Posted on 09/19/2001 6:28:28 PM PDT by Starmaker
History shows, without exception, that you cannot fight conventionally against guerrilla warriors. Neither can you try and hunt them down and bring back individual leaders. You lose every time. To a large degree, guerrilla actions are how we beat the British to win this country.
Much of the public doesn't understand just how long America has been under attack from Middle Eastern nations. Or, perhaps they are in denial, preferring to think each action is individual. They feel that, if we ignore the killers, they will all go away. I see many pacifists operating on the mindset that "somebody else will take care of us."
Have we become a nation of new age ostriches, oblivious to the blatant distinction between good and evil? Have we been Oprah-ized to the point where we not only turn the other cheek, but also apologize for not crying loud enough when slapped? The nightly news shows are loaded with segments espousing "counseling" and "healing" and "forgiveness." Nonsense. What we need is a heart full of rage, and the will to embrace our anger until we complete the grisly task of ridding ourselves of child-butchering vermin.
The big complaint I've heard from readers about last week's column (advocating full scale nuclear response) is this. "Well, they would strike back...maybe with biological weapons. There could be retaliation"
Huh? It's a war, not a game show. Of course they'll strike back, unless we wipe them off the planet before they get ANOTHER chance to kill Americans. Why are we so afraid of using nukes? It's our most effective weapon, and yet the majority of the populace behaves like frightened rabbits at the mere mention the word!
I have heard not one member of Congress broach the possibility of nukes. They should. If a war escalated into a world version, so be it. It's a matter of protecting American lives and our way of life, and annihilating those who would steal either. The attitudes of many, if present during WW II, would have been one of "oh....we don't want to get hurt, and Hirohito has a right to think how he wants too." Moral relativism...it has been indoctrinated into the collective consciousness by the morally bereft liberal media, and those who allow it to do their thinking for them.
Those who espouse the limited response theory are the same people who didn't believe it could happen when a car bomb went off, didn't believe it could happen when embassies were blown up, didn't believe it could happen when hostages were taken, didn't believe it could happen when the USS Cole was shot to hell, didn't believe it could happen when planes were dropped in the Atlantic, didn't believe it could happen when the WTC was bombed the first time, didn't believe it could happen when jets flew into the Pentagon and the WTC.
They are the same people who, if their wives, mothers, sisters and girlfriends were raped and murdered, would reply with a forceful "do that again and I'll be mad." They are the same people who would have suggested that Hitler just needed some anger management classes and was entitled to his opinion.
They won't believe it will happen when a terrorist brings in a nuke in a suitcase or puts a bug in the water supply. And, mark my words, unless we act right now that will happen very soon. It is the next logical step, and I would expect it within the year. I sincerely believe that many Americans, even if LA, Denver and Philadelphia got Samsonite nuked, anthraxed or sarin gassed, would still whine "We can't act. We don't know who did it."
I keep hearing about the dangers of "over-reaction." No action we could take would be an over-reaction to an attack on this country. Have we traded national pride and unity of purpose for "celebrate diversity" and political correctness?
We have three options. Sit on our hands and do nothing, in which case more Americans die, for this is just a start. We can undertake half-way or conventional methods of warfare, and more Americans will die. Ground troops or traditional air strikes don't work when you're fighting trained guerrillas who are more comfortable in a mountain cave (and know the terrain intimately) than in a barracks. Look at how successful Quantrill and the bushwhackers were in the Civil War. Hell, look at what the Afghans did to a STRONG (and utterly ruthless) Russian force.
I have heard people say "we shouldn't do anything drastic unless they attack us with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." What? Weren't 20,000 men, women and children enough? Should we wait till they slaughter a million before we send them to a better life? Anyone with the will to launch an attack of the magnitude we have witnessed is capable of anything. Their goal is to kill as many Americans as possible, in whatever manner possible.
We have seen their character. We have seen their actions. If we refuse to believe that the next attack won't be worse — when all evidence points to the contrary — we are already defeated
If the atrocities of September 11th didn't start us down the path to re-growing a national spine, nothing will.
Pick yourselves up, they're not smarter, or braver, or richer than we are. Lead, follow, or get the He!! out of the way.
Excellent article. It's shocking to read all the advice that we must turn the other cheek and have empathy for the killers and suggestions we just learn to give them what they want and maybe then they'll like us better and won't do something mean to us anymore. Certain people now are quick to point out it was "only" 5000 innocent Americans killed in their workplace as if that wasn't a reason to react at all.
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.