Alan Nathan: Fighting terrorists makes more terrorists

The Washington Examiner ^ | 09-29-06 | Alan Nathan

[grey_whiskers]

FR loves the WWII comparison. As I said earlier, the centers of gravity are in the Muslim communities themselves. Trying to apply conventional maneuver warfare logic to a counterinsurgency doesn't work, unless you're willing to occupy and break the will of all those communities that produce conditions favorable to jihadist recruitment.

Selective assassinations of certain Imams -- in creative ways that "send the message" that Allah did not protect them (i.e. found dead with Hormel Bacon in their stomach, so they are not merely martyrs) will do a lot to stop the up-and-coming flow of terrorists.

Cheers!

[F.J. Mitchell]

And spraying for roaches makes more roaches? And Decon makes more rats? And antibiotics make more biotics? Very interesting.

[MosesKnows]

Alan Nathan: Fighting terrorists makes more terrorists

More terrorist means that terrorism is losing; if terrorism were winning they wouldn't need more terrorist.

[MarkL]

AhHa! So the war on poverty creates more poverty, the war on drugs creates more drug use, etc... So I guess that any government program that tries to combat something actually creates more of it.

Sounds like a good reason to do away with the vast majority of government programs!

Mark

[MarkL]

The French have proved that surrender stops the enemy from shooting at you. (Although it evidently doesn't stop the enemy from burning your cars. Villepinhead is still working on that one.)

Or marching in their streets... You know the old riddle: "Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysis?" "So the German Army can march in the shade."

But the French haven't surrendered in every "war." Remember not that long ago, when the French defeated Greenpeace, by sinking their navy?

Mark

[Steel Wolf]

So the war on poverty creates more poverty, the war on drugs creates more drug use, etc... So I guess that any government program that tries to combat something actually creates more of it.

What can I say? Our hearts are in the right place, but we like doing things the hard way.

[steelyourfaith]

War opponents are cheerfully heralding the National Intelligence Council’s national intelligence estimate that portrays our war in Iraq as the catalyst for increasing terrorist volunteers.

Sure, that is the perspective of the useful-idiots-of-the-jihad.

Truth is, when the jihadi-terrorists launched an attack on the USofA when we finally had a man as president it was the catalyst for their destruction.

[donmeaker]

Actually, during WWII we saw what happened to people who were unable to fight back.

We saw what the Soviets did to Polish prisoners at Katyn Wood. We saw what the SS did to Jews, Confessing Christians, Gypsys, and homosexuals in the death camps.

Fighting back? Not the right thing to do, but the only thing to do. For the lack of will, and the simple skills such as adjusting artillery fire, cleaning a machine gun, and flying a bomber aircraft, millions were murdered.

The French POWs died in large numbers. Better to be a Maquis in the woods than a French officer in a POW camp.

[marktwain]

"Here's the deal. Islamic culture is in danger of being annihilated by modern culture, technology, and politics. There simply isn't room for them to hide any longer. The world has gotten too small.

Within the next 50 to 100 years, Islam will mutate into either a peaceful, docile faith that pretty much denies it's heritage, or into a shambling, psychotic cult. Possibly it may fracture into both. What it can't do is exist as it has for hundreds of years. It's core teachings are simply incompatible with reality, and are losing their ability to insulate it's followers from the outside influences.

What we're seeing now is that last charge of the Islamic light brigade, into the jaws of an enemy they can't beat. They'll cause us some damage, to be sure, but victory is not in the cards. At some point, they'll have to choose either to join the modern world, at the cost of some core beliefs, or to hide from reality by shutting out the outside world, physically, politically, and economically. That's when the war you describe will come."

Well put. I don't think it will take that long. A generation or two should do it. The world is changing too rapidly for it to take 50 years.

[samtheman]

Fighting back? Not the right thing to do, but the only thing to do.

Or how about:

Fighting Back.
It's not just a good idea.
It's the way to survive.

(I'm not correcting your post, just running with it. Trying to come up with something that will look good on a t-shirt.)

[Richard Axtell]

"The French have proved that surrender stops the enemy from shooting at you."

This is absolutely true. Studies have shown that there is a short time period during which the guns fall silent, between final surrender and the beginning of the certain to follow mass executions. Our brilliant liberal war strategists certainly understand this aspect of warfare. They are counting on using the intervening time to scurry into the undergrowth. Or better yet, act as quislings, betraying anyone that resisted the Jihadist-Fascists and hoping against hope that they miserable lives will be spared. They won't be, by the way.

[donmeaker]

I like it!

Heck, make it part of your act.

I shamelessly ripped off Vince Lombardi's "Winning isn't the most important thing, its the only thing!