a tragedy, as though it had been an unusually bad storm-unfortunate, but inevitable, and now we must get on with our lives. The experts and politicians, nominally male, were effeminate and soft little things. When a feminized society runs up against male enemies-and bin Laden, whatever else he is, is a man-it loses. We have.
(7) We haven't conceded that the Moslem world is our enemy, nor that we are at war. We see each defeat and humiliation in isolation, as a unique incident unrelated to anything else. The 241 Marines killed by the truck bomb in Beirut, the extended humiliation of the hostages taken by Iran, the war with Iraq, the bombing of the Cole, the destruction of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the devastation of the Starke, the Saudi barracks, the dropping of airliner after airliner-these we see as anecdotes, like pileups of cars on a snowy road. They see these things as war. We face an enemy more intelligent than we are.
(8) We think we are a superpower. Actually we are not, except in the useless sense of having nuclear weapons. We could win an air war with almost anyone, yes, or a naval war in mid-Pacific. Few Americans realize how small our forces are today, how demoralized and weakened by social experimentation. If we had to fight a ground war in terrain with cover, a war in which we would take casualties, we would lose.
(9) I have heard some grrr-woofwoofery about how we should invade Afghanistan and teach those ragheads a lesson. Has anyone noticed where Afghanistan is? How would we get there? Across Pakistan, a Moslem country? Or through India? Do we suppose Iran would give us overflight rights to bomb another Moslem country? Or will our supply lines go across Russia through Turkmenistan? Do we imagine that we have the airlift or sealift? What effect do we think bombing might have on Afghanistan, a country that is essentially rubble to begin with? We backed out of Somalia, a Moslem country, when a couple of GIs got killed and dragged through the streets on TV. Afghans are not pansies. They whipped the Russians. Our sensitive and socially-conscious troops would curl up in balls.
(10) To win against a more powerful enemy, one forces him to fight a kind of war for which he isn't prepared. Iraq lost the Gulf War because it fought exactly the kind of war in which American forces are unbeatable: Hussein played to his weaknesses and our strengths. The Vietnamese did the opposite. They defeated us by fighting a guerrilla war that didn't give us anything to hit. They understood us. We didn't understand them. The Moslem world is doing the same thing. Because their troops, or terrorists as we call them, are not sponsored by a country, we don't know who to hit. Note that Yasser Arafat, bin Laden, and the Taliban are all denying any part in the destruction of New York. At best, we might, with our creaky intelligence apparatus, find Laden and kill him. It's not worth doing: Not only would he have defeated America as nobody ever has, but he would then be a martyr. Face it: The Arabs are smarter than we are.
(11) We are militarily weak because we have done what we usually do: If no enemy is immediately in sight, we cut our forces to the bone, stop most R&D, and focus chiefly on sensitivity training about homosexuals. When we need a military, we don't have one. Then we are unutterably surprised.
(12) The only way we could save any dignity and respect in the world would be to hit back so hard as to make teeth rattle around the world. A good approach would be to have NSA fabricate intercepts proving that Libya was responsible, mobilize nationally, invade, and make Libya permanently a US colony. Most Arab countries are militarily helpless, and that is the only kind our forces could defeat. Doing this, doing anything other than whimpering, would require that ancient military virtue known as "balls." Does Katie Couric have them?
This Site Served
They're already boxed in by the no-fly zone (36th parallel to the north, 33rd on the south).
After a serious propaganda campaign, his own people might overthrow him. If they do, we flood the place with food, medical supplies, and infrastructure.
Basically, he believes that there is evil in the world, and that holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" does NOTHING to eradicate it. Evil must be confronted by resolute people, and defeated- not once, but over and over again. It is never going to completely go away.
Anyone who believes differently (and there are a few on FR) is a hopeless fool.
Sounds to me like you would be more comfortable over there. I'm more than willing to chip in on a one-way ticket for ya.
We're the great white satan. Given the opportunity, these fanatics would conquer the world, not just the middle east.
Personally, I don't want to pray to Mecca five times a day under penalty of death...
Ranger, even after Tuesday, I'm afraid it more than a few.
It bothers me, too, that the TV news keeps calling this whole thing a "tragedy", like it was a hurricane or car accident. In spite of the talking heads, I think that most Americans have gotten over the shock and feel the fangs-out anger that I do. After living in Camelot for too many years, I think that our country is growing up fast. I have faith that we are going to step up and pound the terrorists and their collaborators into the ground. We've been weak on terrorist incidents and other slaps in the face, but this is different. 84% of Amercians are in support of balls-to-the-wall war using every available option and accepting civilian casualties (and that 84% is from CBS, so you know it's more like 94%). The press is very liberal, but don't let them fool you. Play time is over.
Meanwhile, I think he is correct: a complete takeover of a winnable toehold is a brilliant and would humiliate them right back.
Where he misses the mark is the work that can be done right here at home. Americans are energized. Let them make citizen arrests if need be. I know it scares the hell out of some Freepers, but some civil rights are gonna get trampled on for a while. Weenies, what do you propose instead. A suitcase bomb at a sub base or Dover Airforce? Or maybe some lovely biological warfare because the enemy underneath our nose is allowed to carry on here business as usual? Bunk. Americans are buying their guns and want to be patriots. Believe me a bunch of Latino's in Jersey City NJ are gonna be just as patriotic about turning in some jihad warrior as yer blue eyed blonde fella from Cumberland GA. They want to breathe clean air too, y'know and they don't want their country blown up. Let's let the men step to the front, I support that. And I am letting all pansey liberals in my path know it. If they don't like that, tough it's a new day. V's wife.
A great deal of truth here!
A great deal of truth here!
I know. That's why I wouldn't push it publicly.
There is nothing moral about war. And we
are going to have to take a long trip to the
dark side for this one.
How much of our wonderful self-image
and we willing to give up to fight dirty?
She stoops to conquer.
I do love you
I also believe that we need deal with the traitors that are among us,that hold political office, are members of the media, and are in hollywood before we look overseas.
I will close with the observation that this is only the first installment of the price of the clinton regime's treachery that will be paid with blood of American citizens.
John A/K/A Sport
This nation from top to bottom does not have a clue to what national security truly means.
I am for openness in government, but when it comes to national security there must be secrecy and discipline. Of course we must elect some people to office with moral character so that they will not claim national security to cover up their own criminality or depravity.
We may be a nation of laws but there is no need to hamstring ourselves with international law and world courts when operating off our shores.
The reality of the present situation requires that we have an intelligence service of trained killers and kidnappers who covertly operate off our shores.
If we could, our best course of action now, would be to take out anyone we could find on the face of the earth who has had contact with the terrorist network.
Sure it makes a statement to bomb 19th century Afghanistan back to the 16th century.
But in this new war it is better and more efficient to operate in the dark than in the light of international wall to wall TV coverage. A dead unknown terrorist serves our purpose better than one who is known and headed for martyrdom among the millions looking for destruction of our civilization.
We have no evidence that these terrorists carry weapons or are trained to defend themselves against highly trained killers.
The terrorists who are of greatest threat to us are not the ones in Syria, Iraq, or Palestine. Those terrorists cannot get into our country directly from those terrorists states. They must nest and enter from an ally.
We should be doing some kidnapping and killing of potential terrorists when they are in these states supposedly friendly to us.
There are rumors that some terrorists have fled to Mexico. How difficult would it be to kidnap and dispose of them while they were in Mexico? It is not after all like kidnapping and murder is a rare occurence in Mexico.
Of course such actions goes against the panseyhood so acutely identified by the author in his article.
You need to know why ?
1. It is in the best interest of the United States.
2. It is very easy to accomplish.
2. All terrorist actions were financed with money originated fron the Saudis.
3. To solve forever the vital oil supply for the whole world.
We might as well seize the oilfields NOW, rather than see them fall into the hands of someone else (China?) in a few years.
Of course, this will not happen- because Americans are not capable of the geopolitical thinking required, nor the ruthlessness. We just want to be loved, like a Labrador puppy.
Unfortunately, Don Roberts' original post appears to be missing, so I do not know what he said. Was he arguing that we should be avoid harming women and children?
If so, do you see anything wrong with that?
I would think not, unless he also used profanity, engaged in personal attacks, or otherwise violated the rules. In which case, I do not care what he thinks.
What do you think of harming women and children in the process of attacking terrorists. Is it a good idea? Can it be avoided? Should we try? (Just curious.)
Thanks. Don Roberts does seem to be worked up, although perhaps no more than some others I have read lately.
War is a VERY BAD THING, which is why these folks should have thought about the likely results before starting one with us.
No one would ever mistake me for Mother Teresa.
No American strike will be aimed at "women and children", or at innocent noncombatants in general. But are there going to be some killed anyway? Oh, yes. Probably quite a few.
As a matter of fact, I agree with you on both counts. Although it will come as a disappointment to some, the United States is not going to "nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out." I am confident that the military planners will do their best to avoid civilian casualties, as they should.
Nevertheless, there are likely to be civilian casualties, despite our best intentions.
War is a VERY BAD THING, which is why these folks should have thought about the likely results before starting one with us.
"War is politics by other means." That's what I was taught in the military.
There is more going on in the world than who gives whom a bloodier black eye. There is more going on in the world than the kind of scuffling that little boys engage in on the playground when someone's "honor" is challenged. This is not a game, this is Life. (If it were a game it would need better directions.)
America is the lone superpower for three reasons.
I don't know you and I don't know what you know, but do you understand what even a limited nuclear war entails??? What do you hope to accomplish with nukes that you couldn't accomplish with conventional weapons?
The problems in Vietnam were not tactical nor armament related - they were political.
Deploying tactical nuclear weapons is extremely difficult. The entire logistics of a nuclear war is much more difficult than the logistics of a conventional war. If you're talking about strategic nukes - the long-term consequences may be worse for the living than for the dead. Those were developed for Mutual Assured Destruction, not a limited war. It's hard to drop a missile on a country then send in the troops to mop up. And trust me, there would be survivors. In fact, the ones you are targeting are the most likey survivors since they probably have very deep caves.
Guns, rockets, missiles, napalm, those can do the job if the politicians have the will to let the army use them.
Wow! I'm speechless.